Stop calling them “militia men”

Heavily armed domestic terrorists have occupied a wildlife preserve in Oregon and invited other extremists to take up arms and join the movement. Calling themselves “patriots” the followers of Cliven Bundy are protesting the impending imprisonment of two ranchers on arson charges. The anti-government radical leader has long challenged restrictions on grazing his cattle on Federal land.So if I understand this. They want to use federal land for grazing cattle but do not want to pay for the use of that land.  I may not be in the USA right now, but in pretty much any country, isn’t that stealing? 

Neither the human rights organizations that track domestic hate groups, nor those of us who are concerned with violent extremism are surprised by this latest development. We are, however, puzzled by one thing: Why do virtually all media outlets dignify these people by calling them “militiamen?” They are terrorists, pure and simple.The contemporary ‘citizens militia’ movement has appropriated and perverted the concept of militias in use at the time of the American Revolution. Lacking a regular army, the colonists initially relied on local bodies of armed citizens to resist tyranny. Despite their celebrated stands at Lexington and Concord, however, militiamen fared poorly against British regulars. The Continental Congress quickly established a conventional army. Militias did play an important role in winning American Independence, but only when they operated under proper authority and in support of regular troops.

The new American Republic was understandably leery of creating a large standing army in peace time, having seen how such forces had been used in Europe to suppress freedom. Its founders, therefore, wrote militias into their new constitution. The much debated second amendment declares that: “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.” Gun rights advocates are fond of quoting the second clause in this sentence while ignoring the first. It would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of the term “well-regulated.” Militias always operated under government authority, usually that of the state. In case of national emergency, state militias could be brought under command of the small regular army, as they were at the outbreak of the Civil War.

Militias are thus the ancestors of the modern National Guard, not of self-proclaimed “patriots” who show utter contempt for any form of authority beyond themselves. The extremists playing solider in the woods of Oregon are at best criminals and at worst domestic terrorists, and they need to be identified as such. Fighting extremism requires contesting ideology as much as combating organizations. These people must, therefore, be denied even the shred of legitimacy they try to claim.

About tretrosi2013

Gymnastics Coach, Gymnastics Educator, Part time stand up comic.
This entry was posted in Politics and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Stop calling them “militia men”

  1. James Linderholm says:

    They want to change the law, and they are demonstrating, protesting, in furtherance of their cause: the return of federal lands to private or state control. So far, so good. That would be no different from any other public demonstration. Good for them – civil disobedience in furtherance of one’s goal is a time-honored tradition in America.

    The difference here is that they are armed to the teeth and they are asking volunteers to come armed and ready to shoot at anyone who wants to end their trespass. They want a civil war. As such, they are dangerous criminals, not protesters.

    How would we react if the protesters who shut down the Mall of America, or those who closed Michigan Avenue recently, were armed to the teeth and telling people to join them and bring guns and fight to the death if anyone tried to stop them?

    More importantly, if they are allowed to do this, where will the next protest movement go? If it’s ok for white ranchers to make armed threats against the government because they don’t like their situation, what’s to stop anyone else?

    In fact, what’s the real difference between them and a the terrorists in San Bernardino who also decided guns are the answer when you don’t like what America does? The ony difference is that these terrorists haven’t killed anyone – yet.

    • tretrosi2013 says:

      I am perhaps being too cynical when I think that the news outlets would be all over this demanding the government rush in or that “good guys with guns” should have stopped them if the color of their skin was slightly more brown.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s