Missed the edit window; that firsts sentence should read:
There’s also a question of militias trying to perform the functions of police or military while openly not being part of either; that’s not cool.
Here’s another take on this running word-battle about “militia”.
I think most of us can agree that many right-leaning Americans in these recent years are not conservative. Instead they’re reactionary. Continuing to use the work “conservative” to describe someone trying to overthrow a 2+ century old government is a nonsense. “Conservative” might be a name, but it’s no longer an apt, descriptive name. Instead it’s become a misleading name.
So it’s past time to stop misusing the word “conservative” and call the radical right what it is: “reactionary”. And never ever use the word “conservative” as an adjective or as a noun for those radicals. There certainly are still such people who are “conservatives”. They just aren’t the people we’ve been misusing the label on.
Now on to “militia”.
The word “militia” in the constitution, and in the law, describes an armed, organized, government controlled, “pro-social” (or at least pro-law) force.
Using that word as a label for armed rabble intent on vigilante violence (or at least the threat thereof) for political, racial, or religious reasons is not an apt descriptive name. Instead it’s a misleading name. In fact it’s a deliberately misleading name. Exactly zero of the self-styled “militias” actually fit the legal definition of government controlled, government sanctioned armed groups.
So it’s past time to stop misusing the word “militia” and call the armed vigilante groups what they are: “guerrillas”. And never ever use the word “militia” as an adjective or as a noun for these guerrillas. There certainly is such a thing as a “militia”. The National Guard is one example but there are others. They just aren’t the people we’ve been misusing the label on.
True.
Additionally, almost all able bodied white men were considered to be part of the militia when needed.
I don’t insist on my own nomenclature, but the National Guard seems to me at least as foreign to the original militia concept as the right-wing American militia movement.
I agree with you about misuse of the word conservative to describe revolutionary reactionaries.
Ultimately, giving positive-sounding names to decidedly bad things can only serve to camoflage the harm they can potentially, or actually, do.
There is psychological research that gave experimental audiences real historical forecasts about impending hurricanes, just changing the date to soon, the location to nearby, and with false storm names. The study showed that male named hurricanes were viewed as much more dangerous than the exact same forecast attached to a female name. And that cuter, more youthful sounding female names were judged less dangerous yet.
Hint people: a hurricane doesn’t give one shit what name you call it. But human nature is not be denied.
Euphemisms work. At least until almost everybody is in on the joke. The sooner we stop euphemising this cancer in our midst the sooner the sleeping majority will wake up and take notice.
Nope. There were private militias and very much definitely private privateers. Government licensed, perhaps.
And the NG is no longer a Militia, it is part of the armed services under federal control.
However, several states still have their own militias.
You are correct in that most of the right wing, white supremacist “Militias” are no more a “militia” than the KKK. I suppose there might be some that arent reactionary bigots. I know a gun club that used to call it itself a “militia” until that term got misused.
1a : a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
b : a body of citizens organized for military service
2 : the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
3 : a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology
specifically : such a group that aims to defend individual rights against government authority that is perceived as oppressive
I don’t see it as beneficial to deny the actual definitions of things. The so-called conservative insurrectionists are not conservative, but the militias are militias.
The thing is, though, is there anybody who think that “militia” is actually a good term? In my mind its primary definition is “mob of gun-crazy psychopaths”. I don’t see how calling a militia a militia softens their image or legitimizes them.
Folks saying that these people can’t cause permanent damage need to be reminded that the folks they kill ain’t gonna be dead temporarily.
They claim it because it lets them to appeal to the fantasy that they represent The Militia. Remember, they imagine that the 2d-A recognizes a people’s militia to “stand up against tyranny”, when what the Consitution says is the militia is citizens called up for supressing rebellions. Calling themselves “militia” they are using a magic word from the magic document that makes them legit in their own eyes.
I suppose one of the states who still maintains an nonfederal State Militia could seek to pass a state law giving itself exclusive branding for its use as an organizational name and forbidding the creating of the impression that in that state anything but the State Militia and the Militia Act Militia are recognized, but it could not prevent the group from being called “a militia” in casual conversation.
They also imagine that 2A doesn’t include the words “well-regulated” - they’re fucking delusional and which words you use while talking to them won’t matter because they’re going to be twisting and changing your words in their minds anyway.
To humans that aren’t brain damaged, the “militia” in 2A is inextricably attached to the “well-regulated” - it’s a single phrase, “well-regulated militia”. This does not mean that they think that they’re part of a well-regulated militia; it means that they think that the first clause of 2A is utterly irrelevant, and all that matters is that they get to keep and bear arms.
If Hurricane Norris is ever nearby, I’d probably take it seriously.
By association those who object to our form of government have become Fellow Travelers in an insurrectionist movement. “Militia” has become an umbrella designation for armed insurrectionist.
The burden is on the malcontents, militias and gun owners to earn their way out from under the umbrella.
You mean the Texas and other state militias who have been in existence for over a hundred years have to EARN their place? Bullshit.
Of course - the militia system was so discredited during the war with Mexico that it was abandoned by the US military.
The current insurrection is the result of unregulated ad hoc groups calling themselves militias. They are Fellow Travelers in an insurrection and will have to strive to shed the label - because they earned it.
Are you trying to claim that the 20 or so organized and fully regulated state militias are “Fellow Travelers in an insurrection”? Do you have any evidence at all that these regulated state militias had ANYTHING to do with Jan 6th?? I really need a cite for this, because it is patently not true.
I can’t speak for him, but I bet that those well-regulated militias try to distinguish themselves from the various bands of traitors with guns.
Admittedly I may be wrong and they may be totally PR-unaware, but I suspect that at a minimum they say that they’re the militia, as opposed to a militia.
My suspicion is the opposite … any law enforcement agency with more than two members has at least one militia member in its ranks.
Meanwhile, one of the most visible figures in the anti-federal government movement in the Western U.S., Cliven Bundy, expressed dismay that President Trump didn’t stick to his guns after he issued a half-hearted message calling for a peaceful end to the occupation.
The mistake of Law Enforcement was not taking Bundy down hard.
My post clearly addresses unregulated militias.