White gunmen storm Michigan Capitol with assault-style rifles, lawmakers inside State House share disturbing video and photos

boing
265

They’re not - militias would be formed and controlled by their state government - they’re just a bunch of guys who who started a gang. No state control or sanction. The Michigan Militia is the Michigan National Guard.

They’re the Michigan Militia in the same sense that the Gambino Family was the New York Mafia.

And there absolutely was a standing military in the Constitution- the Navy explicitly.

The limit on Armies was they would need to have funds reappropriated every two years- nothing prevents that from being a standing army - they just have to renew its funding on that timeframe.

Then those same Founders clarified in legislation that a standing army was authorized. Just a small one - and with a requirement that it get refunded every two years. And that legislation could change its character.

“ As the First Congress entered its final day on September 29, 1789, now-President Washington insisted that the lawmakers pass an Act clarifying the Army’s role under the new Constitution.

Back on August 7, President Washington wrote to Congress to remind them that legislation was needed to replace the outdated part of the Articles that pertained to the military.

“I am particularly anxious it should receive an early attention as circumstances will admit; because it is now in our power to avail ourselves of the military knowledge disseminated throughout the several States by means of the many well instructed Officers and soldiers of the late Army; a resource which is daily diminishing by deaths and other causes,” Washington wrote.

Despite a personal appeal from Secretary of War Henry Knox, Congress didn’t act. Washington had to write a second time to the lawmakers, who finally made it the first order of business on the final day of its first session.

Congress finally passed an Act for “Establishment of the Troops,” which also allowed for the President to call up state militias under some circumstances. It also required a loyalty oath to the Constitution by anyone in service.

At the time, the standing federal Army had about 800 members, including officers.”

https://constitutioncenter.orgblog/on-this-day-congress-officially-creates-the-u-s-army

12 Likes
266

Tru’ that. Open carry doesn’t apply to Red, Black and Brown. It’s considered a threat. I believe California USA established that.

1 Like
267

My career is Security. Had I been in that auditorium when the armed protesters arrived my firearm would have been out of the holster and covering the gallery. If one barrel had turned towards my charges I would have eliminated the threat. CW2 would have commenced.
These fucks were lucky.

2 Likes
268

Trump has created the Traveling Jim Jones Sideshow and Homiciditorium.

2 Likes
269

The Articles of Confederation, not the Constitution, restricted the national government’s ability to raise and maintain an Army. This stricture was one of many that motivated the Continental Congress to convene a Constitutional convention.

The limitations the AoCs had placed on the executive’s authority to raise and maintain an Army were excluded from the newly authored Constitution. Of course, the executive or President couldn’t act unilaterally, as the mechanisms of checks & balances prescribe. To establish, maintain & fund a Federal Army, Congress needed to bring legislation to the President and - voila - you got an Army (and Navy too).

But, just because the newly formed Constitutional government was then free to raise an Army, one can’t conjure one from scratch in an instant. So, in 1789, the framers, in their infinite wisdom, put in place the mechanisms that allowed the newly formed Constitutional government to call upon the states’ militias to aid in national defense - until of course the newly authorized national Army was formed and could provide the national defense.

The states’ militias were, as the language of the Constitution plainly articulates, well-regulated as they were the duly authorized “armies” of each of the states - just as they had been under the Articles. States themselves relied on militias then much as the states today rely on their Army Guard units and state police. Today, it is governors who are the commanders-in-chiefs of Guard units just as it was governors who maintained authority over their respective militias.

To be clear, defense reorganization legislation has, over the years, retooled the legal fineries of the roles and authorities allowed governors over their militias/guard units. Still, it is Governors who activate Guard units in times of crisis (e.g.: natural disaster). For example, were Michigan to experience a disaster, MI’s gov would activate the state’s National Guard units not the “militiamen” acting as terrorists in that state’s capitol yesterday.

So-called citizen militias are wholly distinct entities, different in every way from the militias of the 1700s and made mention of in the Articles of Confederation and the US Constitution of 1789. Citizen “militias” are in no way “well-regulated” in the Constitutional sense making them little more than vigilante gangs playing very dangerous games of anti-democratic politics.

