Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Spetulhu wrote:

 Ouze wrote:
A good start, but not clear on why this band of ass clowns weren't charged with sedition - their actions seem literally textbook to match with the definition of seditious conspiracy.

Sure, sedition might be the logical thing to charge them with - but these guys seem to think they've done nothing wrong and instead protected the "average guy" against the "Eebil Gubernment". Perhaps it is for the best to give them a lighter sentence while you edumacate the rest of the rednecks so it won't happen again?

This is more or less where I'm at in terms of sentiment.

Are anti-government militias a big thing in the USA or still in the minority?

I remember the 1990s and the Oklahoma bombing, and some of the problems with militias in the USA.

I honestly thought that the problem had gone away...

They never were a big thing. Their size is tiny.

 Frazzled wrote:
They never were a big thing. Their size is tiny.

Absolute bollocks.

They're only getting more attention now as the militias tend towards being heavily politicized in terms of their membership/recruitment--and they were significantly emboldened with the GOP pushback against the previous administration so we had things like the Bundy ranch stand-off and the Branch Dildonians.

Trying not to turn this into a gun thread, but as American dakka members know, there is a constitutional right to form a militia.

So if 'paramilitary' groups or more of these militias spring up, it could be problematic IMO as an outsider.

Why? Obviously, if they break the law, they get dealt with.

But, even turning up in large numbers to intimidate people, without breaking the law (because a large crowd can be scary in some situations) could be used to menace people or get a message across.

and from a legal perspective, it could be hard to stop such gatherings or stop groups forming as they have the constitutional right.

From the outside, it potentially could get tricky...

 Frazzled wrote:
They never were a big thing. Their size is tiny.

They tend to grow when Dems are in office and shrink when R's ar ein office.

However, I do not know if that will happen this time. around or not. Past performance is no indication of future growth, etc, etc, etc.

 Kanluwen wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
They never were a big thing. Their size is tiny.

Absolute bollocks.

They're only getting more attention now as the militias tend towards being heavily politicized in terms of their membership/recruitment--and they were significantly emboldened with the GOP pushback against the previous administration so we had things like the Bundy ranch stand-off and the Branch Dildonians.

Bollocks? Kanluwen's gone Brit on us!
Can you support your statement with FBI or other studies? Also I mean miniscule to other groups, say LA street gangs, MS 13, New Black Panthers, Cat people (admit it we all know they are hollow inside), and Leichtensteinians.

I would disagree with the size of militias being "tiny". Obviously you're not going to get some magical, 100% accurate listing of members, but all of my googling indicates there are as many as 40,000 "active" militia members in the US - compared to, at best, 2,000 members of the NBPP. That's a pretty big number.

Of course, "active", is a fungible word. As one site noted, about 5,000 active militia members signed up for the Bundy Ranch "defense", and about 80 actually showed up. Presumably the rest were waiting for their social security checks to come in.

Tracking membership is tough, but in terms of crime statistics, there is some research: https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Schanzer_Law_Enforcement_Assessment_of_the_Violent_Extremist_Threat_final.pdf

Data indicates that anti-government extremists are committing more acts of violence than Muslim extremists in the US and producing more fatalities. Law enforcement, according to the surveys conducted in the study, considers this threat to be more significant than Islamic terrorism.

SPL is the only organization that I am aware of that actively tracks the number of militia groups, indicates the number is growing. Of course, the criteria for inclusion are hotly disputed by many conservative groups who accuse the SPL of bias. The SPL does distinguish between anti-government groups, militias, and racial hate groups and clearly states that anti-government does *not* imply violent or criminal activity.

The number spiked under Obama and tended to fall off a bit towards the end of his term. This reversed the trend under Bush, where the number stayed low and declined from Clinton's presidency. This would seem to indicate there is some political protest element.

I think the militia folks probably largely draw from the same societal pool as the 'survivalists' of the '80s.

 Ouze wrote:
I would disagree with the size of militias being "tiny". Obviously you're not going to get some magical, 100% accurate listing of members, but all of my googling indicates there are as many as 40,000 "active" militia members in the US - compared to, at best, 2,000 members of the NBPP. That's a pretty big number.

Of course, "active", is a fungible word. As one site noted, about 5,000 active militia members signed up for the Bundy Ranch "defense", and about 80 actually showed up. Presumably the rest were waiting for their social security checks to come in.

Absolutely incorrect. Those 5,000 were coming, but they were doing tacticool cover movement, including cool rolls and crawling wherever possible. Had the episode continued until say 2027, they would have shown up and been an army!

Real world. Yea I should be clear. I mean real strap on a gun and go be stupid members, not tacticool clothing over gut internet warriors.

 gorgon wrote:
I think the militia folks probably largely draw from the same societal pool as the 'survivalists' of the '80s.

Spoiler:

Well, there is still a large group of survivalists around, they are generally called preppers now. Since there is a large apocalyptic and militaristic element, they have a fairly large overlap with the anti-gov and militia folks.

