obligatory inflammatory quote to encourage discussion:
QUOTE
What was most remarkable about this allegedly "anti-government" movement was that -- with some isolated and principled exceptions -- it completely vanished upon the election of Republican George Bush, and it stayed invisible even as Bush presided over the most extreme and invasive expansion of federal government power in memory.
You can change all the references to Republicans to Democrats and vice-versa. And then change "Bush" to "Obama" and "Clinton" to "Bush" for more bi-partisan lols.
Their time line is a bit off however, as I live near one of the areas that became a militia hot-spot for a while.
The militia movement started gaining steam under the First Bush after his "new world order" state of the union address.
It just didn't pick up a good sized "head of steam" until Bill Clinton was voted into office.
And I doubt it was a Republican being President specifically that caused them to disperse.
It was September 11th occurring 8 months into (the second) Bush's presidency that likely caused most of those groups to disperse and largely disappear as they re-assessed threats to the nation for that time. (deciding radical Islam was more of a an immediate threat to them and the world at large than the government itself was(particularly with a Republican at the helm of Government specifically))
I also know a number of people who were associated/sympathetic with their positions during Clinton, and most of them were by and large very agitated by the expansions of government power that happened under Bush.
But then, they're probably the "principled exceptions" that Salon is no doubt making reference to.
However, the other side of things is that a number of those people I know are pretty smart by and large.
They knew when to keep their heads down and not stir the pot. Republican President doing that stuff means that while Democrats will get antsy over expanded Federal powers, they're not going to agitate in the same manner the Militia's would try to. Likewise, Republican President means most Republicans/conservatively leaning people are not going to be very sympathetic to their stance.
You throw September 11th into the mix, and being part of an Organization that is openly and loudly advocating armed resistance against the United States Government also doesn't help them as that's a good way to get labeled a terror organization and locked down accordingly.. So keeping a lower profile was in their interest(as neither end of the more mainstream political spectrum would view them sympathetically).
However, you get the Republicans out of control, and the Republican's/Conservative leaning people are going to be much more sympathetic about their stance on things... Which allows them to increase their profile again, as it makes it less politically viable for the US Government(under a Democrat) to hunt them down.
While largely anecdotal, I'm inclined to believe that assessment. But it has been a major republican platform to keep gun control in the forefront, a topic which, whether intentionally or not, would undoubtedly agitate these militias. We saw a spike in gun sales to previous gun owners when Obama was elected because these owners were told he was going to make it much harder to purchase a gun. As far as I can tell the president hasn't expressed any interest in doing that on a national scale and would rather leave it up to the states. Republicans *love* these pockets of militia minded individuals because they are harmless, loud, and easily manipulated by one simple issue for which democrats have already been demonized.
If we were going to stereotype, I'd say that there is a class of liberal who, in an effort to enact policy change in their government, will write to their representatives and congressmen and women and express their concerns. This is pretty ineffective. Meanwhile, there is a analogous class of conservatives who like to think that if the government were to cross some sort of line that there would be an uprising and that having guns makes the government scared of them and therefore accountable. This is also pretty ineffective.
If the people writing in with ideas and concerns had guns, and the people with guns had ideas and concerns rather than fantasies of rebellion, the government would actually feel more accountable?
The Obama administration will seek to reinstate the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004 during the Bush administration, Attorney General Eric Holder said today.
"As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons," Holder told reporters.
Holder said that putting the ban back in place would not only be a positive move by the United States, it would help cut down on the flow of guns going across the border into Mexico, which is struggling with heavy violence among drug cartels along the border.
"I think that will have a positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum." Holder said at a news conference on the arrest of more than 700 people in a drug enforcement crackdown on Mexican drug cartels operating in the U.S.
Mexican government officials have complained that the availability of sophisticated guns from the United States have emboldened drug traffickers to fight over access routes into the U.S.
A State Department travel warning issued Feb. 20, 2009, reflected government concerns about the violence.
"Some recent Mexican army and police confrontations with drug cartels have resembled small-unit combat, with cartels employing automatic weapons and grenades," the warning said. "Large firefights have taken place in many towns and cities across Mexico, but most recently in northern Mexico, including Tijuana, Chihuahua City and Ciudad Juarez."
At the news conference today, Holder described his discussions with his Mexican counterpart about the recent spike in violence.
"I met yesterday with Attorney General Medina Mora of Mexico, and we discussed the unprecedented levels of violence his country is facing because of their enforcement efforts," he said.
Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however.
