General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsMust WE use the word "militia"?
Among the definitions I have found for MILITIA is one referring to a civilian force, but one that is in opposition of an (established) MILITARY force.
To use the word "militia" confers them a sort of legitimacy (ON EDIT: "LEGITIMACY" , and it further makes a link between the 2nd amendment (rights) and their actions. I understand why the MSM would fall into use of the term, and why these groups claim the title, but we don't have to do likewise.
Or am I missing something?
COMMENT ON SELF-EDIT: By "some sort of legitimacy", I meant in the minds of the unreflective John Q. Public--not to be confused with these groups truly becoming legitimized.
IDemo
(16,926 posts)pangaia
(24,324 posts)flor-de-jasmim
(2,125 posts)Kablooie
(18,610 posts)These yahoos are essentially the same thing.
A small group threatening violence to try and overthrow the government.
JHB
(37,156 posts)Historically, whether it's town militias or state militias, their commanders are appointed by the authorities of that town or state and it is from those jurisdictions that they recruit (or draft) their membership.
These guys draw their "legitimacy" from breathing and rebreathing each others' flatullae about their fantasy "sovereign citizen" version of the Constitution and what it says.
They've had their days in court, and their cases haven't been found convincing.
yeoman6987
(14,449 posts)And now want to have them rejailed with more time. That seems weird to me. I'm sure this won't end well but they are trying to make a point that if everyone does time and then after getting out of jail having to go back for more time would cause chaos to our justice system.
JHB
(37,156 posts)...not this particular case.
pangaia
(24,324 posts)The perhaps unfortunate thing in this case seems to me to be that the 2(?) guys who were put back in jail should not have been.
WHICH, then makes the 'loons' in the right about the case.. not, of course, what they are doing about it.
Does that make sense?
matt819
(10,749 posts)The NYT calls them armed activists and militiamen.
They are certainly armed, but they are not activists. They are, at the very least, criminals. Given their stated rationale and goals, they are more accurately described as domestic terrorists. Or white Christian domestic terrorists. Or maybe just white Christian terrorists. After all, they themselves assert that god has directed their actions.
As for militiamen, that's utter nonsense. With the exception of a handful of state-run military entities, militias are not "things" in the US. And, as f-d-j observes, calling them militiamen does indeed confer some sense of legitimacy, at least among their followers, adherents, etc.
Doesn't matter if there were any federal employees on duty. Doesn't matter that the facility is remote. They are terrorists. A remote, empty federal facility today. A federal courthouse tomorrow. It will be dereliction of duty if the federal government does not respond appropriately. That doesn't necessarily mean force. It does, at the very least, mean arrest and prosecution as terrorists, not a slap on the wrists of "good old boys."
Blanks
(4,835 posts)There's a definition, a history and most importantly and explanation for what these "armed loons" stand for.
Orrex
(63,172 posts)Because, you know, guns! Guns! GUNS!
MisterP
(23,730 posts)"stalking-horse" or "cat's-paw" might be more appropriate, especially since they give cover to the political class's "politics of resentment" they use to snowjob their voters