|
Having known a number of Militiamen, I feel I must speak here in their defense. The vast majority of these folks were not nuts. The ones that were...well, they were a real "special" breed, in the "child molesters and people who talk in the theatre" sort of way.
However overblown their rhetoric may have at times been, most were and are genuinely concerned about the loss of freedom in the US. If you want to see people who -HATE- George W. Bush, I mean hate him like a chigger-bite you can't reach, go to a militia meeting. Sure, a lot of the blowhards from the Clinton years were just nutjob Democrat-haters. And no, I don't think you'll find any sympathy for your particular brand of politics, RB. But they're not crazy, the vast majority are not racist, and they can at least be said to be -doing- something, unlike the vast majority of the sumbering American electorate. I have never once interacted with a militia group which proposed, espoused, trained for, or fantasized about a "first strike" against the US Gov't, and anyone who suggested such a thing (or who said anything about a McVeigh style attack in any case) was immidiately ejected. If they came back, the cops were called. Loudmouthed racists frequently got the same treatment. At least with the men and women I knew, a Klanboy who wanted to train with 'em had better keep his mouth shut and not let -anyone- find out about it. They weren't interested in having an asshole (and liability) like that around. I've known some of these folks for a long time; one was my High School chemistry teacher. He kept his politics to himself until he heard me in a heated discussion with a classmate on this very subect, and we conversed regularly on the topic after that. He was one of the funniest, most creative, and most level-headed teachers I've ever had, strictly in it for love of the job. He's moved to New Hampshire, last I heard.
As for measuring political freedom by firearms rights; how else do you propose it be measured? If the Gov't is not honest enough, transparent enough, and trustworthy enough to permit its' citizens weapons with which they might defend themselves against it, how free can it be? How do you propose to protect the printing press, the home, or the right not to be enslaved when the potential censor, robber, and slaver has all the guns and you are defenseless?
People should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people, if you insist upon having the damned things.
|