"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free state..."
Oft times people overlook this very important part of the Second Amendment and only concentrate on the second half, which guarantees the right to keep and bear arms. But, what is being said here is necessary to the security of a free state? Yes, a Well Regulated Militia. Regulated, as many people have pointed out, means well trained and well armed.
We see, according to the Second Amendment, just keeping and bearing arms is not necessary. A WELL REGULATED MILITIA is necessary to the security of a FREE state. I cannot know what American Revolutionaries meant, I can only assume. If they thought only keeping and bearing arms was necessary they could have worded the amendment something along the lines of "The Right of People to keep and bear arms being necessary to the security of free state, shall not be infringed." But they did not word it like that. They worded it as "A well regulated Militia."
What inference can we draw from this? The Founding Fathers understood that only having arms will not do. People who own arms MUST be organized and trained. Organized and trained as a militia ready to defend their Freedom and Liberty from any threat from anywhere.
This has been long forgotten by most of the people outside the Freedom Movement. Let's put that aside for a moment.
What do the forces allied against freedom demonize the most? The militia movement. The militia movement has been demonized in the media, in schools, by almost all the politicians and even in neo-conservative publications and magazines. One would ask why would they demonize the militia movement so much. Is it because it stuck at some point that the freedom movement in general was missing out?
The statists always come up with an argument in favor of the Big State using the argument of security. A big state can provide good security. And Libertarians are made to back off using this argument again and again. The question is put to the ordinary public whether they would choose liberty or security? Brave people who lived in early America would obviously choose liberty. But public indoctrination centers have made cowards out of most of the population and they would invariably choose security.
But that is the wrong question. There is a quote, "If they can get you asking the wrong questions they don't have to worry about the answer." The question asked must be, "How can security and liberty be made possible simultaneously." I see some liberty-oriented people in the media and they beat the drum that we should not give up our fundamental rights. The average man and woman out there simply do not receive that message favorably. The debate must be changed to how can liberty and security be achieved at the same time.
The answer is simple: The Militia.
Militia can preserve both liberty and security at the same time. Militia is composed of all the people capable of bearing arms. That means that the Tyrant(s) will have to fight each and every man. But then it defeats the whole purpose of the Tyrant(s). If he will kill all the people then whom will he rule?
enslave a free man, the most you can do is kill him."
This is the reason why Switzerland remained independent because any invading army would have to fight every last Swiss man. A militia may not have as much firepower as a professional army, but it has the huge advantage of a large amount of manpower. And when the militia collides with an invading professional army, militia has two further advantages, it is fighting in home territory and it can fight guerrilla warfare. Furthermore militiamen are fighting for their freedom and have nothing to loose as opposed to the invading standing army that fights for various reasons.
At the same time militia also provides very high security, as much security as is humanly possible. How is this so? Because the militia can be in all places; whereas, the police or standing army cannot. This is the simplest reason why militia provides great security. They are present everywhere and can combat any trouble from criminals and control freaks (tyrants) at any place where such criminals might try to infringe upon life, liberty or property of free people.
But the often-overlooked third great advantage of militia is maintenance of peace. A militia fights their best to defend their country, but its hardly likely that militia will get ambitious and go around invading other countries without legitimate grievances. That is one reason why Tyrant wannabees weaken the militia and strengthen the standing army. With a huge standing army comes imperialist ambitions and desire to stick their nose in other countries business. Militia people tend to fight their best to defend their country, but leave other countries to mind their own business. Such is the usefulness of militia. Three in one package deal: Liberty, Security and Peace. Militia may want to consider adopting this motto.
But why then do we see very few militias in the history of the humanity. For the same reason we see very little Liberty in the history of humanity. So far the history of humanity has been one of oppression and war. America was the first country to base its most basic philosophy on the ideals of Freedom and Natural Rights and thus it was one country where militia flourished. Or it is highly likely that because the militia flourished in old colonial days, freedom was flowing through this land. It has been said that Capitalism made America great, but another very important thing that made America great is forgotten: A well regulated Militia.
Freedom is linked to the maintenance of a militia, not just a right to keep and bear arms. Coming back to our earlier point on the topic of Demonization of militias. I asked the rhetorical question: Did the militia movement hit on a key weakness of the statists? It's my opinion that it did.
