Oklahoma conservatives, lawmakers plot anti-federal militia

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

By The Associated Press

Monday, April 12th, 2010

Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty.

Tea party movement leaders say they've discussed the idea with several supportive lawmakers and hope to get legislation next year to recognize a new volunteer force. They say the unit would not resemble militia groups that have been raided for allegedly plotting attacks on law enforcement officers.

"Is it scary? It sure is," said tea party leader Al Gerhart of Oklahoma City, who heads an umbrella group of tea party factions called the Oklahoma Constitutional Alliance. "But when do the states stop rolling over for the federal government?"

...

"Have they heard of the Oklahoma City bombing?" said Joseph Thai, a constitutional law professor at the University of Oklahoma. The state observes the 15th anniversary of the anti-government attack on Monday. Such actions could "throw fuel in the fire of radicals," he said.

...

State Sen. Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso, a Republican candidate for governor who has appealed for tea party support, said supporters of a state militia have talked to him, and that he believes the citizen unit would be authorized under the Second Amendment to the Constitution.

...

Brogdon said ... "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."

Another lawmaker, state Rep. Charles Key, R-Oklahoma City, said he believes there's a good chance of introducing legislation for a state-authorized militia next year.

...

State militias clearly are constitutionally authorized, but have not been used in recent times, said Glenn Reynolds, a law professor at the University of Tennessee and an expert on the Second Amendment. "Whether someone should get a militia to go toe-to-toe with the federal government ... now, that strikes me as kind of silly," he said.

http://rawstory.com/rs/2010/0412/oklahomas-rightwing-lawmakers-aim-create-antifederal-militia/

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Hilarious blog post on DailyKos:

So there's the key question... what would this "volunteer militia" do, exactly, to defend against "federal infringements on state sovereignty?" A "militia" is pretty much good at only one thing. So let's say that the federal government "infringes state sovereignty" in some way, maybe by requiring Oklahoma schools to, I don't know, teach black children or something... what, precisely, will be the "militia" response? No, seriously -- I'm dying to hear it. We all are.

But the answer to that rather fundamental question did not quite make it into the article. The hint seems to be that even Oklahoma teabagger Al Gerhart, no doubt a fine and glorious dumbass, had a brain freeze when asked to come up with an example of when armed conflict with the federal government would sound reasonable to him.

Really, that's what gets me about these people -- the sheer concentration of goddamn hole-in-the-head stupid. Every person proposing this thing has only one idea -- that it would be really, really nifty sounding to face off in front of federal agents while toting guns and wearing camo. And I admit, a small bit of me almost hopes they manage pull off their own little Beer Belly Rebellion, just so the New Oklahoma Drunken Aѕѕhole Redneck Wolvereeeeenes Coors Light Freedom Brigade could finally go up against the U.S. Army like they want and get a nice, barrel-end view of all the pretty gadgets our tax dollars have been buying to use against crazy people waving guns around.

I'd have a lot more respect (well, not really, since I have none to begin with) for these teabaggers and their constant edging towards secession or civil war or whatnot if even a single damn one of them could clearly elucidate what this Big Scary New Anti-States'-Rights Thing is, exactly, that is supposedly so threatening to the stability of the republic that may require armed conflict to prevent. At the very beginning it was an armed defense of slavery. Fifty years ago or so it required calling out the troops because the Feds were proposing that you had to treat black people like people. Now we've got a black president and Oh Mah Gawd, it's once again time for some gun-toting state militia types to protect us from the big, mean possibly-Muslim-possibly-Kenyan-possibly-Hitlerian-socialist-marxist-communist-vegetarian-too-well-d ressed black guy.

Every damn militia in existence for the last century and a half seems to base itself around an abject terror that if they don't have really big guns, and lots of them, black people might hurt them by eating at their restaurants or marrying their lily-white daughters or providing them comprehensive health insurance or something. If there's anything else that "state sovereignty" means to these people, you'd be hard pressed to squeeze it out of them -- and it certainly hasn't been for lack of trying, over these many months. You'd have to look under a freaking microscope to find some fundamental domestic policy difference from the Bush years to the Obama years that would actually affect any of the people bitching about it and waving their guns around, but they're still damn convinced their freedom is at stake. Death panels are coming to... take your sovereignty... by... I don't know, let's say instituting a five percent tax break on solar panels or something. Apparently everything from health insurance regulation to asking questions about the financial industry to not properly supporting the right Afghani opium lords all represent six or seven concurrent American apocalypses already, so who the hell knows what this particular sect of Oklahoma City tea party zealots consider to be that nebulous bridge-too-far that makes them want to take up arms against the Feds and their fellow Oklahomans.

And yes, if you're talking about forming an armed militia to wave guns around to protect your state's "sovereignty" against the scary gubbermint, you're officially an idiot. At best.

In the end, this is all part and parcel of that stupid-aѕѕ "Obama is coming to take your ammo" bullshit that went around the first year of his presidency. No reason for it, no hint that the big, scary Obama was going to do as much as institute a one-penny tax per metric ton of armaments, but all these conspiracy-addled losers ate it up. It's an entire movement of gullible dumbasses.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

They already have a militia. It's called the Oklahoma Army and Air National Guard, directly under the control of the Governor. The Second Amendment should prevent the Federal Government from bringing those troops under Federal authority without the consent of the Governor, however it will be a Constitutional crisis anyways, so the Governor just needs to make sure that his state AG (Adjutant General), and staff, are all loyal Oklahomans first. I would have to ask Charles! which is better equipped, and manned currently, in his state, as the NG is generally as well equipped as the active component. A lot of that hardware is sitting over in Iraq and Afghanistan, so how many toys are available to anybody is a big question mark.

The state already has a substantial paramilitary force, in the form of state, county and local police. And I am sure a few of the other states just might come to the aid of the Oklahomans.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

They already have a militia. It's called the Oklahoma Army and Air National Guard, directly under the control of the Governor.

From the original article (not included in my excerpts):

Critics also asserted that the force could inflame extremism, and that the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Lawmakers don't always do their homework, which is more the shame.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

It would be interesting.

While the US Army might be called into something like that, the weaponary (and the ally in Texas) Oklahoma would have, could be quite devastating to the nation.

Also, the US Army would have a true matter of 'checking' themselves before adhering to a Presidential order to attack a state. It would truly depend if commanding officers felt the enemy was the state or the President. There's a slight (and yes I'm saying it's really small) chance that it could backfire and the Army could side with the State's rising up in rebellion. THEN in that case, it would be up to the state's who are sympathetic with the Federal Government to use their National Guard units in defense. Even then though, others would rise to the occassion and defend the states fighting for their rights.

All is hypothetical, but it's an interesting scenario to try and plot out how it could or could not go on a variety of factors.