Ohio National Guard Training Envisions Right-Wing Terrorism

[dakota.potts]

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the second amendment and interpret it as meaning all the way up to machine guns and anti-personnel crew served weapons. I also acknowledge that its purpose includes protecting the American people from any army that would oppress them.

However, when you are the National Guard training to protect the state, what do you do? The powers that be threaten to start a firearms registry (naturally leading to confiscation) and the pro-gun people start threatening to shoot people if they take away 30 round magazines in response.

No matter where you stand on the second amendment, now imagine that you are the head of the National Guard in your area, or at least the training exercises. You have a political climate where gun control is, if not likely, always an enormous threat, and where people on the gun-rights side are constantly and consistently threatening violence on the people who would enforce it.

As a miliita force duty bound to both uphold the law and protect the people, do you

A: Prepare for the stereotypical left-winger who will give up their single shot shotgun and happily let Mother Government take care of all of their needs

or

B: Prepare for the stereotypical right-winger who has threatened in no uncertain times violence for gun control and might conceivably take up arms because they're tired of their rights being trampled?

Given, the actual exercise (mustard gas on children?) is absurd, but I have certainly heard some more extreme things from self-proclaimed right-wingers discussing their revolution plans.

Again, I'm not against any of the philosophies of people who believe their right to bear arms is exactly a right and nothing less, and that some are willing to die to defend it. I am saying when we have people like James Yeager (who I actually don't mind listening to on less radical subjects) threatening to start shooting people if the assault weapons ban/UBCs are implemented AND you're in a political climate where that looks possible (remember last January, when this happened?), it might make some sense to train for such a scenario because it's possible that it's going to happen and when you lose control of the situation to a bunch of "gun-toting rednecks" (public perception) the public is going to look to you wanting to know why you weren't prepared.

 

[Tommygunn]

Don't get me wrong, I fully support the second amendment and interpret it as meaning all the way up to machine guns and anti-personnel crew served weapons. I also acknowledge that its purpose includes protecting the American people from any army that would oppress them.

However, when you are the National Guard training to protect the state, what do you do? The powers that be threaten to start a firearms registry (naturally leading to confiscation) and the pro-gun people start threatening to shoot people if they take away 30 round magazines in response.

No matter where you stand on the second amendment, now imagine that you are the head of the National Guard in your area, or at least the training exercises. You have a political climate where gun control is, if not likely, always an enormous threat, and where people on the gun-rights side are constantly and consistently threatening violence on the people who would enforce it.

As a miliita force duty bound to both uphold the law and protect the people, do you

A: Prepare for the stereotypical left-winger who will give up their single shot shotgun and happily let Mother Government take care of all of their needs

or

B: Prepare for the stereotypical right-winger who has threatened in no uncertain times violence for gun control and might conceivably take up arms because they're tired of their rights being trampled?

Given, the actual exercise (mustard gas on children?) is absurd, but I have certainly heard some more extreme things from self-proclaimed right-wingers discussing their revolution plans.

Again, I'm not against any of the philosophies of people who believe their right to bear arms is exactly a right and nothing less, and that some are willing to die to defend it. I am saying when we have people like James Yeager (who I actually don't mind listening to on less radical subjects) threatening to start shooting people if the assault weapons ban/UBCs are implemented AND you're in a political climate where that looks possible (remember last January, when this happened?), it might make some sense to train for such a scenario because it's possible that it's going to happen and when you lose control of the situation to a bunch of "gun-toting rednecks" (public perception) the public is going to look to you wanting to know why you weren't prepared.

So far as upholding the "law" is concerned, isn't the second amendment "the law," in as much as it is the "highest law" of the land -- part of the B.O.R. in the Constitution?
What about upholding THAT law?
Or does the NG defend lower state laws that are unconstitutional ...or certainly atleast arguably so.

I agree with others here who hate the idea of a war. This country's limited experience with wars fought on its own soil indicates they are incredibly bloody; The Civil War took more American lives than later 20th century wars fought with superior weapons.
Hopefully we can rein in states where they are beginning to infringe on the 2A and also the fedgov where it is violating our rights in a peaceful manner.

 

[dakota.potts]

So far as upholding the "law" is concerned, isn't the second amendment "the law," in as much as it is the "highest law" of the land -- part of the B.O.R. in the Constitution?
What about upholding THAT law?
Or does the NG defend lower state laws that are unconstitutional ...or certainly atleast arguably so.

I agree with others here who hate the idea of a war. This country's limited experience with wars fought on its own soil indicates they are incredibly bloody; The Civil War took more American lives than later 20th century wars fought with superior weapons.
Hopefully we can rein in states where they are beginning to infringe on the 2A and also the fedgov where it is violating our rights in a peaceful manner.

While I agree with you that the second amendment is law, I think it's a fantasy to say that they're going to uphold it. I don't see the National Guard stepping in to protect people from the ATF for having a sawn-off shotgun or machine gun.

Further, there is a process for first challenging a bad law. There are few people and fewer courts who would rule that there are to be absolutely no restrictions on the law. Therefore, it could be argued that a restriction on the second amendment is not an unjust law and there is no duty to resist the new law, meaning that any attacks to the contrary could be domestic terrorism in their eyes and the public WILL look to them to an answer.

I'm as upset as anybody else being targeted, even as a centrist. But given the climate and the threats, you don't think it makes sense to prepare? We openly tell people we are going to kill people if gun control laws get passed, and you expect them not to act on the warning we've been so kind to give them and prepare for when it might happen? Beyond the fact that they might actually suffer a serious loss, can you imagine the political backlash if they failed to prepare after we had been telling them for years that it was coming? You'd have to be myopic not to.

 

[Tommygunn]

I certainly don't believe the NG would interfere with an ATF operation against an individual for illegal possession of a NFA item.

I am not at all fond of the idea of telling any governmental organ that I would grab a gun and head for the hills if they did "X." I certainly would resist somehow but there are other ways of doing this than with violence .... and I can't even predict exactly what would happen and if any kind of violent resistance would be even possible, much less likely to be effective.

IMHO it would be better if the NG and other govt. agencies ceased talking about preparing for either "left wing" extremists or "right wing" extremists. If they feel different tactics or strategies are needed for left wing violence than for right wing violence, fine, but I see no point in making a public point of it.
Take the politics out of such government excercises. I think we can generally except the idea the NG would protect us (generally) as they are intended to during inordinatly violent riots and such -- which is a legitimate function.


It wasn't my suggestion the NG would act against the ATF or other agencies. A lot of people speculate about some nebulous "revolution" that may or may not be coming.... what I am curious about is why people think that the NG, or actually any military (who take oaths to uphold the Constitution against enemies foreign & domestic) would open fire on American who were resisting a supposed gun confiscation.
I am thinking they'd not be very inclined to ... but that might depend on how clear the matter was, and politicians can lie and muddy waters plenty well, and I can see how that might complicate a theory when it hits the cold hard wall of reality.

 

[il.bill]

I do not find this article surprising.

The Ohio National Guard clearly showed their respect for citizens' rights on May 4, 1970. The 2nd Amendment / gun rights characterization of the "bad guys" in the training exercise is bogus, but having said that, actual homegrown right-wing extremists and terrorists are genuine threats to our country, as shown directly by the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995.

 

[Tommygunn]

I do not find this article surprising.

The Ohio National Guard clearly showed their respect for citizens' rights on May 4, 1970. The 2nd Amendment / gun rights characterization of the "bad guys" in the training exercise is bogus, but having said that, actual homegrown right-wing extremists and terrorists are genuine threats to our country, as shown directly by the Oklahoma City bombing on April 19, 1995.

And how about leftwing terrorists who burn down SUV dealerships, release lab animals, and cause other havoc? They're out there too.

The Murrah Building was bombed by McVeigh in retaliation for the government action at Ruby Ridge..... so one could argue the govt. indirectly caused that.

 

[il.bill]

And how about leftwing terrorists who burn down SUV dealerships, release lab animals, and cause other havoc? They're out there too.

Yes, leftwing terrorists are also real.

The Murrah Building was bombed by McVeigh in retaliation for the government action at Ruby Ridge..... so one could argue the govt. indirectly caused that.

I find that statement somewhat disingenuous. Al-Qaeda says their September 11th attacks were in retaliation too ..... "so one could argue the govt. indirectly caused that." That sounds like evildoers of all persuasions do not need to take responsibility for their own actions. Thus murdering innocent people can be explained away as 'collateral damage' by agents of government and individuals alike.

 

[Cee Zee]

The Ok City bombers were lunatics. They were not small government, second amendment types. They were white supremacist types. He was a devoted follower of the Christian Identity lunatics. That isn't "right wing". That's nut job. It has nothing to do with what real right wing people think and it's an insult to link what he thought to what we think.

Just like not all "left wing" people are Stalinists or devotees of Mao. Hitler wasn't "right wing" either. Obama has far more in common with Hitler than the right wing people of this nation. Think about it. Hitler thought the government should influence how industry is ran by having a board member on every company board. Who does that? Obama, that's who. From health care to the car industry he wants to run every thing in this manner. He also demonizes his scape goats which happen to be conservative white people. Hitler was a "Socialist". The party was called the National Socialist Party. That's where the term "Nazi" comes from. Hitler took guns away from the public too. Who does that in this country?

I'm not saying Obama is Hitler either. I just hate the way Hitler is lumped in with people who believe in preserving our constitutional rights. Just because the media wants to call McViegh a "right wing" person it doesn't mean he has a thing in common with me. I hate the things he believed. He was no "right wing" person. He was a racist and a lunatic. I'm neither.

Also the ONG did not order that shooting at Kent St.. That was the work of a couple of people that "thought" they heard the order to fire because they were in full panic mode. Besides they were shooting "left wing" types that day and I mean true left wingers. To assume they would shoot again is not logical. I think they would be less inclined to shoot because of what happened that day.

 

[Trent]

I'm as upset as anybody else being targeted, even as a centrist. But given the climate and the threats, you don't think it makes sense to prepare? We openly tell people we are going to kill people if gun control laws get passed, and you expect them not to act on the warning we've been so kind to give them and prepare for when it might happen? Beyond the fact that they might actually suffer a serious loss, can you imagine the political backlash if they failed to prepare after we had been telling them for years that it was coming? You'd have to be myopic not to.

The danger here lies in the process of escalation.

If left alone, the fire-breathing gun owner extremist will be content to sit on the couch and watch television, drink some beer, and do whatever other stereotypical behavior you want to espouse on them.

If pushed, now you have a serious problem. (Someone already referenced McVeigh, earlier; that was an extremist in response to - largely - just one main event; Ruby Ridge; the Waco incident was just extra incentive.).

What I'm saying here is if the Government (State, local, whatever) is in the streets with their freshly re-purposed MRAPs, training against a phantom 2nd amendment insurrection, it will push people from the centrist position you hold to the edges, dividing us further; furthermore, it'll push those already on the edge to the brink of confrontation.

Once blood flows you'll be hard pressed to stop it, given the current levels of divide.

Someone mentioned we aren't "sorely" divided as we were during the Civil War - two clashing systems of belief. I strongly disagree. We're facing a major metropolitan vs. rural battle in every state, on every issue. The circles denoting positions around major cities are turning ever darker blue, while the outlying lands turn ever more red. We saw this in the occupy movement that sprung up out of the blue, and we'll see those divides further and deepen as long as things continue on the path they are on.

The difference, now vs. then, is it's not geopolitical. It economic-political. It's socialism vs. libertarian-ism on the extreme ends, and those in the middle are getting pushed slowly, but surely, to one side or the other. The issue is the machine has grown so large that it can't support it's own weight anymore, and people are getting crunched under it's weight.

The problems aren't "topic" driven, insomuch as they are based on "Freedom versus Security."

The problems really took root on 9/11, and we're just now starting to see some of the long term effects of our decisions following that event.

Guns are unfortunately going to be a hotbed for this divide as it continues to occur; the rift that is forming between the population is deepening, slowly, but perceptibly.

We (gun owners) are unfortunately going to be stuck on one of (not the only) front line during this as it continues to go down the path it is on.

And escalation - by EITHER side - is not the correct move to make. No need to accelerate the process; not while there's still a chance it can be resolved peaceably.

As strong as my dislike is for the decisions the Federal Government has made in the last 13 years, I have no desire for my children to experience war. Not at home. Not against other Americans. No one wins, if that happens.

I hope everyone cools it; the various state, federal, and local governments don't need to parade around small towns in armored personnel carriers.

To give an example; Population 15,000 town not 20 minutes from here has *two* MRAP's now, and a dedicated SWAT team. For what??!!! In case the farmers make a run on the grain silos?! The police parade them around town every chance they get, in their nifty black uniforms, with assault rifles (real ones), and shiny black boots. This has the opposite effect they are intending.

To the citizens, it makes them feel like they are living under an occupation.

Sure does look like it, too.