CNN.com on Militia movement

The video article is not too bad – for CNN.  (I must confess that I was expecting much much worse.) The reporter refers to a rifle that he shoots as a “semi-automatic” assault rifle. Which is a little better than the typical media “evil fully automatic assault weapon” spheel.

They also interview Mark Potok of the Southern Poverty Law Center (a very anti-gun organization) which put out the report on the return of the militas.

The interview records Mark Potok commenting on the increasing numbers of such groups and surge of activity. They don’t really let him say too much (which was nice)
, though he attempts to insinuate that it is all against Obama.

However, they allowed the militia members interviewed to give a very good rebuttal.  One organizer stating that “This is not an Obama centered organization.” In fact the reporter comments that the organizer who is both a veteran and postal worker urges respect for the President.”

I liked that the article also stated how they practice first aid and emergency medical treatment, useful during natural disasters.

All in all, not a bad article. Although this is one of those cases where just covering ordinary people in fatigues with rifles is going to startle many ordinary citizens.  Particularly those with liberal ideologies that believe individual rights should be removed in the greater good.

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/us/2009/11/16/acosta.militias.cnn

Advertisements
Published in: on November 16, 2009 at 4:59 pm  Comments (8)  
Tags: ,

The URI to TrackBack this entry is: https://nugun.wordpress.com/2009/11/16/cnn-com-on-militia-movement/trackback/

RSS feed for comments on this post.

8 CommentsLeave a comment

  1. I think that training would be a lot of fun. But I’d worry about the safety of it. Fireteam and formation stuff could be dangerous if done with guys off the street.

    CNN seemed fair, but I don’t like how they use the term militia like a dirty word. Considering that THEY are a part of a militia too.

    I mean they’re not exactly carrying guns in the woods, but if a foreign invasion or criminal enterprise invaded they surely would be serving the commonwealth of the nation to preserve its sovereignty. Which in there way would be to inform the public of said invasion.

  2. The only sovereignty worth preserving is that of the individual IMHO.

    Why would your militia just take people off the street? I wouldn’t participate in anything like that. I’d make sure that first they took NRA safety and instructor level courses, first aid courses and several Appleseeds, to say the least. There are a lot of other kinds of useful courses to take as well, but first aid, firearms safety and rifle marksmanship could be the bare minimum.

    I’d love to participate in an honorable (tho never timid) militia here in the Delaware Valley.

  3. Forget state rights, it should be individual rights. States can breach human rights just as much as the Federal government. See IL for examples.

    I would love to see Pennsylvania implement a militia policy. That would allow for auxiliary training. But would lay a few requirements. Namely, that basic first aid and other emergency response skills be included (ie: firefighting, etc).

    The idea being that the militia could then respond as an aux. fire brigade, medical support, armed support, etc. And then legitimize the training and do away with the stupid prohibition laws.

  4. We can already get all the skills we need on the free market. Why would you want to be connected with the state? The militia is independent of the state.

    The state is headed for collapse anyway. Check out John Robb’s resilient community concept to get an idea of what the future will probably look like:

    http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/globalguerrillas/2008/01/the-resilient-c.html

  5. Because I believe it would be advantageous for the people to be in a “well regulated” militia. As in having formal training, loose organization, and established means of communication. All things presently limited in many states by anti-militia laws.

  6. “Well-regulated” does not mean regulated by the government in the sense that we think of the word “regulate” today. It just means that it is well-organized.

    You have to consider the threats out there right now and the precarious status of the government – it’s headed for collapse. Yet there are gangs, mobs and who knows what else ready out there to fill the power vacuum.

    Good folks who respect their neighbors are dangerously behind the curve. If you wait for the government to give its blessing, it will be way too late.

  7. “Well-regulated” does not mean regulated by the government.

    I am quite aware of that. That’s why I defined what I meant with the following comment.

    “As in having formal training, loose organization, and established means of communication.”

    I feel that the current laws actually prevent any establishment of organization or structure. And that is a bad thing if we ever needed our militia.

    “If you wait for the government to give its blessing, it will be way too late.”

    I don’t care about it’s blessing. I just want to get rid of it’s curse. Namely the anti-militia laws in most states.

  8. All of Rome’s bad laws were still on the books when it collapsed…

    If bad people can operate underground, good people can do it better.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: