4
   

Are they all so pathetic?

 
 
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 06:27 pm
There are lots of nuts who claim that having big guns is a good way to stop what they see as government oppression.

These Hutaree Christian militia people had big guns along with training and crazy paranoid ideas that led them to believe (apparently with reason) that the government was out to get them.

Yet in one morning, they were rounded up by government agents, disarmed and put in jail with not even a single casualty (and apparently not even a shot fired).

It seems rather sad in a way.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 4 • Views: 1,834 • Replies: 37

 
plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:23 pm
I saw that. What scary people . . . and then the question of why people distrust and fear Christians is raised. Right.
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:36 pm
I didn't read the entire story. Does the news say what the next phase was supposed to be, once they killed as many cops as possible? Go underground? Fight to the death right on the spot? Hide at David's house to protect their guns?
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:39 pm
@edgarblythe,
Here you go, edgar:

http://able2know.org/topic/143312-1
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 07:56 pm
It still fails to show a total plan, olga.
msolga
 
  1  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 08:07 pm
@edgarblythe,
Oh I thought it did, edgar.

They were going to shoot some policemen, which would lead to a huge policeman's funeral ... which would lead to further attacks on the funeral (I gather) ... which would be a rallying call to others who felt the same & wanted to take on the government ...

That's what the two reports I read this morning said.

This is what the NYT said today. A little different.:

Quote:
After attacking the police, the members planned to retreat to several planned “rally points” and wait for the authorities to come after them. They were preparing fighting positions as well as “trip-wired and command-detonated” bombs, it said.

“It is believed by the Hutaree that this engagement would then serve as a catalyst for a more widespread uprising against the government,” the indictment said.

In addition, Mr. Stone had announced “a covert reconnaissance exercise” in April, during which “anyone who happened upon the exercise who did not acquiesce to Hutaree demands could be killed,” the indictment said.

The United States attorney for the Eastern District of Michigan, Barbara McQuade, said the government raided the group this past weekend because that exercise would have “had the potential of placing an unsuspecting member of the public at risk.” ...


http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/30/us/30militia.html?hp
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  3  
Reply Mon 29 Mar, 2010 08:22 pm
Such groups always overestimate their own influence over other groups, I think. Such a plan is ultimately suicidal and unappealing to average Americans, I think.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 01:14 am
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:
Such groups always overestimate their own influence over other groups, I think.
Such a plan is ultimately suicidal and unappealing to average Americans, I think.
Ed, its not very ofen that we agree, but this time: I believe u hit the target bull'seye.
Most of the time when I 'm called a gun "nut" I accept it as mindless, ad hominem mudslinging,
but such activity as this is genuine mental illness -- separation from reality -- that includes
use of weaponry. However unusual it may be, in this instance,
thay really r gun "nuts". As u have noted, Ed, their beliefs include
exaggerated notions of influence over other citizens, reminiscent
of Charlie Manson 's "helter skelter" psychosis.

Having acknowledged all of that,
let 's turn our attention a few theoretical degrees of arc, to wit:
what if W or Obama got to like the job enuf as to make a deal
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, maybe after
some convenient emergency (like the Reichstag fire) and suspended
elections indefinitely, declaring that in furtherance
of the "GENERAL WELFARE" clause of the Constitution,
it was obviously in America 's general welfare to have his sage leadership continue permanently.

WHATAYASAY ??

"OK, what the hell, we 've had elections long enuf" ??


Of course, it coud never happen here . . . .
As long as we assume that, that 'll be good enuf.
edgarblythe
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 04:31 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

edgarblythe wrote:
Such groups always overestimate their own influence over other groups, I think.
Such a plan is ultimately suicidal and unappealing to average Americans, I think.
Ed, its not very ofen that we agree, but this time: I believe u hit the target bull'seye.
Most of the time when I 'm called a gun "nut" I accept it as mindless, ad hominem mudslinging,
but such activity as this is genuine mental illness -- separation from reality -- that includes
use of weaponry. However unusual it may be, in this instance,
thay really r gun "nuts". As u have noted, Ed, their beliefs include
exaggerated notions of influence over other citizens, reminiscent
of Charlie Manson 's "helter skelter" psychosis.

Having acknowledged all of that,
let 's turn our attention a few theoretical degrees of arc, to wit:
what if W or Obama got to like the job enuf as to make a deal
with the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the Armed Forces, maybe after
some convenient emergency (like the Reichstag fire) and suspended
elections indefinitely, declaring that in furtherance
of the "GENERAL WELFARE" clause of the Constitution,
it was obviously in America 's general welfare to have his sage leadership continue permanently.

WHATAYASAY ??

"OK, what the hell, we 've had elections long enuf" ??


Of course, it coud never happen here . . . .
As long as we assume that, that 'll be good enuf.


That same argument has been used against every president. The American public may be cowed by general events most of the time, but liberals and conservatives alike would not allow such a thing. Even the military likely would revolt.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 05:25 pm
@plainoldme,


plainoldme wrote:

I saw that. What scary people . . . and then the question of why people distrust and fear Christians is raised. Right.


If this story validates distrust and fear of Christians, I can only assume you find it totally rational that the numerous acts of terrorism by Islamists, wherein thousands of innocent people have actually been killed or maimed, validates revulsion and hatred for Muslims.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 05:44 pm
Are "whom" all so pathetic?

