We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.

DavidD • 8 years ago

Is it just me or does it bother anyone else to see "patriots " in military camo when they never served in the military.
I was in the Navy a long time ago but I feel uneasy wearing "jarhead" gear because it is something you need to earn the right to wear. I was never in country and while i went into harm's way nobody was shooting at me at that time.
Someone gave me a boonie hat that were worn by LRRP's guys when I was in and I tried it on to be polite but haven't worn it since.

Blake Kirk • 8 years ago

I spent 24 years in the US Army, all of it in combat arms. I'm entitled to wear the Combat Infantryman's Badge on appropriate occasions. Most of the guys in these militia organizations seem to be people who never had what it takes to volunteer for military service where they might actually have to put their lives on line for the nation. Doing this sort of crap makes them feel all manly and important, but, as the article points out, what they are mostly doing is chasing down people who are tired, hurting and dehydrated, and then abusing them once they catch them. We used to have a term for people who beat up on people who can't fight back, and it wasn't a nice term at all.

You will have noticed, haven't you, that none of these militias are offering to go over to the Middle East and help the Kurds fight ISIS? Says a lot, right there.

Jet Tramel • 8 years ago

Amen Blaketin, been thinking the same thing, wondering where they were at protecting a friend of mines Ranch & the keyston XL trampled over her families land here in NE Texas, they seem to be missing from the real stuff, Love to see them standing beside the brave women in Kurdish army protecting the Exxon & Chevron oil leases north of Erbil, but that;not going to happen. Just bitch & moan, 16 years of Bush as Gov & President & the border has never been shut, because the the people making money from Mexican labor fund a political party. Thanks for your Service Blake.

Guest • 8 years ago
1bimbo • 8 years ago

the government isn't the country... the People are the country!

Guest • 8 years ago

"Sedition is not patriotism". Kerri Peek must have been asleep during history class. Kerri you owe your fucking freedom and the ability to have your opinion here because of Sedition. Ever hear of the Declaration of Independence? King George was not amused at that "seditious" document, and the "traitors" (patriots), in his colonies.
Every fuckhead here that I have read oppose the militia because they feel that most of them are just "fat guys in the woods" never serving in the military. Some are....some are not.....regardless, they are fighting for you fat asses in your chairs, because our government won't. Go to the border all you fat assed former military dumbasses, and see what is going on before you believe anything about the article written above....or else just fucking shut it! BTW....I am former Vietnam era Air Force, so don't give me the "not military" crap.

1bimbo • 8 years ago

you need to look up the definition of 'sedition'.. however i am happy to see someone acknowledge our country is a constitutional republic.. and yes, i'm proud to pledge allegiance to the flag of the USA.. it's not the flag of the government. the constitution is our contract with the government, giving it parameter. our country was built on We the People outlining what all branches of the government and the judiciary can and cannot do

Robyn Ryan • 8 years ago

Did my 20. So sick of flags and camo - hate to see them in civilian life.

kcprotector • 8 years ago

idiots that say they are not patriots are just that... idiots... if a person is defending his country he/she is a patriot ..... if a person is following politicians orders they are the misguided ones. fighting a politicians war

History • 8 years ago

We elect our leaders (or at least we once did).Our leaders - fellow American citizens - make up the government, that's what is meant by a "government of the people, by the people, for the people". When we vote we create the government. This doesn't mean that I think the government is perfect or always right, but the way to fix it is to vote for different people not destroy our only means of self government.

Mary • 8 years ago

The government is "We the People"

John Hackett • 8 years ago

Kerry, I am sure you will find all types there...some will be nothing but trouble. At the Bundy Ranch...there were all types. Many were former service....alot of Marines, a few Navy seals, Vietnam Vets, Afghanistan vets and men recently returned fro Iraq...good men and none of us were looking for a fight....just the opposite...prevent a fight and protect a Rancher family that was being abused by the BLM. A lot of what you hear in the news is just not true.....many lies told....it was a real education. I am glad I went...it was an expensive trip but it ended peacefully and everyone went home...a win win for all. The Bundy family were lovely and kind hearted people that did not deserve to have their life threatened by a govt agency run amuck.

Larry Hall • 8 years ago

You were nothing but a traitor. Pulling and aiming your weapons on uniformed Government agents? What better way to define a miserable turncoat? Go find some other country in which you can attempt to destroy America. Try ISIS. We don't want you here traitorous vermin.

