April 29, 1998

Composition 205

Tom Acton

It is growing increasingly harder to find stories about militias that are covered unbiasedly and do not insinuate that militia members are nothing more than simple-minded, gun-toting lunatics. An article by Peter Doskoch that appeared in Psychology Today is a good example. In the article Doskoch says that he believes that militias are pushed by fears of an Apocalypse around the year 2000. He says that "They [militia members] want to take their Uzis and fight it out with the Beast." He also has a theory that militias are composed only of men who had their egos damaged by the American withdraw from Vietnam and do not really care about any of the issues for which they claim to stand (3). Those ideas are as off-base as even the most paranoid conspiracy theory (1). Doskoch did have one good point however. He did mention that militia ideology "can't be reduced to a catchy sound bite" (1). All too often news stories that deserve much attention and in depth coverage are reduced to ten second "news-flashes." Without the needed facts distinguishing the truth from the hype it is impossible for readers or listeners to decipher the real story.

Other writers are just as bad at using stereotypes as Doskoch. As was pointed out in an article published by the John Birch Society ( a militia-sympathizing, tax protesting, but entirely lawful organization) militia members are not only portrayed as "rabid, right-wing, religious extremists with guns, swastikas, hoods, and burning crosses" but also as "over-the-hill, overweight bubbas (Winters 182-183). These stereotypes help to do nothing other than punish militias for having some members that aren't "chic" enough to fit into what the media would consider good spokes people. "As Sharon Pietila, who has attended a couple Washington State Militia meetings, said: "[Militias are] really God fearing and patriotic, although nowadays that means you're automatically assumed to be a Hitler type" (Shapiro 3). The First Amendment guarantees the right to free speech. This is possibly the most important inalienable right, but there should be something done about biased writings that are being passed off as fact.

Some writers are more subtle in their use of stereotypes than other writers, and they may be more dangerous than the writers who are open about their dislike for militias. With careful word choices they can enforce a view without actually having to come out and take a stand. One article that exemplifies this method of argument is an article that appeared in the Economist entitled "In the Name of Liberty." When the author uses the line "They [militias] imagine themselves oppressed by taxes, ..." he insinuates that the very idea of oppression by taxes is insane ("In the Name of Liberty" 1). A less biased way to say the same thing would have been to write "They think of themselves as oppressed by taxes." If the second line had been used, it would have allowed the reader to think more clearly about whether or not they think the militias' accusation of oppression is founded in fact or paranoia. The crucial point is that whether the author just comes out and uses a militia stereotype or uses a more subtle technique, the militia's views are being put down without any factual basis.

The first major stereotype that has made its way into the average person's mind is that militias are new groups of lunatics that are creating their groups for protection from dangers that this country has never had to face. In the eyes of most people, the militias of the 1700's that fought against tyranny to free themselves of oppression and the latter-day militias of today are completely different in their make-up and in their goals. This is entirely false. The militias of the 1700's were simply trying to stop the abuse of their rights as human beings. They were unhappy with their government that they saw as an autonomous group of select individuals that cared nothing for their rights. The government had ceased to include the people; instead, it only ruled over the people. The rights of colonists had been trampled on and the citizens united as militias to collectively stand up for their rights. The same is true for modern militias. The militias are not individual groups of hate- mongers that are just looking to create anarchy or overthrow the government. They see their rights slowly being taken away by a government that, like King George III and his Parliament, seems distant and uncaring. With gun rights slowly being taken away despite the supposedly sacred Constitution and many restrictions on what citizens can do on their own land, the rift between the government and militia members, and the public overall, is growing. The difference between today's militias and the ones of the Revolution is that these groups are seen as independent from the public. Militias have always been groups of common citizens and not independent groups of rebels. Militias of today are not closed groups trying to cause anarchy or improve just their lives. They are the people of communities that are uniting to defend their right, just like those of the 1700's. All too often the media confuses groups that fall in the minority as separatists--isolated groups that are not out to help all people. People tend to forget that the militias that won independence for this country never had truly widespread support until they won a few battles, namely those at Saratoga, and proved that it wasn't insane to stand up for your rights. These similarities between the freedom fighters of the 18th century and modern militias are almost always overlooked. This may be because of the intrusions of the government into personal lives of Americans do not seem as pressing as the problems of the colonists.