Criminal miscreants who brush a gossamer thin veneer of political or religious ideology over their nihilistic lust for violence?

Right-wing Christians?

Christians in general?

Conservatives is general?

Gun enthusiasts?

2nd Amendment advocates?

Not sure, pathetic is the word I would use to describe the miscreants described above, but they are the only affinity group whose character this story can be said to reveal.

Clearly, much of their activity can be considered pathetic (especially the silly name they adopted), but when they began to seriously plan to use murder to further their insane goals they left "pathetic" far behind.

Of course there will be no shortage of politicians, pundits and posters who will attempt to draw a bright connecting line between these miscreants and Sara Palin, Glen Beck, Republican House Leaders, Tea Party rally attendees, et al, but such an attempt demonstrates either a scary hysteria or a cynical political opportunism.
djjd62
 
  2  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 05:44 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
human beings
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 07:51 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
I mean anti-government gun nuts (there is a difference between the nuts and pro-government gun enthusiasts).

I think it is funny that gun nuts (and I mean the first group) often say that guns are a protection against the government... yet when these heavily armed people face the government, they fold rather quickly without any casualties.

I have always thought that the violent opposition to the government rhetoric was pretty silly.

These people, who talk so tough but couldn't even stand up for a legitimate shootout when the time came, seem like fair game for mockery.

Glen Beck, with anti-government views he backs with not even very thinly veiled militant rhetoric certainly has some similarities to these people-- he isn't quite as crazy, but they are cousins.

plainoldme
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 08:48 pm
@djjd62,
I posted on my FB page that I am continually amazed at how crazy people are.
Ionus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 30 Mar, 2010 09:05 pm
@ebrown p,
Quote:
Are they all so pathetic?
Yes. Yes they are.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 04:25 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I posted on my FB page that I am continually amazed at how crazy people are.
A friend of mine is a psychiatrist. He told me: "David, anyone who u think is NOT crazy,
is just someone who u don 't know well enuf."





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 04:30 am
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
I saw that. What scary people . . . and then the question of why people distrust and fear Christians is raised. Right.
I don 't fear Christians, but I distrust EVERYONE; everyone SHUD distrust everyone else.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 04:41 am
@Ionus,
Ionus wrote:
Quote:
Are they all so pathetic?
Yes. Yes they are.
pa·thet·ic   /pəˈθɛtɪk/ Show Spelled[puh-thet-ik] Show IPA
"adjective
1.causing or evoking pity, sympathetic sadness, sorrow, etc.; pitiful; pitiable
2.affecting or moving the feelings.
3.pertaining to or caused by the feelings

Thay evoke your pathos?

Thay do not evoke my pity,
but I see very, very poor reasoning,
disablingly disorganized reasoning in them;
i.e., assume that Jesus returned and that thay chose to fight
by his side (as if he needed that).

WHAT does that have to do with murdering innocent police NOW?

Their logic is about as good as that of Charlie Manson.


IF I had access to their leader, I 'd ask:
"what makes u think that Jesus desires the violent support of MURDERERS?
Did Jesus advocate ignoring the Commandment against murder?

Their reasoning is hopelessly disorganized and inconsistent.





David
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 07:11 pm
@djjd62,
djjd62 wrote:

human beings


What an uber-cynical monkey you are.
0 Replies
 
Finn dAbuzz
 
  1  
Reply Wed 31 Mar, 2010 07:31 pm
@ebrown p,
ebrown p wrote:

I mean anti-government gun nuts (there is a difference between the nuts and pro-government gun enthusiasts).

I think it is funny that gun nuts (and I mean the first group) often say that guns are a protection against the government... yet when these heavily armed people face the government, they fold rather quickly without any casualties.

I have always thought that the violent opposition to the government rhetoric was pretty silly.

These people, who talk so tough but couldn't even stand up for a legitimate shootout when the time came, seem like fair game for mockery.

Glen Beck, with anti-government views he backs with not even very thinly veiled militant rhetoric certainly has some similarities to these people-- he isn't quite as crazy, but they are cousins.




Most of us can agree on what the term "anti-government" means, but I don't think the same can be said of the term "gun nut."

To me a "gun nut" is someone who is clinically obsessive in his collection of them and perverse in his regard for them as something much more than an inanimate tool.

I suspect your definition is something different.

For the last few decades or so American anti-government rhetoric that centers on violence has been, fundamentally, "silly," but unfortunately some of the silly asses who spewed it were deadly serious:

Timothy McVeigh
The Weather Underground
Animal Liberation Front
Army of God
Black Liberation Army (nee Black Panther Party)
Symbionese Liberation Army

Mock these particular miscreants if you like, but I suspect they would have killed if they had the chance. They are not toothless fools.

Of course, this is not to say that there cannot or will not come a time when anti-government rhetoric incorporating violence as a logical and moral means is virtuous. Clearly we're not there yet, but we would be silly to assume such a situation can never happen.
 

Related Topics

Drumsticks - Discussion by H2O MAN
nobody respects an oath breaker - Discussion by gungasnake
Marksmanship - Discussion by H2O MAN
Kids and Guns by the Numbers - Discussion by jcboy
CO gun-grabbers go down in flames in recall - Discussion by gungasnake
Personal Defense Weapons (PDW) - Discussion by H2O MAN
Self defense with a gun - Discussion by H2O MAN
It's a sellers market - Discussion by H2O MAN
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Are they all so pathetic?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 12/07/2021 at 09:21:44