"It's something, as I said, that the president talked about during the campaign," he said. "There are obviously a number of things that are -- that have been taking up a substantial amount of his time, and so, I'm not sure exactly what the sequencing will be."
In a brief interview with ABC News, Wayne LaPierre, president of the National Rifle Association, said, "I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now."
During his confirmation hearing, Holder told the Senate Judiciary Committee about other gun control measures the Obama administration may consider.
"I think closing the gun show loophole, the banning of cop-killer bullets and I also think that making the assault weapons ban permanent, would be something that would be permitted under Heller," Holder said, referring to the Supreme Court ruling in Washington, D.C. v. Heller, which asserted the Second Amendment as an individual's right to own a weapon.
The Assault Weapons Ban signed into law by President Clinton in 1994 banned 19 types of semi-automatic military-style guns and ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds.
"A semi-automatic is a quintessential self-defense firearm owned by American citizens in this country," LaPierre said. "I think it is clearly covered under Heller and it's clearly, I think, protected by the Constitution."
When they mention banning "... ammunition clips with more than 10 rounds", do they mean semi-automatics with more than 10 rounds, or do they mean any gun with a clip larger than 10 rounds?
Now, I understand that Obama and I do not see anywhere close to eye-to-eye on the issue of gun control, but I must admit that I'm actually surprised to be reading this.
So...the rationale for reinstating a ban on assault weapons in the United States is that another country is having problems with them? Does that make sense to anyone?
"I think there are a lot of Democrats on Capitol Hill cringing at Eric Holder's comments right now." - NRA President and "Holder declined to offer any time frame for the reimplementation of the assault weapons ban, however."
Sounds like Holder's policy, not Obama's. And I would be AMAZED if it made it through, or frankly if it would even be tried at all in this political environment. Little value added, few political points scored, MANY political bridges burnt... but you did turn up an article.
Now, I understand that Obama and I do not see anywhere close to eye-to-eye on the issue of gun control, but I must admit that I'm actually surprised to be reading this.
So...the rationale for reinstating a ban on assault weapons in the United States is that another country is having problems with them? Does that make sense to anyone?
Not at all. The wars in Mexico have nothing to with guns and everything to do with drugs.
But please distinguish between Obama and Eric Holder. The AG doesn't make policy and in this case seems to have no real insight into Obama's policy at the moment.
No distinction is necessary. Regardless of this assault weapon ban talk, I do not see anywhere close to eye-to-eye on the issue of gun control with Obama.
It was the use of the comma instead of a period that made it sound like you thought this was written by Obama.
My understanding of Obama's stance on gun control is that it's a state's issue. While he isn't a big fan of assault weapons, I don't recall him ever expressing interest in reinstating the ban. Am I mistaken?
It was the use of the comma instead of a period that made it sound like you thought this was written by Obama.
My understanding of Obama's stance on gun control is that it's a state's issue. While he isn't a big fan of assault weapons, I don't recall him ever expressing interest in reinstating the ban. Am I mistaken?
He does support state and local-level gun bans (which I fervently oppose), and has at the least said that it is a "scandal" that Bush let the assault weapon ban lapse. He may not consider gun bans an important enough issue to act on at the moment, but that doesn't mean he doesn't support such a measure. His previous statements certainly make it seem like he supports such measures as an assault weapon ban.
If a state wanted to ban a type of weapon wouldn't that be a more libertarian approach though? I mean, in theory, if Dominic Pellegi or Tom Houghton (my reps) voted in favor of a local gun ban, and the small district they represented was opposed to such a ban then they wouldn't be re-elected. Boom, problem solved.
Also, google isn't helping on the "scandal" quote. Link?
I think it's fair to restrict weapons that go beyond home or personal defense, which is pretty much how the law is set up now in most states. For example, you don't need a .50 machine gun or an RPG-7 to defend your home.
With the right permits and licenses, you can purchase a .50 machine gun and perhaps an RPG, provided your state allows it, and you don't have a criminal record.
I think it's fair to restrict weapons that go beyond home or personal defense, which is pretty much how the law is set up now in most states. For example, you don't need a .50 machine gun or an RPG-7 to defend your home.
Says you, but as far as I'm concerned, that's not your decision to make [for me].
I can agree with you, Court, just because that's about the most rational approach to gun control I've heard. There's a followup line of questioning that usually points out that everybody has limits and nobody knows what they really are and everybody's got a slightly different one. You seem to have your opinion on the matter locked down. Nice.