Guest • 8 years ago
John Hackett • 8 years ago

Kirk...maybe you need to do a bit of research,maybe even go and meet the Bundys. Any way...this is for you to think about.

4/24/2014 12:07 AM EDT
This story has gotten very political so here a few things most of you do not understand:

Bundy is not "freeloading" by ranching his cattle on public land. The land is not the Federal Government's land. It is the state of Nevada's land. The BLM fees that Bundy owes are not a fee he has to pay for right to graze his cattle on public land.

Those fees are money the BLM charges to manage the land. That means put up fences and general upkeep. The BLM has not done any managing on that land because of the turtles on the land. Bundy has done all the work to the land. He also offered to pay the money to Nevada who owns the land. They refused to accept the money because there is no reason for them to take the money.

Here is the very important point most of you are unaware of. Ranchers who ranch on public land and who have been doing so for generations, DO NOT HAVE TO PAY ANYTHING TO RANCH PUBLIC LANDS!!! They are public, aka for the people use. We own the land, and have the right to do things on it. So most ranchers that ranch on public land and maintain and improve the land have the right to do so in perpetuity FOR FREE.

Groups like the BLM do come in and charge fees and require ranchers to get permits for various rights to graze or water rights, but the BLM legally is supposed to provide a service when they manage land. The BLM as well as some state land management departments use these fees and permits to prevent ranchers and others from using public lands.

But a key point to remember here is that the public has the right to use public lands for free. That includes using public lands to make money. So he is not freeloader that is refusing to pay his taxes or something.

Many huge private companies use public lands to farm, mine, ranch, fish and drill for oil. They may pay the government fees for permits, but when they do those permits require the government to provide services (like roads, right of way, water usage). They are not rental fees

***** I stood with the Bundys before and I would gladly stand with them again. I have also fought for this country in the Vietnam war (11th Armored Cav Regiment Avation Section) and I recognise real people when I meet them....Kirk, when you call people that you apparently do not know .....names....... and try to degrade them, it says a lot about you. I believe in Government of The People, for The People and By The People. The BLM was government run amuck...the BLM has no law enforcement powers and refused to use local law enforcement....they just thought they would shove their form of Justice down Bundys throat. They murdered his cattle and tried to hide it, I have pictures of what they did. Walk a mile in their shoes before you try to judge them. They are some of the best Americans you will ever meet and I am proud to have met them. You my friend, need to take a hard look in the mirror before you judge others. The Bundys were not the ones pointing rifles at innocent people and looking for a fight...The BLM was looking for a fight and threatened to shoot people....until they realised that they were checkmated by men that did not fear them, and were not going to run.

Patrick Nance • 8 years ago

Blakektn, first of all, thank you for your service. And second of all, you nailed by saying why aren't all these "patriots" over in the Middle East aiding our troops and the truly oppressed. The answer? Because they will only pick a fight against a weaker opponent. Thank you again for your service and honesty.

Vegancheese • 8 years ago

Exactly. Very well-said. My father served 28 yrs. He was in the Air Force. As a forward radio controller during the Vietnam War, he saw his share of action. I can only imagine the disdain he'd have for these clowns.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

So how do you feel about the militiamen who fought for your freedom 238 years ago. They, by your definition, didn't deserve to wear the uniform either.

CopCac • 8 years ago

The militiamen who fought for my freedom 238 years ago fought against a superior force, not a weaker opponent. They fought the might of the British Army not a bunch of unarmed or poorly armed people suffering from dehydration and fatigue.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

They fought superior numbers, that is all, not superior forces or weapons for that matter, our militiamen were farmers, blacksmiths, and bakers. Regular people who loved their country so much that they didn't need to "earn" the right to wear a specific type of clothing to fight for it.

Robyn Ryan • 8 years ago

At the time, it wasn't their country. It belonged to the East India Trading Company, under charter from Parliament and King George. And to the people who were living there before they immigrated....

Ignorance or freedom. Choose one.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

Actually it belonged to my Cherokee and Choctaw ancestors prior to any European settlers setting foot on this continent. You can't even be a smart ass correctly.