With the formation of the National Guard in 1903 and the entire lack of fear of any foreign invasion, militias have all but been forgotten (Abshire 2). It seems that most Americans have become so secure in their domestic safety that they do not see the need for militias any longer. Sometime between the Revolution and 1903, Americans stopped fearing their government and began looking only abroad for their enemies. Which is good to some degree, but it is when the government is not logically monitored by the people that, like in the 1700's, it becomes able to take advantage of its constituents.

There are many other stereotypes that readers who hope to make fair judgments should be aware of. Militias are also portrayed as trying to start a revolution and enforce their radical views. The truth is that militias can get their points across and protect their rights without starting a war; that is what they are attempting to do. Contrary to popular belief, the very act of forming a militia begins the battle to ensure the rights of all Americans. If citizens of this country unite in militias and lobby against the growing amount of pending gun control laws and keep the threat of a rebellion real, the use of violence should never be necessary (Survey 95). The founding fathers of this country ensured with the Second Amendment that Americans would always be able to form militias, if the time ever arose when the government overstepped their bounds and the need for a rebellion were to arise. That fact has been hotly disputed since the actual amendment only reads: A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some people contend that the militia referred to has been replaced by the National Guard, but upon reading other writings by the writers of the Constitution, one will find that the militia referred to is in fact an unorganized militia made up of ordinary citizens. Thomas Jefferson even said, in a speech in June of 1776, that: No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, if necessary, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.

It even says in the United States statutes that there is a difference between the unorganized militia, meaning all able-bodied adult males, and the organized militia, meaning the National Guard and the Naval Militia (Section 311). With the facts so easily planned out by actual law, and by many writings of the original founders or this country, it is totally unreasonable to say that the Second Amendment only pertains to the National Guard or any other government-established militia.

Militias are being formed because citizens feel that their rights are being violated. They often lobby against gun bans, and other like-minded legislation. That is their right. No militia group has been found guilty of any act of terrorism, though there have been many charges, both authentic and fictional, brought against militia members on the grounds of illegal weapons charges. When people of these united states feel they have to stockpile weapons because they are afraid of the government that is supposed to protect and represent them, maybe the biggest problem isn't a few guys hiding guns out in the woods. Militias are not something a just and fair government should fear.

One other reason that militias are targeted by the media, during their attempts to sell stories, is that many of the views of militias, when not fully investigated, do seem paranoid. When the public only gets it's news from mainstream media, it is easy for them to get the wrong idea about militias. The media has a tendency to focus on the most radical and extreme members of militias. In many cases, the people interviewed either hold entirely separate views or views that are more radical than the rest of the militia. The idea implied is that militias are made up solely of the radicals that are interviewed, and are not the conglomeration of different, but often mild, views. Two men implicated in the planning of the Oklahoma City Bombing, Terry and James Nichols, had actually been thrown out of a militia meeting for using "hyperbolic language." (Armed 2). This fact is almost always overlooked. Militias are in fact trying to rid their organizations of paranoid radicals in order to gain legitimacy and respect for themselves. Some people try to attribute militia stereotypes to an accused "liberal media," but the truth is that they are only a greedy media. Which story sells better--one about a militia forming to lobby against, and possible fight to retain certain specified rights they believe are being taken away, or one about militias forming to fight off foreign troops that have been flying around in black helicopters, training on our land, and bombing our federal buildings? Which story would catch your attention as you walked by a newsstand? The answer is clear. The truth about militias would not make a good story, and so it is hard to find accurate reporting on the topic.

