According to DHS/MIAC all are potential Domestic Terrorists.

[SARC]

Read some of this.  It will scare you. :shock:

http://documents.scribd.com/docs/1xduds3zv8npsq67kt0c.pdf
http://www.fas.org/irp/eprint/rightwing.pdf

[Kodiak]

Most of the things mentioned in those papers are troubling. Many should be watched, I'm not surprised that the Hutaree Militia is mentioned in the first one.

[SARC]

They also mention Veterans, you know those of us who have served their country, oh, and those that participate in "MIL-SIM"..

[Kodiak]

They do mention veterans; they mention that a minority may become victims of extremist propaganda and recruitment agendas. It is a troubling thought, that such a thing is possible, but it has happened before.

[Shadow]

This was posted by DHS early last year.  I saved the original PDF and decided to put a bumper sticker on my car that said, "Just another Right-Wing Extremist."

[armalite attack]

put a bumper sticker on my car that said, "Just another Right-Wing Extremist."

HAHA!!  =D>

[azsarge]

If they are looking at the MilSim crowd and are getting worried, they need to seriously re-think their own level of readiness.

I can count on a few fingers the number of airsofters I'd trust my life to in a hostile environment.  Really, most airsofters have no tactical critical thinking skills, and are not familiar enough with firearms.

And who the fuck is MIAC, anyway?

[SARC]

Missouri Information and Analysis Center a div of Missouri State Police.

[Kodiak]

I think this is relevant to the OP.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=69360

[SARC]

I think this is relevant to the OP.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=69360

They also consider membership or affiliation with organizations like the "TEA Party" or being a "Libertarian" as extremism both of which are legit political beliefs just contra to the current administration.

[Rako]

Interesting, Ive never heard of this before.  So are these groups against the US government or other races/religions, or both?

[Kodiak]

I think this is relevant to the OP.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=69360

They also consider membership or affiliation with organizations like the "TEA Party" or being a "Libertarian" as extremism both of which are legit political beliefs just contra to the current administration.

Citation needed on that one...

[SARC]

I think this is relevant to the OP.

http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=69360

They also consider membership or affiliation with organizations like the "TEA Party" or being a "Libertarian" as extremism both of which are legit political beliefs just contra to the current administration.

Citation needed on that one...

From MIAC Report: PP7 Paragraph 1, Sentences 1-2. "Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups.  It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material."

Since the Tea Party was not in existence when this report was published it is not mentioned but is most certainly implied.  This is taking law abiding citizens who don't approve of or share the current administrations views, and who voice them via their first amendment right to freedom of speech, and lumping them with extremist wackos.  Also since you obviously failed to read the report it lumps all "milsim" activities in the same category, my point being that everyone on the forum including you who are law abiding citizens and enjoy our hobby are under scrutiny.

There's an old quote, I don't know who said it, maybe Mark Twain: "If you are conservative when you are young you are heartless and if you are liberal when you are older you are naive."

[Kodiak]

I think this is relevant to the OP.
From MIAC Report: PP7 Paragraph 1, Sentences 1-2. "Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups.  It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material."

Since the Tea Party was not in existence when this report was published it is not mentioned but is most certainly implied.  This is taking law abiding citizens who don't approve of or share the current administrations views, and who voice them via their first amendment right to freedom of speech, and lumping them with extremist wackos.  Also since you obviously failed to read the report it lumps all "milsim" activities in the same category, my point being that everyone on the forum including you who are law abiding citizens and enjoy our hobby are under scrutiny.

 I can imagine that they reference "3rd party" and libertarians because you would be hard pressed to find a communist militia in America. And I can also imagine that if there were communists mentioned in the report, the reaction to it would be much different. The MIAC report is written from the perspective of a state law enforcement body. You imply that I am naive to think that we are not being watched by the government, or to say that such a thing is not unwarranted. I say it is equally naive to expect law enforcement agencies to remain ignorant of militias in their states, the potential they have for violence, and the history of violence some have established.

 I see why you are worried, the concerns are valid. But I still think that you are reading the report from an under-siege point of view. The MIAC report does indeed mention milsim, you are right. However, it mentions milsim only as an event that radical militias may be drawn to, not as a militia movement in itself. The entire report is structured in this manner. It doesn't target groups likely to give rise to extremist militias, it targets extremist militias and what they typically associate themselves with. It is an all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares sort of thing. The report goes on to list several types of militias, including "public" militias, which it describes favorably.

[SARC]

I think this is relevant to the OP.
From MIAC Report: PP7 Paragraph 1, Sentences 1-2. "Political Paraphernalia: Militia members most commonly associate with 3rd party political groups.  It is not uncommon for militia members to display Constitutional Party, Campaign for Liberty, or Libertarian material."

Since the Tea Party was not in existence when this report was published it is not mentioned but is most certainly implied.  This is taking law abiding citizens who don't approve of or share the current administrations views, and who voice them via their first amendment right to freedom of speech, and lumping them with extremist wackos.  Also since you obviously failed to read the report it lumps all "milsim" activities in the same category, my point being that everyone on the forum including you who are law abiding citizens and enjoy our hobby are under scrutiny.

you go ahead and keep your head in the sand. Our own government has broadly targeted different groups in the past violating the civil rights of law abiding citizens. Why don't they mention some of the radical Islamic groups operating in this country? Because that wouldn't be PC. Why are their freedoms being protected while those of us who do not approve of the current administration are demonized?


 I can imagine that they reference "3rd party" and libertarians because you would be hard pressed to find a communist militia in America. And I can also imagine that if there were communists mentioned in the report, the reaction to it would be much different. The MIAC report is written from the perspective of a state law enforcement body. You imply that I am naive to think that we are not being watched by the government, or to say that such a thing is not unwarranted. I say it is equally naive to expect law enforcement agencies to remain ignorant of militias in their states, the potential they have for violence, and the history of violence some have established.

 I see why you are worried, the concerns are valid. But I still think that you are reading the report from an under-siege point of view. The MIAC report does indeed mention milsim, you are right. However, it mentions milsim only as an event that radical militias may be drawn to, not as a militia movement in itself. The entire report is structured in this manner. It doesn't target groups likely to give rise to extremist militias, it targets extremist militias and what they typically associate themselves with. It is an all squares are rectangles but not all rectangles are squares sort of thing. The report goes on to list several types of militias, including "public" militias, which it describes favorably.