# Shouldn't conservatives (esp. 2nd Amendment) support a "civilian security force"? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 5, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-conservatives-esp-2nd-amendment-support-a-civilian-security-force/505453 "2009-08-05T19:05:14Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 7\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 7:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-conservatives-esp-2nd-amendment-support-a-civilian-security-force/505453/1 "2009-08-05T19:05:14Z")
In looking through some of the stuff being espoused by the conservatives I came across another paranoid alarm that claims that the evil Obama is establishing a “civilian security force”. Of course, to them this if further proof that Obama is worse than Hitler. Google “Obama’s civilian security force” and all kinds of stuff comes up. One site shows an ancient picture of Black Panthers with their fists raised. In reading the Second Amendment to the Constitution > [@](#): > > “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.” it would seem that supporters of the Second Amendment should endorse the establishment of a “civilian security force”. That sounds exactly like a “well ordered Militia.” > [@](#): > > From American Heritage Dictionary: > > militia > > - noun > > 1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers. > > 2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency. > > 3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service. Yet, I’m finding that conservatives that are hard-core proponents of Second Amendment rights are attacking Obama for giving them what they insist is their Constitutional right. What gives? He should be their hero for correctly interpreting and implementing the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![MOIDALIZE](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e274bd/32.png) [@MOIDALIZE](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MOIDALIZE)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 7:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-conservatives-esp-2nd-amendment-support-a-civilian-security-force/505453/2 "2009-08-05T19:16:13Z")
I don’t know how this “civilian security force” would operate, but if they imagine that such a group is actually _Obama’s_ civilian praetorians, I can see why they’d be against it. What exactly is a civilian security force? ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-conservatives-esp-2nd-amendment-support-a-civilian-security-force/505453/3 "2009-08-05T19:29:14Z")
Obama said that we should have civilian national security force that isn’t seriously constrained by funding, just as the Department of Defense has a tradition of not having serious budget woes. By civilian security force, Obama was clearly referring to things like diplomats and aid workers that work to defuse foreign threats, rebuild countries after wars, and make friends with other countries to fight terrorism. The right wing went nuts and thought that Obama was referring to a group of brownshirts funded with hundreds of billions of dollars at their disposal. What Obama was talking about has nothing to do with militia, posses, or snitches. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 7:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-conservatives-esp-2nd-amendment-support-a-civilian-security-force/505453/4 "2009-08-05T19:29:36Z")
Look up Presser v. State of Illinois. And then tell me how an organization like the Black Panthers fits the Constitutional and stautory definition of the United States Militia. ---
**Author:** ![R.P.McMurphy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/7993a0/32.png) [@R.P.McMurphy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/R.P.McMurphy)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 7:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-conservatives-esp-2nd-amendment-support-a-civilian-security-force/505453/5 "2009-08-05T19:41:59Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Look up Presser v. State of Illinois. > > And then tell me how an organization like the Black Panthers fits the Constitutional and stautory definition of the United States Militia. What’s that got to do with OP? The conservative wingnuts used an old picture of Black Panthers as a means to inflame. That’s the level they will stoop to in order to inflame. [http://theconservativedominion.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-civilian-army-begins.html](http://theconservativedominion.blogspot.com/2009/03/obamas-civilian-army-begins.html) Another site uses a picture of Nazi youth. Reread the OP. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-conservatives-esp-2nd-amendment-support-a-civilian-security-force/505453/6 "2009-08-05T20:04:21Z")
I couldn’t give two shits for some cite from a wing-nut blog about what the O-man says. His own words out of his mouth was advocating for a civilian security force, separate from the armed forces of the United States. The POTUS as commander-in-chief has extensive resources to provide for the common defense, yada-yada. Why in the hell does he need a “civilian security force” separate from the DoD or DoJ? Or the National Guard and the various state police agencies? This is not the Militia of the United States. Nor any type of law enforcement agency. I don’t care how thin you slice it, it’s still bologna. Under U.S. Code, I am a member of the United States Militia, subject to the laws of the land as provided by the U.S. Constitution. See Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution and the [US. Code.](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html) ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [August 5, 2009, 8:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/shouldnt-conservatives-esp-2nd-amendment-support-a-civilian-security-force/505453/7 "2009-08-05T20:29:44Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > His own words out of his mouth was advocating for a civilian security force, separate from the armed forces of the United States. The POTUS as commander-in-chief has extensive resources to provide for the common defense, yada-yada. Why in the hell does he need a “civilian security force” separate from the DoD or DoJ? Or the National Guard and the various state police agencies? Obama wasn’t talking about armed people. He was talking about State Department, USAID, and similar types of people. Your comments are addressing only paranoid fantasies of right wingers who selectively quoted Obama’s speech in order to make up a scary lie. If one looks just one sentence previous to the line that is commonly quoted in order to scare people, the context is obvious: “And we’re going to grow our Foreign Service, open consulates that have been shuttered and double the size of the Peace Corps by 2011 to renew our diplomacy. We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded.” And [here](http://www.factcheck.org/askfactcheck/is_obama_planning_a_gestapo-like_civilian_national.html) is a [factcheck.org](http://factcheck.org) piece on the issue. They conclude, “This false claim is a badly distorted version of Obama’s call for doubling the Peace Corps, creating volunteer networks and increasing the size of the Foreign Service.”