The most common topic reported on by the media involving militias is their so-called "paranoid" fears of the government. Only when we scan the papers and Internet publications for stories that, not so surprisingly did not show up on the front page, do we find the examples of government intrusions and criminal acts that have militia members riled up and pleading their case.

The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, for some reason, thought that part-time cop Louis Katona might be in violation of some sort of weapons law. In May of 1992, when the BATF raided his home they found nothing. They did manage, however, to seize his legally owned gun collection, let the air out of his tires, and forcefully shove his pregnant wife against the wall. Katona's wife later miscarried, but it is unknown if the BATF's raid was the cause. When Katona was brought before a judge on bogus gun charges the case was dismissed. The judge said about the charges: "Where's the beef?" (Kopel 6).

Also in 1992, around midnight on August 22nd , Drug Enforcement Agency agents broke into the home of Donald Carlson. Since the DEA agents did not identify themselves as federal agents, Carlson called the 911 and went for his gun. Before he took a single shot to protect himself, he was shot three times. Twice after he was disabled on the floor (McCuem 105).

There are many more examples of abuses and criminal activity by the government. Many Justice Department branches, especially the BATF have made reputations for themselves as being abusive and at times, criminal. In 1982 a Senate investigation into the BATF's actions concluded that the Bureau engages in "conduct which borders on criminal" and that "approximately 75% of BATF gun prosecutions were aimed at ordinary citizens who had neither criminal intent nor knowledge, but were enticed by agents into unknowing technical violations" (Kopel 3). Since the BATF's staff has increased 50% since 1985 and has had its theater expanded, this is an especially big problem (Kopel 3). A perfect example of the BATF harassing ordinary, law abiding citizens is the story of John Lawmaster. On December 16, 1991, on a tip from Lawmaster's ex-wife, 60 agents raided John Lawmaster's home. He had been thought to be in possession of a semi-automatic weapon that had been modified and made fully-automatic. After Lawmaster had been lured away from his home by his ex-wife, the 60 agents raided his home. After breaking the doors down, spilling many boxes of paperwork, breaking a table as they went through his attic, and generally rummaging through all of his belongings, the agents left--leaving only a note that read "nothing found" (Kopel 5). Some neighbors that asked what was going on were treated harshly and were threatened to be taken to jail if they didn't stay away. The raid was supervised from outside by Ted Royster inside an unmarked car with tinted windows. Ted Royster went on to be promoted and was in charge of the raid on the Branch Davidians, where over 80 men, women, and children were burned to death.

After all of these examples of government cruelty, there remains one more even more startling confrontation. After Randy Weaver refused to work as an informate for the FBI, he started noticing helicopters flying over his land. He had since been tricked into selling federal agents shotguns with barrels 1/4 of an inch shorter than the law provided for. Randy Weaver was a separatist and tried to stay away from society as much as possible, so he lived with his family in a distant place in Idaho known as Ruby Ridge. That may have been why he and his family were such easy targets. Federal Marshals sneaked onto his land after Weaver didn't appear for his trial. The unmarked snipers took up positions around the cabin and began throwing things at the Weavers' dogs to see how much noise it took to excite them. When the dogs started barking, Weaver, his 13-year-old son Sammy, and a friend named Kevin Harris came out of the cabin to investigate. When they saw the Marshals running away, they gave chase. The Marshals were afraid of getting shot so they took up ambush positions. When Sammy came up on the hidden marshals, he was shot. Both the marshals and Sammy managed to fire shots, but according to a leaked Justice Department report, it was impossible to conclude who fired first. What is know is that Sammy turned and run after having most of arm shot off by a marshal. As he was running away he was shot in the head. Since Randy Weaver wasn't yet on the scene, Kevin Harris was the only one there to defend the 13-year-old; he managed to kill just one of the three marshals before retreating back to the cabin. After news of a federal marshal being shot came out, the FBI was immediately on the scene. They set up many snipers around the cabin and before an hour had passed every adult was either dead or severely injured. Weaver's wife Vicki had been shot through a door and killed while holding her infant son. No shots were ever fired at the FBI agents. Kevin Harris and Randy Weaver was cleared of all charges resulting from the attack on the grounds of self defense. The Justice Department has still never released its report, it had to be leaked to a newspaper from somebody in the department (Bovard 1-3). With violations of human rights such as these, the militia's so-called paranoid theories of government brutality are not so paranoid.

