Having attended the Machine Gun Shoot at Knob Creek Range KY in October 2000 and 2008, we note the political zeitgeist of each of these "gun-nut" saturnalia, falling as they did on the eve of these critical elections: no surprise that, respectively, Bush/Cheney and McCain/Palin signs were ubiquitous; the general sentiment was that the Republicans will keep our guns save. We recall that the 2000 shoot came at the tail end of the 1990s militia movement, having thrived in the wake of Ruby Ridge and Waco, when the fear was palpable in Red State America that the feds would try to disarm the citizenry. The Senate testimony of James Johnson, a leader and spokesman of the Ohio Unorganized Militia, gives a nice summary of the conditions that fostered the movement.
With the coming to power of Bush & Cheney in 2001, however, the movement lost steam. Indeed, as Johnson noted, it lost its principle recruiter, namely the policies of the Clinton Administration. So, under the Bush Administration, the urgency was gone as it was believed that the Second Amendment would be kept sacrosanct, though other parts of the Constitution would come to be effectively gutted. Many, though certainly not all, of the "Red State" persuasion turned a blind eye to these eviscerations, being swept up as they were in post-9/11 hysteria.
That hysteria has largely subsided now, but a new hysteria is rising as gun sales are at all time highs in the period immediately preceding and following the election of Barack Obama. In spite of his stated agreement with the recent Supreme Court decision (D.C. v. Heller) that the Second Amendment applies to an individual right to bear arms as opposed to State-formed militias (the decision however does not explicitly spell out the implication that citizens have the right to independently form militias), the citizenry is apparently not taking Obama's word at face value. In some quarters, it is feared that Obama may be forming his own militia, or stasi brigades. A video of "Obama Panthers" in military drill has been cause for much consternation on the internet. It is said that Obama's selection of Rahm Emanuel as Chief of Staff forebodes the establishment of mandatory community service for all citizens. In conversations overheard in Knob Creek at this most recent Machine Gun Shoot, the consensus seemed to be that 'yeah, Obama's a terrorist... if he thinks he's gonna take our guns away, he's got another thing comin'.
Such paranoia should not be dismissed out of hand. After all, George W. Bush is handing the most muscular, unchecked presidency in U.S. history over to Barack Obama. This being the case, there remains the check of last resort in the hands of the people: guns.
But, let us hope that things won't get out of hand, that Obama has the good sense not to push too hard, as Clinton did, and that the militias forming in the coming months and years will stick to the standard of only firing in self defense.
Repeat after me: YES WE CAN... make it through the next 4 to 8 years without a Civil War II.
But beware of the provocateur hazard. As with militia revival, so cometh the rise of the "decoy militia"...
WARNING TO ALL MILITIAS
What sort of uniform might a "decoy militia" sport? White tuxedos and top hats? - if operated by the BATF, as the Lame Cherry ponders.
Whether provoked or not, the Army is preparing for the eventuality that it will be called upon to respond to "enemies... domestic," as brought to our attention in the Dec. 16 Infowars article, Army 'Strategic Shock' report says troops may be needed to quell U.S. civil unrest. In the monograph, Known Unknowns, Unconventional "Stategic Shocks" in Defense Strategy Development (notable for its publication date of Nov. 4), author Nathan Freier considers a "Black Swan" scenario involving "organized violence against local, state, and national authorities," in which case "DoD would be required to fill the gap" when local and state officers are unable to quell unrest. (Pg. 32). Freier continues: "Under the most extreme circumstances, this might include use of military force against hostile groups inside the United States." (Pg. 33)