Robyn Ryan • 8 years ago

And my Iroquois forbearers. I agree with you completely.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

Check your history, Americans fought with superior weapons with effective ranges 3 times that of the British Regulars. They did not wear the bright red target like uniforms they wore plain clothes and employed tactics the British never saw before. They fought superior numbers only. The British commanders were not intelligent or cunning, they assumed that they could win with numbers alone. This is arrogance and inferior to American commanders. The regulars rifles were severely outdated with an effective range of less than 50 yards, American rifles averaged 200 yards. We were the first to attach sighting devices to rifles for better accuracy at range. The first gatling gun was invented by an American because of that war. If they were so superior to us how did they lose???

forsuthe • 8 years ago

What does that have to do with running down exhausted people near death and killing them? The people coming here from Mexico and Central America are just looking for the jobs you don't want. They add to our economy, they don't take away from it. What our forefathers did in the American Revolution is no excuse to bully the helpless people and children coming across the Mexican border.

We run them down and kill them because what they do is illegal. They might be Mexicans, or they might be Yemen or Syrian terrorists, or Zeta drug cartel terrorists. You think it is the "right of mankind" to cross any border they wish just for a job??
Go to the Russian border asshole, and see what they think of you crossing illegally into their country. Write to me from the gulag in Siberia in which you will most likely die....LOL:))

forsuthe • 8 years ago

Enjoy your laugh now. I hope you enjoy as much the running down you will experience on your last day when you meet your Judge and Maker. He is there and He demands justice in service of his command to love your neighbor.

Robyn Ryan • 8 years ago

Because France sent money and troops. Ever learn about General Lafayette? That and a 3,000 mile logistics tail.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

We also celebrate Pulaski Day in IL, a Polish general who served the US army. The French didn't offer any help until we started to turn the tide of war. Benjamin Franklin was the diplomat that finally convinced France to help us. This was around 2 years before the end of the war. And let's not get overly excited about the French. Do you know why all the streets in France are lined with trees?

forsuthe • 8 years ago

I think you're just showing off. You're not making any good reasons for the Border Patrol volunteers to hound the helpless people they chase.

CopCac • 8 years ago

We also fought Prussian Regulars who were some of the best soldiers in the world. To the point where when we won our Independence we went and hired Prussian Soldiers to train our Regular army.

Even still, there were multiple times we did almost lose to numbers. And that is still with using Asymmetrical warfare tactics against an enemy who has never seen it. And lets not forget that from 1776, a year after Lexington, the war was in essence a proxy war between Britain and France. The only French Naval victory against the British occurred during the American Revolution.

And I don't know where you're getting your numbers. Show me a source because the Brown Bess had an effective firing range of UP TO 100 yards whereas the Charleville we were using had a 50 to 75 yard Effective range. Effective being the key term.

The Brown Bess was also newer than the Charleville we were using. The Bess was heavier but it was shorter. The Bess used a larger caliber and on average got 4 shots a minute to the Charleville's 3 shots per minute. This is all out of Arms and Armor in Colonial America by Harold Leslie Peterson, and British Redcoat by Stuart Reid.

Also, I don't know where you get your facts. The Revolution isn't why Dr. Richard Gatling invented his gun, He invented it to reduce the size of armies so that the casualties from combat and disease would be reduced. He also invented it to show the futility of war (his words, paraphrased), Hell, Gatling wasn't born until 1818 so he even missed out on being alive during the war of 1812. Since he designed it in 1861 and patented it in 1862 maybe it was invented because of the Civil War. You might be thinking of the Puckle Gun which was invented by British inventor James Puckle in 1718 and was one of the first Auto-cannons. It is really neat because it is basically a flintlock revolver. Oh, and it isn't "the first gatling gun [...]" it's just "The Gatling Gun [...]" since it isn't a type of gun it is a specific gun invented by Dr. Richard J. Gatling.

So.... Check your history? And source it too please.

Robyn Ryan • 8 years ago

Not my area, but impressed by the range of knowledge....

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

I checked it and here you go. How does that crow taste?


CopCac • 8 years ago

I... I posted about the Puckle. So... What Crow?

You said Gatling gun.

In fact, looking over my reply I literally said, and I quote, "You might be thinking of the Puckle Gun which was invented by British Inventor James Puckle in 1718 and was one of the first Auto-Cannons [...]"

But I dont see your point.... Puckle died in 1724, decades before the Revolution... So what connection does his gun have with the Revolution? I mean, he invented the damn gun to fight the Turks.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

The Gatling gun is an improvement on the Puckle in that the cartridge did not exist yet. Once the cartridge came on the seen it was relatively easy to modify the Puckle design for the new munitions available. The puckle was used in the Revolutionary but not widely. The Gatling gun was used in in the Civil War but not widely. My point is that we were out numbered but that is the only advantage the British had, and their navy, but ships are only so useful in a land war. All of their numbers and all of their ships were not enough to beat back American forces forever. In the end technological innovations and advancements in weaponry and a shift in tactics along with some help from the French (who only entered the war when the revolutionaries put the British on the run). Advanced technology gave us the edge we needed to defeat the British brute force sent our way.

