Militias - Don't Think So

tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10280781.post-1111934600320717932005-03-27T09:39:00.000-05:002005-03-27T09:43:20.323-05:00Militias - Don't Think So"There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to moderates from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instill prejudices at any price; or as the serious." --Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 29 Thoughts about this from Stewie Mikkelson: There's more room than should be in the way people refer to "militias." In the common language today, militia refers not to the sanctioned fighting forces of individual states, but to fringe groups that clothe themselves in the garments of freedom and citizen justice while using that righteous position to espouse radical, fundamentalist or extremist positions. The disparity between the current, popular definition of militia is analogous to the disparity in the current, popular usage of the word, "jihad." Both words have become bastardizations of their former selves - terms usurped by individuals and groups that have no right to use them. The Hamilitonian definition of militia equals today's definition of the National Guard. It's a fighting force that is state-regulated, locally armed and trained, and used in times of emergency. It's not a blank check for gun-owners to gather automatic weapons and massive, civilian weapons caches to assist their resistance against over-reaching government. It's certainly not a fundamental protection for small, unregulated groups to gather arms and wait for an event they deem to be an emergency. My favorite perversion of modern militias is that of the definition of the second amendment. They always remember the "right to keep and bear arms" part, but they never quite seem to notice the second and third words: "well regulated." By their own definition, today's self-defined militias fall into the last of Hamilton's three categories, "the serious." These outland extremists do nothing to serve the liberty of the nation, or even the liberty of a state against the federal government. Their ultra-conservatism proves as dangerous to the pursuit of social advancement and true liberty as any extremist group. These groups - as any extremists groups are (liberal or conservative)- are not only less tolerant of true freedom than any one group has the right to be, but they're probably better armed, too. A thought from a veteran: Yes, I do have a thought about this. The groups who call themselves militias today, are typical examples of folks with an agenda, usually an antisocial one, who take a word originally perceived as a good thing and use it to try (unsuccessfully) to make themselves look like a good thing. Other examples: People's DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC of China, Union of Soviet SOCIALIST REPUBLIC, DDR (Deutche DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC). Today's militias are a mockery of what a militia used to be - a group of citizens loosely formed to protect each other, their rights not to be violated, their property taken away, etc. Instead, they aspire to do just those things to others. They are populated by people who already know deep down that they are not widely accepted in society, so they gravitate toward others with the same affliction - the lack of the common sense and intelligence to practice moderation or to have an open mind. Therefore, today I am renouncing my membership in Sam's Club and the American Automobile Association.<div class="blogger-post-footer">sclough@metrocast.net/~sclough</div>Vito Margiottahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05885455815116319302noreply@blogger.com