But militias have historically been in service to the American government, not aligned against it. In trading on the language of militias, the Bundy group camouflages what it really is: an armed gang attempting to pervert history.No.
"Militias", and other similar groups ("ref: "Minute Men"), have NEVER " ... been in service to the American Government".
They have been, historically, in service to the American People.
After more than 200 years, we are only a heartbeat away from being "an Independent People" rather than "Subjects To The Crown".
"The Government" is not necessarily "the American People", and it is difficult to understand why a respected media outlet would make such a fundamental error .. unless it has an agenda which is contrary to the rights of "The People".
Which Time Magazine clearly represents.
(Assume 3,000 word essay describing the difference between "The Government" and "The People", and also Time Magazine .. to which I once subscribed before I realized it was a huge malodorous pile of bovine excreta.)
While I do not necessarily condone nor support the individual acts of "militias", I do understand what they were/are there for today; to counter the effects of a central government whose actions and policies are not necessarily promulgated in the best interests of the American people.
The Revolutionary War was in conflict with the existing government of "the Americas", which (among other issues) attempted to disarm Americans. CF: Concord; "The Shot Heard Around The World".
Two hundred years ago, we were only a heartbeat away away from "God Save The Queen" rather than "God Bless America".
An "an armed gang attempting to pervert history"?
Tell me, Times Magazine, just how you would have reported the "... armed gang attempting to pervert history" at Lexington or Concord?
I do not expect you to reply; but IF you should reply, I hope you will will include a citation which explains your TIMEly op-ed in response to these words:
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.Again, I do not necessarily align myself with the goals and intentions of the "Bundry Group". However, I do recognize their rights to protest, bearing in mind that they have (and had) no goal of the 'violent' overthrow of the current American Government.
They just want to be let alone.
Rather, they are protesting certain policies of the current Administration, and hope that by their blatant protest they make known to this Administration their fervent opposition to current policies.
Expansion of the TIMES Article:
You reference Ruby Ridge, Waco, and "Timothy McVeigh’s decision to bomb the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City".
You cite these as if they are equivalent. They are not.
Ruby Ridge and Waco were essentially pacific (if uncommon) societal variations; McVeigh was an aggressive, blatant physical attack by an unbalanced individual on the American infrastructure.
I'm not a fan of many of the current 'movements', but I do support their activities to establish a change in government which includes less Federal "I have a pen and a cell phone" abridgments on American freedom. And when those "freedoms" are subject to interpretation, I think we should accept two things:
- When the definitions which we have historically accepted are challenged, we should talk about then and perhaps even accept a National Referendum to help us redefine what our rights and priorities should be;
- In the meantime, we have a responsibility to take protests seriously, and determine whether the current social unrest is justifiable; we should NOT dismiss 'counter-culture' claims arbitrarily.