Many new and existing laws are seen as intrusive by militias, and by many others not affiliated with the movement. While the 72 hour waiting period that Illinois has implemented is a good idea, some might see the restrictions on the lengths of barrels of guns and the ban on certain types of guns all together intrusive (Leiter 2). New pending laws present the possibility of putting even more power in the hands of the Federal Government. Clinton's new anti-terrorism plan includes massive increases in wire-tapping (sometimes without court order), punishing Americans who support legal activities of foreign groups who also engage in illegal activities, and allowing more crimes to be labeled as terrorism (outlawing bail, creating mandatory prison sentences, and abolishing the restrictions on the military being used for domestic affairs) (Kopel 3). The first person was already convicted under the latest anti-terrorism law. He was found guilty of selling pictures of blueprints of an FBI building for $50,000 and will spend the next 10 years in prison (First Person 1).

After the situation in Roby, where a woman held up in her house refused to undergo mental testing (later, she was declared perfectly sane), some legislators proposed making it easier to take people against their will to be tested for mental problems (Patterson 1-2). Militias believe that the federal government is becoming too powerful and laws are becoming too broad. While the new laws would help greatly in some situations, the doors it opens for abuses by agencies that have already been proven to abuse their powers are just to big to leave open.

People in America are becoming more distanced from their government. Some of these people are forming militias to protect their rights. Though little actual crimes have been committed by militia groups they are still being stereotyped as lunatics and as violent radicals. The false stories about militias that are being pushed by a greedy militia help nobody. They do nothing more than silence the people of this country who are trying to stand up for their rights. In a country that was founded by militias and has always cherished the freedom of the rights to assemble, speak freely, and bear arms it is horrendous to think that a group, in this day and age, are still be treated this unfairly by the government and especially by the media.

"Armed and Angry [are militias a danger?]." Economist. April 29, 1995: v335, p.28+.

Bouvard, James. "Ruby Ridge: The Justice Report." Wall Street Journal. 30 June 1995: A14.

Doskoch, P. "In the Mind of Militias." Psychology Today. July/Aug 1995: v28 p.12-14+

"First Person Convicted Under Antiterrorism Law." The New York Times. 26 Aug. 1997: sec. A National Desk 12.

"In the Name of Liberty [Militias and extremists both claim to be defending liberty]." Economist. April 29, 1995: v335 p.15

Kopel, D. "Clinton's Terrifying Response to Terrorism." American Enterp. Jul/Aug 1995: v6, p70-2

Leiter, Richard A. National Survey of State Laws. Gale Research Inc: Washington D.C., 1993

McCuem, Gary E. The Militia Movement and Hate Groups in America. Gary E. McCuem Publication Inc: Untied States of America, 1996

Patterson, John C. "Governor Candidates: State police handled Roby situation well." Decatur Herald & Review. 1997: [reprinted on the internet at http://www.herald-review.com/03/roby11047-html without page numbers]

"Section 311, Title 10" United States Code. "Section 720.5/24-1" Illinois Compiled Statutes 1992. Published by the State Bar Association, v6 p. 74+.

Shapiro, Nina "The Militia Bust." Eastsideweek. 7 Aug. 1996 [reprinted on the internet at http:www.village voice.com/link/news/nichols/eastsideweek.shtml without page numbers]

Winters, Paul A. Hate Crimes. Greenhaven Press: San Diego, 1996