Second Amendment: Do Militias Matter Today?

							Second Amendment: Do Militias Matter
Today?
By Wes Walker
January 11 2013

The role of gun ownership has always been emotionally charged, but Sandy Hook’s news has
again heightened the rhetoric. This debate has spilled over and has become international.
Anti-gun lobbyists consider the Second
Amendment antiquated, asking what militias
could protect us from today. The pro-gun
side answers: “Tyrants”, citing King George
III, Hitler’s Germany, or another event so
seemingly distant that the argument seems
academic. Even some who want stricter
controls might concede the home-defense
argument. But they would never want Joe
Public armed with the sorts of guns carried
by soldiers and police. Are militias relevant
today?
Do you think it strange that citizens might be
called to grab their gun, and rush to the
defense of their community or region against
some threat? Why is it strange? Small towns
do the same thing with volunteer fire
departments. Bankers, plumbers, or gym
teachers, all become firemen when there’s a
fire raging. You can’t wait for experts to put
out the fire, everybody gets involved. That same principle describes a militia.
The relevant Amendment reads: “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.”
This week, I stumbled on a modern, local parallel to this principle. A judge was complaining about a
Provincial police force refusing to administer a court order. Reading further, I saw the connection.
Now, I need to proceed carefully. The example I’m citing is complex, and explosive. I could not
possibly give the nuanced description that fairness would require. Others can debate who is right and
wrong in the issue itself, I am only presenting a modern example of one effective application of the
principles the Amendment defends.
Remember the taunt, “You and what army?” That’s a defiant reply given when someone tries to force
his will on you. It is also the response to tyranny embedded in the Second Amendment. A lone man
could shoot a prowler in defense of his family. But this other use requires a group standing together,
bearing arms against a threat — its own government, if need be — in mutual defense.
Today, not every group sees government as benign. For historical reasons, some doubt their motives
and promises, old agreements remain disputed, and past wrongs color present-day relations.
That’s why some Canadian Aboriginal groups have chosen to provide for their own protection. This is
seen in periodic shows of force defying government edicts. Roads or railways are blockaded. (This was
the case with Judge David Brown’s injunction for Ontario Police to remove a railway barricade —
which police ignored.) We have had crises with names like Oka, or Caledonia, in which protesters
make it clear they are prepared to use force to achieve their aims.
The Caledonia case is interesting. In 2006, protesters from Six Nations disputed the legality of an
1840’s transaction relating to land now being developed. Protesters camped on the disputed land.
Injunctions were filed, but they didn’t move. Next were roadblocks, burning tires, injuries to local
homeowners — some were life-threatening — and damage to both public and private property on and
around the affected land. The Provincial government proved itself unwilling and/or unable to protect
the property and safety of private citizens
impacted by the dispute.
Unable to resolve the matter, the Province
paid tens of millions in damages to the
property owners/developers, millions
more to the local businesses and
residents, not to mention payouts to Dana
Chatwell and Dave Brown (Google their
story) and others. In 2013, this matter is
still not resolved, yet is largely forgotten
by the public.
Obviously, there are underlying
grievances, precedents, racial tensions, et
cetera, beyond the scope of this brief
description of the events to consider. But
on a basic level, we see how one group
that began what they would consider a
peaceful protest calling attention to what
they considered their lawful rights.
Because they rejected court rulings
against them as non-binding and invalid
(it’s complicated), they used strength of numbers, and sometimes physical force, to defy them.
Ethical considerations and treatment of innocent civilians aside, this tactic was sufficiently effective
that law enforcement did not — could not — force compliance on Six Nations protesters.

Contrast that to the disorganized, unarmed citizens of Caledonia, including but not limited to Dave
Brown (arrested for “trespassing” on his own land), and “The Caledonia 8” (arrested without charge for
wanting to walk down a street with a protest sign in August 2012). Locals even tried forming a militia
(in 2009) to protect the interests their law enforcement wouldn’t, but this was unsuccessful.
This is obviously an imperfect analogy to militias — especially because militias would typically defend
their community, rather than displacing their
neighbors. But strictly as a deterrent to the
government use of force, this example of a group
willing and able to defend its interests forced
government officials to change their tactics. Locals
allege that government and law enforcement began
using “kid gloves” in their dealings with Six Nations,
but not with other Caledonians.
Suppose we find ourselves facing a government
flagrantly abusing police powers over its citizens.
Which of these groups will sleep soundly at night?
The moral of the story is this: Armed citizens are able
to protect their rights, whether or not their
governments acknowledge them.
AMERICA BE READY THE RED COATS ARE NOT COMING THEIR ALREADY HERE
THE BANKSTERS FROM THE FEDERAL RESERVE HAVE HIJACKED OUR NATION AND
GOVERNMENT BE PREPARED WAR IS COMING BUT LET THEM PUSH FIRST THEN
THE SLEEPING GIANT WILL PUSH LAST WE WILL WIN GOD IS ON OUR SIDE GET
READY FOOD, AMMO, GUNS, AND GET RIGHT WITH GOD PEACE AND MY GOD
BLESS OUR REPUBLIC


  http://www.infowars.com/