 Ouze wrote:
I would disagree with the size of militias being "tiny". Obviously you're not going to get some magical, 100% accurate listing of members, but all of my googling indicates there are as many as 40,000 "active" militia members in the US - compared to, at best, 2,000 members of the NBPP. That's a pretty big number.

Of course, "active", is a fungible word. As one site noted, about 5,000 active militia members signed up for the Bundy Ranch "defense", and about 80 actually showed up. Presumably the rest were waiting for their social security checks to come in.

 jmurph wrote:
Tracking membership is tough, but in terms of crime statistics, there is some research: https://sites.duke.edu/tcths/files/2013/06/Kurzman_Schanzer_Law_Enforcement_Assessment_of_the_Violent_Extremist_Threat_final.pdf

Data indicates that anti-government extremists are committing more acts of violence than Muslim extremists in the US and producing more fatalities. Law enforcement, according to the surveys conducted in the study, considers this threat to be more significant than Islamic terrorism.

SPL is the only organization that I am aware of that actively tracks the number of militia groups, indicates the number is growing. Of course, the criteria for inclusion are hotly disputed by many conservative groups who accuse the SPL of bias. The SPL does distinguish between anti-government groups, militias, and racial hate groups and clearly states that anti-government does *not* imply violent or criminal activity.

The number spiked under Obama and tended to fall off a bit towards the end of his term. This reversed the trend under Bush, where the number stayed low and declined from Clinton's presidency. This would seem to indicate there is some political protest element.

40,000 people in militias in a nation of 320,000,000 people is a tiny miniscule amount. Boise State averages around 35,000 for football games so 40,000 militia members isn't anything significant. We have around 100,000,000 gun owners who own 300,000,000+ guns and if only 40k are active militia members that's not alarming at all.

Islamic terrorism in the US is a very low bar to beat in terms of criminal activity. There's been more break ins and thefts in my quiet neighborhood area this year than successful Islamic terrorist attacks in the US. No local PDs outside of a few prime target areas like NYC and DC or places with atypically large Muslim populations like Detroit, should be concerned about Islamic terrorism at all. It's good to hear that police departments haven't bought into the Muslim terrorist Patriot Act hype and aren't giving Islam terror more attention than it deserves.

Are militias potentially dangerous? Sure, of course they are. However, anyone who's thought about any serious Red Team planning or read even a little bit of Tom Clancy type fiction will quickly realize that a half dozen dedicated people could wreak a crazy amount of havoc in the US anytime because we're a continent sized soft target. We live in an era where a dozen people with box cutters can kill thousands and shut down every airport in the US for days, where 2 guys with a rifle can terrorize half the eastern seaboard for weeks, etc.

3.6 Billion people? Dang, our pop has gone up!

Prestor Jon wrote:We live in an era where a dozen people with box cutters can kill thousands and shut down every airport in the US for days, where 2 guys with a rifle can terrorize half the eastern seaboard for weeks, etc.

So, we shouldn't be afraid because the Militias can barely fill the Boise State stadium, but then you point out that 12 people can deal a LOT of damage and hurt a lot of people.

You are all over the place here! Should I be terrified or not?!

I'm not going to disagree that more people go to sporting events than regular go to militia meetups or hoedowns or whatever you want to call them, but the original example I was responding to was in the context of someone equating militia members to the New Black Panther Party, when they're not super equivalent, militias having 20 times larger numbers of active members, and probably 75 or more times larger numbers when you include nonactive members.

The biggest area of equivalence is they're both groups of losers pretending to be a better thing that preceded them.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
3.6 Billion people? Dang, our pop has gone up!

Prestor Jon wrote:We live in an era where a dozen people with box cutters can kill thousands and shut down every airport in the US for days, where 2 guys with a rifle can terrorize half the eastern seaboard for weeks, etc.

So, we shouldn't be afraid because the Militias can barely fill the Boise State stadium, but then you point out that 12 people can deal a LOT of damage and hurt a lot of people.

You are all over the place here! Should I be terrified or not?!

What has been the largest gathering we have seen? The Bundy thing right with what 50 guys?

EDIT: I'm not trying to be flippant, thats the only thing I am aware of with actual people of more than a dozen. Hence my query as to where this 40,000 number is coming from. Also, besides Oregon what have these guys illegally done of major note?

OKC bombing leaps to mind...

There is a danger that when these people get jail time, they could end up being martyrs and thus encourage more groups or individuals to take action...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a danger that when these people get jail time, they could end up being martyrs and thus encourage more groups or individuals to take action...

 feeder wrote:
OKC bombing leaps to mind...

He wasn't militia that I am aware of (but I could be wrong) just political cray cray terrorist.

 Frazzled wrote:

 feeder wrote:
OKC bombing leaps to mind...

He wasn't militia that I am aware of (but I could be wrong) just political cray cray terrorist.

Now we're just splitting hairs.

The train of thought that leads one to buy some tacticool gear and parade around the woods, or blow up a federal building, starts at the same station. Some guys ride that line a little longer than others is all.

