Poisoning Our Language To Destroy Our Freedom

Today's champions of tyranny -- and the victim disarmament which is a necessary condition for the advancement of any enduring tyranny -- have been busy for some years attempting to demonize the term "militia."

Maybe we need to look closely at what "militia" actually means.

Richard Henry Lee, who drafted the Second Amendment as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, gave us a definitive answer in 1788: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves. ... The Constitution ought to secure a genuine [militia] and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militias shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include ... all men capable of bearing arms, and that all regulations tending to render this militia useless and defenseless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men not having permanent interests and attachments in the community [are] to be avoided. ... To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

But mention "militia" in polite company today, and many people -- having been fed continual doses of carefully crafted collectivist propaganda -- automatically think of some small band of racist skinhead kooks in Montana or Michigan, embracing the laughable racism of "The Turner Diaries" and preaching some scary doctrine of white supremacy and racial separation.

Yet the arguments of these gun control control freaks quickly turn in on themselves, "as dogs upon their masters," in Shakespeare's phrase. They have long assured us -- despite the firm disagreement of such well-known left-wing legal scholars as Sanford Levinson -- that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what is clearly says ("The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.") Why? Because those of us who would dare to honor the Constitution and do our duty to defend it, and the free country it created, supposedly ignore the introductory clause of the amendment, to wit: "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State ..." You know…those pesky 13 words that are being ignored and forgotten since 1916.

And of course we get bombarded by the insane propaganda of The Gun Violence Archive, or GVA, which was founded in 2013 by Michael Klein, a left-leaning philanthropist and open-government advocate, and Mark Bryant, a retired computer analyst and GVA’s current executive director. Or Moms Demand Action or other organizations that the brain dead children in adult bodies are members of.

Well, what's the plain meaning of these simple 13 words? Note the use of the word "free." A well-practiced citizen militia is not necessary to the security of a police state, since police states have droves of uniformed bully boys goose-stepping about in fancy blue uniforms and willing to follow the control freak legislators orders to arrest and imprison anyone who refuses to obey “the law”.

What the founders meant by that "militia" which must be maintained as our main source of armed men for national defense, if we are to remain a free country, we need companies of citizens like the farmers and tradesmen who picked up their rifles and swarmed to Concord Green and Lexington on April 19, 1775 because the standing army was on it’s way to confiscate the arms and powder of the colonists.

And these militia men fought the invading redcoat regulars in battle defeating them under the ad hoc leadership of one of America's great combat heroes, New Haven storekeeper-turned-soldier Benedict Arnold (yes, I know he later messed up) -- thus guaranteeing the colonists' triumph by drawing France into the war on our side.

As Americans have a duty not merely to show up for jury duty but to understand their right and obligation to acquit any defendant on trial under an unconstitutional statute -- or any defendant who has clearly been refused his right to present a principled constitutional defense at trial -- so do Americans have a strongly implied obligation under the Second Amendment to stand ready to defend our freedoms (remember, "necessary to the security of a free State") by owning, maintaining and keeping in good practice with a firearm of "militia usefulness" -- that being, in this day and age, an M-4 or (preferably, in my opinion) a .308-caliber, AR-10 combat rifle.

Now, there is a slight problem. The would-be tyrants on the Potomac have made it a federal crime for any American to build or import a military-style, select-fire M-4 or M-14 rifles for sale to a fellow citizen who does not wear a government uniform -- the exception being granted for members of precisely the kinds of "special militias" and "standing armies" which the founders feared. AKA the national guard.

This leaves only a limited supply of "pre-ban" M-14s and M-16s still circulating. The laws of supply and demand thus mean I'm going to pay more than $20,000 for my fully-automatic M-14 -- after I pay a $200 tax and submit myself to fingerprinting and other clearly unconstitutional indignities and "infringements" -- once I finally get enough saved up. And of course once I pay that $200 these weapons become OK to use. And own. The idiots in control never take into consideration what could happen if I all of a sudden I needed to take some prescription anti-depressant drugs that could affect my mental health. Well in that case maybe that $200 “tax stamp” really didn’t help after all.

In the meantime, I can proudly declare myself a member of Arkansas’ unorganized constitutional militia, by dint of my ownership of the semi-automatic version of the military M-14 -- the semi-automatic civilian M-1A or an AR 10 or whatever.

The M-4 (in the lighter 5.56 caliber) has a similarly more affordable semi-automatic civilian sister, the perfectly legal little AR-15 ... though fans of tyranny like Chairman Xiden, Dianne Feinstein and Gavin Scewsome naturally seek to ban these slightly less useful militia weapons at every turn, lying and calling them "assault rifles" (an assault rifle must be capable of fully-automatic fire; these are not) and by -- get this -- trying to link them to "dangerous Militias" ... a word which originally defined precisely the kind of peaceful, armed citizens who might stand in the way of their plans for a massive, cradle-to-grave, welfare/police state!

What do the massacres of the Armenian Turks in 1915, of the Ukrainian Kulaks under Stalin in the 1930s, of the Jews and Gypsies under Hitler in the 1940s, of the "landlords" under Mao and the "intellectuals" under Pol Pot all have in common? The victims were all disarmed, by law, first.

So maybe what we really need to do is get some Governor or Sheriff to bring back the reason for the 2nd amendment in the first place. To guard against criminals IN GOVERNMENT more so than to guard against local criminals. After all, government criminals have been behind the slaughter of MILLIONS while your local robber, rapist or murderer have only been able to slaughter a few at any given time. And that has been typically the victims fault because then relied on some “law enforcement” officer to defend them rather than training and learning how to protect themselves and their loved ones. After all, YOU need to be your own first responder. So when it comes to criminals which should we be more concerned about in reality? Those in government who insist on running every aspect of our lives or those car jackers, rapists and robbers that can only prey on those who refuse to defend themselves? SERIOUSLY?

---