0 votes

Get It Straight: Self-Defense Militias Are NOT BAD

Basic common sense, along with the laws of natural life, and also righteously codified in the reminders that were the founding documents, all point to the BASIC conclusion that self-defense militias - meaning loosely organized free individuals prepared to defend their lives, liberties and property, can only be viewed as bad by those who intend to COMMIT AGGRESSION against such free people.

If a so-called "militia" were to be performing acts of aggression, yes, that would be problematic and worthy of popular outcry, as well as more forceful DEFENSE against it.

However, if people simply form groups of free association based on mutual SELF DEFENSE, how on earth could any right thinking individual have a problem with this?

Militias were written into the Bill of Rights for a reason, they are the PEOPLE'S TRUE DEFENSE. Those who are systematically attacking groups of people interested in defending themselves are the real ones peaceful people need to be wary of.

Those who are Anti-Constitution and Anti-Freedom and Anti-Self Defense will try to subvert the meaning of the word "militia", but the fact of the matter is, the defense of the people is ultimately up to themselves and this is in fact Constitutional and beyond righteous.

Enough of the nonsense already.

Trending on the Web

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

there are more than you

there are more than you think


"When governments fear the people there is liberty. When the people fear the government there is tyranny."
-Thomas Jefferson

I am more concerned about the return of my money than the return on my money. --Mark Twain

well said

spot on.....

i agree

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement” - Thomas Jefferson

Official Daily Paul BTC address: 16oZXSGAcDrSbZeBnSu84w5UWwbLtZsBms
Rand Paul 2016

I agree to a point

The Constitution does put restrictions on a "militia" in that it has to be well-regulated. Now, that is open to a lot of interpretation of course. I agree that anyone can form groups for self-defense, a neighborhood, a collection of farms, whatever. But, the other condition, according to the Constitution, is that a militia exists to protect a free state - again open to interpretation - but most people interpret this as protecting the state you live in. I agree we should be careful with terms, but I don't think my family joining another family nextdoor and agreeing to give protection rights to each other makes us a "militia". We just have an agreement to extend self-defense rights to each others' property.

Most states have a militia which meets all the conditions. The use of the term by the MIAC Report, for instance, is a misuse of the term - another one of my compliants about that document that the State Police officials agreed with. The terms "militia" and "paramilitary" are non synonymous.

"We are the inheritors of the American Enlightenment, which tells us that Individual Liberty always trumps collectivism in all forms."

"In the beginning of a change the patriot is a scarce man, and brave, and hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."--Mark Twain


the government/police/zionist banker and lobby/ monarchy wasn't so wicked, they wouldn't be afraid of militias to begin with.
They feel fear all around them even though they are not being threatened. All of the bribery, theft, murder, and torture they are guilty of is poisoning their souls and working on their minds like voodoo. And the longer it goes on, the more dangerous they will become.

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

"Tyrants fear nothing more than insubordination"

"It's just one big club... and WE ain't in it!"

Totally agreed


O.P.O.G.G. - Fighting the attempted devolution of the rEVOLution
Ron Paul 2012...and beyond