Robyn Ryan • 8 years ago

wikipedia? Really?

CopCac • 8 years ago

On the subject of losing to an inferior force, it happens. Deal with it. Logistics play a really big role. So does using Asymmetrical Warfare and so does being a Proxy for a large nation. An Inferior Army often wins when armed with Accurate intelligence and we had accurate intelligence through most of the American Revolution. A great article on the use of intelligence in warfare can be found at the cia library site (Intelligence in War: It Can Be Decisive by Gregory Elder).

But plenty of Battles have been won by inferior forces. The Battle of Tolvajarvi is one of my favorites, as is the Battle of Longewala. I also like the battle of Okehazama.

m8lsem • 8 years ago

I am descended from some of those militiamen, certain of my ancestors having arrived in 1630 and others 'meeting the boat' when the English arrived; and am a veteran myself ... the Pilgrims did not request permission to land in Massachusetts from the tribe of that name ... My family fought in the French and Indian Wars (on both sides), the Revolution, the War of 1812, the Civil War (for the North), the Mexican War, the Cuban adventure, World War I and World War II. We missed Korea, but caught Viet Nam.
Self-formed, unofficial militias pursuing Latino civilians in search of a better life, are nothing more than unwitting tools of propagandists choosing to create pseudo-policy for local, state, and federal governments. They are not in the tradition of freedom fighters. They are living a fiction based upon propaganda from the likes of Fox 'News' and John Birch Society. I am sure brothers Koch love them. Those who do Koch bidding will be surprised when someday we have our own version of Benito Mussolini or Saddam Hussein running the country on behalf of the wealthy few, elected by the few who are deemed 'reliable citizens.'

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

You attack the Koch brothers, huh, seems like something a CNN lemming would do. And if you don't like what they are doing, why don't you try to stop them? Are these people not Americans doing what they feel is best for the country? Who are you to judge the actions of others?

bcarver • 8 years ago

Yes something 238 years ago is just like today. Where was the army 238 years ago? Was there an army 238 years ago? Maybe the militia was the army back then.

OUR12 • 8 years ago

There was no standing Army 238 years ago. We have one + now, I see no need for these militias (bullies)

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

And the founders of this country hated the idea of a standing army, hence the reason it was disbanded after they won. And let's get something straight, we are not free because our military can kick the shit out of poor 3rd world country. We are free because we choose to be and there isn't anyone on this earth that can take it from us. The Japanese were afraid to launch an attack on the mainland because they knew they wouldn't face uniformed soldiers but rather they would have to directly face the wrath of the American people.

Robyn Ryan • 8 years ago

oh, please. Go read a real history book. Your parents need to apologize to you for stealing your education.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

I'll g ahead and educate you instead.




and just for fun google "founding fathers against standing army" and see what you get.

CopCac • 8 years ago

Yet we still maintained a small Standing Army after the revolution. We had regulars. We had a Regiment to defend the Western Frontier and a regiment at West Point. We quickly realized that we needed a Standing Army to pacify the Natives on our frontier though and formed the Legion of the United States, which became the US Army.

We also had the US Revenue Cutter Service before the reformation of the US Navy in 1797. Marine Corps followed in 1798.

We re-established the US Navy and the US Marine Corps pretty quick after we beefed up our standing army.

I won't disagree with you that SOME of the founding fathers had a very Republican distrust of standing armies. But not all of them shared that distrust and any who had interests on the Western Frontier certainly liked the idea of a standing army.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

And what did we use this military might for? Conquest of less advanced peoples. We imposed our own form of tyranny on these people with military force from a standing army. Exactly why the framers didn't like them. What do we do with it now? We impose our will on other countries with the force of our standing army.

forsuthe • 8 years ago

Except your dear Koch brothers. They are getting great headway in taking our freedom from us.

Mark • 8 years ago

That was our excuse for dropping the Atom bombs on Japan, that trying to invade the country would simply be too costly. They simply didn't have the manpower to pull off even an invasion of the Hawaiian Islands... much less the US mainland.

Jarrod Dowell • 8 years ago

It was.