Normally Liberty, Security and Peace are three different things, and the welfare-warfare state despises all three of them because its revenue depends on propagation of fear and war. Nobody denies that the Libertarian party is the most pro-freedom party in America. But a lot of people are simply not interested in freedom. Some place Security above Liberty, others place Peace over liberty.
Patrick Henry said, "Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty god. I know not what course others may take, as for me give me Liberty or give me Death."
Sadly a large percentage of the population would say that life is dearer than liberty and peace is sweeter than freedom. Statists know that in the face of huge opposition it would take the Libertarian Party decades to turn ordinary citizens into liberty lovers like Patrick Henry. Statists also know that they would break down the resolve of lot of libertarians in this large time period. Thus the Libertarian Party was just brushed aside by them.
During the mid 90's Militias were popping up all over the country. In reality militias were defensive in nature, and the people who promoted violence were mostly agent provocateurs sent by Globalists. Why would the people who control the media who knew militias weren't dangerous portray them as such? Maybe because Militias offered a three in one deal to the citizens: Liberty, Security and Peace.
Now an ordinary person might choose security over liberty, but people in America are still pro-freedom. If they could get both of them, they would surely take it. If the militia movement had succeeded this is what the people would have got. The rank and file Liberals would also have realized that instead of a world full of standing armies under the control of politicians, a world full of national citizen militias would be a much safer and more peaceful world.
That is what, in my opinion, had the elites of the neo-conservative movement and the liberal establishment wetting their pants. A Militia can clear off the gangs without much trouble. Militias can stop the Tyranny. Militias can stop any invading foreign army. That is why it was necessary for them to demonize the militia movement before people realized that if they wanted Liberty, Security and Peace all at once then only one institution could provide such: A well regulated Militia.
I was disappointed at the CATO Institute's report that people have no right to form into a militia. The First Amendment protects the right to peaceably assemble. The Second amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms, and the Ninth Amendment protects all other rights including right to self-defense. Combining these three rights one can draw a logical inference that a group of people have a right to come together; and furthermore, have a right to individual as well as collective self-defense.
Article 1 Section 8 of the Constitution clearly lists: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." Notice the precise words used. It lists to provide for calling forth the militia. Now it would be ridiculous to assume that the militia, that is all of the people, are not to train but are to wait until the last moment of invasion. Thus we can assume that the training of the militia is to be left in the hands of the militia itself. That means any laws against paramilitary training would be unconstitutional.
So far I explored the reason why the militia might be demonized, but what is going to be the future of the militia?
Consider the fact that on CNN they tried to link the Michigan Militia to Al Qaeda saying that the Michigan Militia was down in South America in 1985. But the Michigan Militia was formed in early or mid nineties. Clearly on a channel such as CNN they could not make such a mistake. It was done on purpose.
In the Denver spy file case, the Libertarian Party was written up as a "militia" group. Now anybody with a brain the size of a pea can see that the Libertarian Party is the most peaceful party in the United States. Again it was not a mistake.
Patrick Henry said, "I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past." I was just a kid when the Reichstag - oops - I meant OKC happened, but most of the readers might remember it well. According to what I gather, there was a huge backlash against the Right Wing in general and militias and constitutionalists in particular.
Alex Jones suggested on his radio show that people instead of calling themselves militia call themselves something that would be very hard for media to demonize. Say for example Civilian Defense Forces. Civilian Defense Forces can do a variety of things, from volunteering in community events like blood drives to get favorable coverage from the media to educating the local kids about the Constitution. But mainly the Civilian Defense Force can train themselves and others to defend the civilians (their Life, Liberty and Property) against enemies foreign and domestic, without being demonized by the media.
The above two examples (CNN and Denver Spy Case) might serve as Red Flags of things likely to come. The biggest threat to Globalist Tyranny or the New World Order is the freedom movement. They know it, and they are not denying it. Indeed the Globalists might create a crisis sooner or later, a crisis of large magnitude to generate emotions of fear among the people, and then blame it on the Radical Right, and lest you forget, that includes the Libertarians.
The times that try the soul of men are coming...