NO. It is my understanding these are actual organizations. You either are a member or not.

After all the unabomber was an environmental wackjob terrorist. Following this logic, he was a Democrat, because they tend to care about the environment too.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There is a danger that when these people get jail time, they could end up being martyrs and thus encourage more groups or individuals to take action...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a danger that when these people get jail time, they could end up being martyrs and thus encourage more groups or individuals to take action...

I think the bigger danger would be 'no jail time means this is okay/consequence-free'.

Going with Spinner on this one. We obliterated the Klan by going after them hard.

The difficulty for these guys of course, is that, again, there's not a lot of elaborate criminal activity going on.

Maybe the next Superman movie needs to have him gently removing the guns from militia member's hands, taking their cattle off of Federal land, and giving them a talking-to?

 Frazzled wrote:
NO. It is my understanding these are actual organizations. You either are a member or not.

After all the unabomber was an environmental wackjob terrorist. Following this logic, he was a Democrat, because they tend to care about the environment too.

Not really. There are environmental and eco terrorists, also. And they don't always tilt left. Ted Kaczynski was an anarchist who was anti-technology but also anti-liberal. He fell firmly into the survivalist mold. His rejection of the modern world and positivism (that is belief in absolute truths and repudiation of society's artificial values and moral relativism) are not consistent with a leftist. McVeigh was definitely an anti-government extremist and tended strongly towards the right (he complained Buffalo was too liberal, for example), but I do not recall any evidence tying him to a militia group. Both are far outside the normal political spectrum and reflect the dangers of isolation and radicalization.

 Dreadwinter wrote:
3.6 Billion people? Dang, our pop has gone up!

Prestor Jon wrote:We live in an era where a dozen people with box cutters can kill thousands and shut down every airport in the US for days, where 2 guys with a rifle can terrorize half the eastern seaboard for weeks, etc.

So, we shouldn't be afraid because the Militias can barely fill the Boise State stadium, but then you point out that 12 people can deal a LOT of damage and hurt a lot of people.

You are all over the place here! Should I be terrified or not?!

You shouldn't be terrified of militias at all. If a group of people of any size are really dedicated to causing havoc they will be able to do so. The vast majority of people don't and this includes the majority of people in militias. The minority of a minority of troublemakers will always be present but will never be a real existential threat. Whether it's criminal gangs or militant/activist groups the number of members that actually follow through on committing violent acts is a small percentage. You shouldn't feel terrified at all but if you want to work yourself up into being terrified you can do that anytime because you can always over hype a threat because the possibility will always be there. It's like in the Incredibles when they pointed out that declaring that everybody is special is the same as saying nobody is special, if there's always something to be terrified of then there really isn't a reason to be terrified.

 Frazzled wrote:
NO. It is my understanding these are actual organizations. You either are a member or not.

After all the unabomber was an environmental wackjob terrorist. Following this logic, he was a Democrat, because they tend to care about the environment too.

He was a Berkely professor. The chances he was a card-carrying Democrat are high.

 Frazzled wrote:
Going with Spinner on this one. We obliterated the Klan by going after them hard.

The difficulty for these guys of course, is that, again, there's not a lot of elaborate criminal activity going on.

The Feds were only able to really go after the Klan after we fixed the laws so that it was no longer possible or acceptable to treat the primary victims of the Klan as second class citizens that didn't warrant equal protection under the law. The violence committed by the Klan was always illegal it just took the time to change social values and support them with better laws. It's not lynching people was ever not illegal murder, it just wasn't always prosecuted.

Both are far outside the normal political spectrum and reflect the dangers of isolation and radicalization.

I prefer the technical term: cray cray terrorist.

Good points. In this instance there are a lot of people who are suspicious of government (like...our founders) and that can be on either side, just like Bill of RIghts activists can be on either side (scratch a 4th Amendment issue itch and you might find either the ACLU or radical right winger/NRA guys).

 Spinner wrote:

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
There is a danger that when these people get jail time, they could end up being martyrs and thus encourage more groups or individuals to take action...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
There is a danger that when these people get jail time, they could end up being martyrs and thus encourage more groups or individuals to take action...

I think the bigger danger would be 'no jail time means this is okay/consequence-free'.

I don't disagree with you, but in this day and age with bombs going off everywhere, who knows what people will do...

It's highly unlikely, and I hope it never happens, but it's not beyond the realms of possibility that somebody could open fire at the courthouse or something similar.

History teaches us that desperate men do desperate things.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

Both are far outside the normal political spectrum and reflect the dangers of isolation and radicalization.

I prefer the technical term: cray cray terrorist.

Good points. In this instance there are a lot of people who are suspicious of government (like...our founders) and that can be on either side, just like Bill of RIghts activists can be on either side (scratch a 4th Amendment issue itch and you might find either the ACLU or radical right winger/NRA guys).

I do feel sorry for American dakka members. It's bad enough with ISIS terrorists attacking us, but you guys have to watch out for these extreme militia guys as well.

It's a mad world sometimes...