How are America's militia groups responding to the current insurgency?

I am impressed that the groups that talk loudest about freedom want to overthrow a democratic government and assume some sort of authoritarian, which they will angrily deny is authoritarian because it supports their own views.

Impressed, as in “impressed negatively.”

Historically, we have been there and done that. And we don’t want it again. But at least the current manifestation of fascism in the USA does not have a charismatic up and coming leader. Trump may have charisma among his supporters, but the only thing that seems to be up and coming is his senile dementia, which is becoming obvious whenever he makes an unscripted statement.

I believe the only mention of the word “militia” in the Constitution has the phrase “well regulated” in front of it. Any group that assumes to carry out law enforcement or national defense without the sanction of government is illegal. Posing as a member of the military or law enforcement is also illegal.

We should really be referring to them as paramilitary groups.

Actually, the base text of the constitution (prior to 2nd Amendment) mentions the militia a couple of times, specifically in the context of being called out by the government to suppress insurrections or invasions or enforce law.

The people’s militia contemplated in the constitution thus exists, as the 2nd Amendment reads, “for the security of a free state” not, contrary to their delusional myth, as its own self-destruct system.


Agh, not enough time to edit a single piece

Their Constitution is just a worship-object, a venerated icon they parade around as a form of invocation against evils.

They’re the Yangs from the old Star Trek episode, just repeating it without even recognizing the words used or what they mean, just a way to proclaim “behold, OUR way is THE God-given way” even though it doesn’t say that anywhere. (Much as many of them do with their Bibles, come to think of it…)

Heck, "revolt against “tyranny” is not in the constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence, that does not even list it as a “right” but expounds it as a justified action.

Technically there is also the Militia Act unorganized militia, which is essentially all able-bodied male citizens or citizen candidates between 17 and 45.

In a different thread I did suggest a revision of the 2d-A whereby I’d sustain the personal right to keep and bear arms, but explicitly require any organized militia or paramilitary unit to be sworn to the constitutional authority.

That seems to me like the Romans employing those Visigoths.

What laws are they breaking? Unauthorized, yes. Bit “illegal” means breaking a law. These right wing paramilitary groups do not seem to be breaking any law simply by existing, in fact they seem covered by the Constitution.

If they were illegal, you’d see people arrested just for belonging. Please point me to such a arrest?

But they arent illegal, and you cant make simply belonging to a group illegal, or else they would have made belonging to the Communist Party illegal in the 50’s.

Unauthorized, yes.

That is true, but no one considers that.

The “militias” are illegal; not necessarily the idiots calling their not-militias that. If they try to execute the duties of a real militia then they are breaking the law.


The Militia act seems to make them somewhat legal.

Please give me a example of a militia group cited for being illegal, cites of arrests, etc.

Indeed. That would be the “people’s militia” the framers contemplated, that can be called up by the government – deputized in posses, or pressed in a draft – to defend the country or suppress insurrections. Not to act of their own initiative against the same state.

Not really, since it’s our own citizens involved, and it’s not about outsourcing to the private militias, but saying explicitly that if organized, the militia or paramilitary must obey public authority. Mind you, it’s a float of a desired constitutional change.

Yes, the acts of a right wing paramilitary “militia” can certainly be illegal. but not simpley belonging to one.

The bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City was a terrible tragedy, but as I addressed above, did not result in any permanent damage to democratic governance as a whole, and in fact was counterproductive to the anti-government and associated white nationalist movements in focusing law enforcement attention upon them which remained until the September 11, 2001 attacks. The point I was trying to make is that the real danger is not individual riots that Trump instigates or singular terror attacks that may rise from small groups, but that someone more skilled and disciplined in organizing and planning a nationalist campaign could see the support Trump has garnered with his inept demagoguery and grasp how readily a substantial portion of the population would sway to a skilled fascistic movement.


No permanent damage to democratic government as a whole - likely. But from my perspective, it directly and immediately led to a significant reduction of the “openness” of government, and an increase in the militarization of LEOs.

Sure, both took off like crazy following 9/11, but immediately after OK City, access to all manner of buildings was drastically curtailed, bollards were installed, doors locked, magnetometers installed, more police present more blatantly armed…

I think such responses “primed the pump” for gross overreach in the aftermath of 9/11.

Which I also noted above in Post #8 as the real threat; that an attack could be used to justify the erosion of civil liberties and increase police authority without oversight as happened after the Reichstag Fire. But the militia groups themselves, while some are well armed, populated with veterans with combat experience, and intent on damage, can’t themselves overthrow federal or state governments, or even maintain an extended siege against military response; it is the possibility that someone who is a more skilled leader than Trump, surrounded by competent conspirators, could organize these groups into a concerted force akin to the Schutzstaffel and the Sturmabteilung.


Sorry - should slow down and read more carefully.

An well organized military movement with enough popular support can also engage in good old-fashioned guerrilla and asymmetric warfare. That is civil war, of course, beyond even Brownshirt level.

What are they doing? Loading magazines, breaking out their best camo outfits, cleaning their AR 15s and pumping themselves up. That said, I think most of these wannabe SEALs are too chicken shit to actually do something, That still leaves a significant number who have been waiting their whole lives to go shoot some commies/socialists/libs/Muslims/Jews/democrats/blacks and anyone who happens to be in the line of fire.Hopefully, a massive show of force will dissuade them.

“Somewhat legal”.
How reassuring.

Just to be clear here, the argument is that the illegal part is that they call themselves a militia, right? On the same principle that if you call yourself a cop and you aren’t one that’s illegal?

If so, my counterargument is that you’re only breaking the law if you seem to be trying to fool people into thinking you’re a cop and take advantages of the benefits of the assumed authority. Children who play cops and robbers are not committing felonies, nor are people who play policemen in movies and television shows.

So the question becomes whether these so-called militias are trying to convince people that they’re official agents of the US government or the US military. And I think the answer to that question is a flat ‘no’.

There’s also a question of militias trying to perform the functions of police or military; that’s not cool.

And yes, some, like Ammon Bundy’s People’s Rights, are trying to do that or at least stating that as their intentions.