Militia: Tyrants or Patriots?

The government, and the media, have been demonizing the term 'militia' for decades, if not longer. The term militia currently means, according to legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com: "A group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government." The definition according to lectlaw.com: "The military force of the nation, consisting of citizens called forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrection and repel invasion." So who qualifies as militia? This role is seen by many as the National Guard, because (until Clinton) the National Guard was a State asset. Part of Billy Bob's cutting and hacking resulted in National Guard units being aligned within the regular Army structure, although they are still a state asset-until the feds want them that is.

When the Constitution was written, including the Bill of Rights, the definitions were somewhat different. "Every able bodied man owning a gun" was a commonly used layman's definition. Before being 'edited' by the Bill of Rights, the original writing of the Constitution described the militia this way: "To provide for the calling forth the militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress: "To provide for the organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" Sounds more and more like the National Guard doesn't it. That is exactly why the states insisted on Article 2 of the Bill of Rights, commonly referred to as the 2nd Amendment. Even then, the states and founders felt the definition was too restrictive of the right for the people to protect themselves from tyranny at the hands of their own government.

"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." Using the above Constitutional definition of militia, how do you read this statement? Didn't the Constitution state that Congress was responsible to regulate the military and militia already? Obviously militia is a separate entity from the federal military. Without starting a firestorm debate, and without taking anything away from the personal right to bear arms, consider this: Perhaps the reason the founders and states insisted on this little 'adjustment' to the Constitution was specifically to maintain the federal government in its proper place.

Remember the tyranny that created the situation that sparked the Revolution? The framers intent was to insure that the new government did not have the capacity to inflict tyranny, such as what they had suffered under English rule-somewhat amusing in light of how the liberals try to push us into a modern British system currently. Many historians try to leave the framers intent out of the equation when addressing such topics, and try to debate definitions until their ears fall off. The framers also believed basic rights-such as the right to protect yourself, the right to live as you saw fit within accepted conservative Christian norms, and the right to go about your business undisturbed-were rights that justified armed defense if necessary. They also believed these rights were God given rights that could not be taken by anyone including any form of government.

On a side note, I see no room in any of the definitions of militia for hate based organizations, such as the KKK or AN. While they may use military tactics at times, they do not qualify as militias, and have no interest in defending the Constitution, the people or their rights. Their intent is strictly to enforce their own position of authority on the people.

Here is another definition for you: Rights- 2 : something to which one has a just claim: as a : the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled (and also) 4 : the cause of truth or justice- Merriam Webster Dictionary. 'One' refers to an individual, not a collective. As in you and me, people, citizens, patriots, civilians, etc. Governments and organizations do not have Constitutional 'rights' contrary to many liberal schools of thought. The public does not have a 'right' to know. The government does not have a 'right' to monitor people in their activities, interfere with the people in their activities or business, or to do anything else not specifically granted in the Constitution. The very concept of group and governmental 'rights' leads directly to tyranny, and it is a centralist theme long touted by liberals, communists and other pro federal government power extremists. Yes, I was intentionally redundant.

I will allow you to decide where we are on that road. Rights not exercised or defended are lost, as stated by many of our founding fathers many times.

The very reason for the 2nd Amendment, that so many claim to mean so many different things, is to provide for the ability of the common person to defend themselves, their country and the Constitution itself from tyranny and invasion, both from outsiders and from within.

That is the definition of a Patriot in my book.

The media and government also likes to demonize, or even coerce, those that believe the Constitution has a purpose, and is valid today-the very Constitution they swear to uphold and defend. They like to demonize, or even coerce, those that prepare for all kinds of eventualities, including less than pleasant events. They like to demonize, or even coerce, those that do not go along with their plans and agree with their ideals.

That is the definition of a Tyrant in my book.


God bless.



Jeff Citizen