One example I can think of that reinforces the understanding of states roles regarding militias in the Constitutional, post Articles, period can be found in the history of Shay’s Rebellion in Massachusetts. The people who made-up the armed groups prosecuting the “rebellion” were both average citizens (mostly farmers) along with a sizeable number of veterans of the - then newly defunct - Continental Army. The force that met and supressed this rebellious force was the Massachusetts Militia, activated at the direction of the Governor of Massachusetts. The MA Militia was complimented by Federal troops - troops that were drawn from the NY & Connecticut state milias and Federalized by Congressional & Presidential authority with the blessings of each states’ respective Governor.

I’m not picking sides here regarding the validity of claims made by Shay’s rebels. I’m simply using the event to highlight and differentiate the various authorities and jurisdictional attributes that contemporary discussions regarding the use and ownership of arms, the history of national defense structures and the legalistic aspects of Constitutionalism vs “Confederationalism” bring forth.

3 Likes
270

Indeed.

Once African-Americans began to assert rights to arms equal to those exercised by whites, then CA Gov Ronald Wilson Reagan undertook what were nothing short of military sction against the stste’s black residents while forcing unvarnished racist policies through the state’s legislature.

2 Likes
271

I lived through that. Black Panthers had headquarters right next to my Barbershop on Blue Hill Avenue. They didn’t need to go armed in Boston MA.

1 Like
272

Especially since they don’t have a point. This all-American protest isn’t about liberty and livelihoods, it’s about conveniences and profits.* All wrapped up in denial of science and performative toxic masculinity, with astroturf talking points and Internet domains provided by the Kochs and state GOP parties.

[* These are not salt-of-the-earth Average Joes, they’re financially comfortable paramilitary cosplayers marching around with kit and weapons that cost as much as a minimum wage worker makes in a year and who drive tricked-out trucks that cost several times that.]

21 Likes
274

The masked guards I see there in the pictures handled those idiots perfectly by making an accurate assessment of the threat and not doing anything to escalate a potentially catastrophic situation. When I look at those photos, I, someone who normally does not generaly like law enforcement officers, am rather impressed with their profecinalism in this circumstance.

In what capacity?

5 Likes
275

Are you serious or channeling Mac from Always Sunny? I honestly can’t tell with physical security geeks…

2 Likes
276

What’s the name for these fuckers? There should be a name, a marketing term.

It’s strikes me as similar to the way Harley Owners Group people like to dress up as Hell’s Angels. They’re all about Freedom and Patriotism too, but it’s not as… as distorted and pernicious.

It is a form of cosplay or transvestism but somehow calling it that is just doing a disservice to those groups. Same with ammosexual - it doesn’t feel right.

If I were to say ‘Yuppie’ or ‘Brogrammer’ you would know what I mean.

Those fuckheads need a name…

2 Likes
277

Gunstrokers?

6 Likes
278

Barrel wankers?

7 Likes
279

Gunstroking manbabies.

14 Likes
280

Milliefink FTW!

6 Likes
281

I don’t know what to call them but Gracus’ analogy of cosplayers is actually rather apt. I believe that these guys and antifa grow up reading about and being taught about their ancestors identifying and rising up against some historically horrid and deadly circumstances. In their lives lived in today’s relatively stable countries, there are no dragons of the scale and immediate danger of say the nazi scurge or rowanda within driving distance. I believe they have strong feelings about real or perceived injustices and threats and long to ride in triunfantly and justly to save the day. I’ts basically justice fethish LARPing.

“Freedom Fighter LARPers”

a bit long

1 Like
282

Wow.

This is really quite stupendously bad for happy mutants, POC, and so many of us…

If you don’t want to read all this in a series of 38 tweets, here’s the compiled version from Thread Reader:

11 Likes
283
20 Likes
284

Always this “you own guns so you must be afraid” nonsense. I don’t have a CCW, nor do I wish to carry for a number of reasons which are zero concern of yours but I’m quite happy for my fellow citizens to have them and for them to carry.

285

This is ok since in the US, laws can be drafted by the federal, state, county, and municipal governments so long as the Supreme Court does not rule them against the Comstitution. Everywhere in the US it is illegal for violent psycopaths and convicted felons to legally own firearms. I am not sure what you mean by “intellectually disabled (…)” so I can’t comment on that.