When Militias are Outlawed, Only Outlaws Will Have Militias
Richard Poe
November 10, 1999
"We've got to dismantle the NRA," urges filmmaker Spike Lee.
"It's time to rethink [the Second Amendment]..." says Mia
Farrow. "I think [the Second Amendment] is in the
Constitution so we can have muskets when the British people
come over in 1800," opines talk-show host Rosie O'Donnell.
It's unanimous. The chic, the pompous, the fashionable and
the trendy have ruled on Americans' right to keep and bear
arms. And they've decided we don't need it. Even conservative
pundit George Will has joined the chorus. "Whatever right the
Second Amendment protects is not as important as it was 200
years ago..." he says.
But why isn't it? What has changed, in America, to obviate
the need for a citizen's militia, that once-proud institution
bequeathed to us by our Founding Fathers?
The standard answer is that redcoats and Indians no longer
threaten us. Maybe not, but these were never the gravest
threats to our liberty anyway. In his book That Every Man Be
Armed, constitutional scholar Stephen P. Halbrook
demonstrates that, during the drafting of the Second
Amendment, what worried the Framers most was the danger that
our own government might run amok.
The Framers differed only in their opinions on how best to
counter this threat. The Federalists claimed that the problem
would solve itself, since the militia - consisting of all
able-bodied men, ages 16 through 60 - would overthrow any
tyranny that arose.
"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by
the sword," argued Noah Webster, "because the whole body of
the people are armed..."
The anti-Federalists, however, pointed out that Congress
could disband the general militia and replace it with a
"select militia", loyal only to the government. "When a
select militia is formed; the people in general may be
disarmed," warned John Smilie at the Pennsylvania convention.
To prevent this from happening, the anti-Federalists demanded
a Bill of Rights, which would guarantee, among other things,
an unalienable right to keep and bear arms. "The great object
is that every man be armed...," declared Patrick Henry.
"Everyone who is able may have a gun." Congress would thus be
powerless to disband the militia.
In theory, we still have a militia today, which the Supreme
Court defined as "all males physically capable of acting in
concert for the common defense" (United States vs. Miller,
1939). But most of our "militiamen" no longer bother to arm
themselves or to drill in units.
We have surrendered that responsibility to a "select militia"
of National Guardsmen, Army reservists, FBI SWAT teams and
Delta Force commandos. Just as the anti-Federalists
predicted, our failure to exercise our militia rights has
resulted in a rapid erosion of those rights. If the current
drive to ban assault weapons is successful, U.S. citizens
will be stripped, for the first time, of the right to keep
and bear military arms.
"Well, so what?" argue the gun abolitionists. "Assault rifles
are dangerous. If everyone had one, our streets would be war
zones."
But would they? That hasn't happened in Switzerland. There,
every able-bodied man between the ages of 20 and 42 serves in
the militia, and is required by law to keep a Sturmgewehr 90
assault rifle at home, ready for action.
While the rest of Europe reels from wars, riots, ethnic
cleansings, tumbling governments, terrorism and crime waves,
the Swiss enjoy peace, prosperity and a crime rate lower than
England's.
What about the threat of tyranny, so real and troubling to
our Founding Fathers? Don't we need a militia to guard
against aspiring Caesars? No, say the gun-grabbers.
"I do not see a time when we Americans will need our guns at
home to stage a coup to reclaim our democracy," writes
muckraker Jack Anderson, in his anti-gun screed Inside the
NRA.
Let us pray Anderson is correct. But his own writings belie
Anderson's optimism. In 1984, he reported a serious attempt
by General Louis O. Giuffrida to usurp our democracy.
Giuffrida was then head of the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA), empowered with coordinating government
responses to emergencies. According to Anderson, Giuffrida
rewrote the rules to give FEMA - and thus himself -
near-dictatorial power, in the event of a crisis.
Giuffrida prepared "stand-by" legislation enabling the White
House, in times of peril, to suspend the Bill of Rights,
confiscate property, nationalize industry and censor all
communications. FEMA would then be appointed to run the
country.
Major media ignored Anderson’s sensational charges. But
Giuffrida soon resigned amid a flurry of petty allegations
ranging from sweetheart deals with contractors to paying his
wife's travel expenses with government funds.
Giuffrida may be gone, but contingency plans for martial rule
continue to proliferate. Some of these plans may include the
use of "select militias", of just the sort the
anti-Federalists feared.
In a February 26, 1985 article in the Village Voice, James
Ridgeway reported that Giuffrida advocated the creation of
"state defense forces" of armed volunteers, under the
authority of "state area commands" (STARCS). Charged with
keeping order during emergencies, these irregular units could
easily evolve into Latin American-style death squads.
Should it ever be implemented, Giuffrida's vision of "state
defense forces" would fulfill the direst warnings of the
anti-Federalists; a "select militia", under federal
authority, preying at will on a disarmed populace.
"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty," warned
Patrick Henry. "...nothing will preserve it but downright
force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined."
Through an endless series of gun-control "compromises", we
Americans have come perilously close to the "ruin" that
Patrick Henry predicted. Yet there is hope. The Swiss have
proved that a well-trained and well-equipped militia can
defend a modern state. For a generation stricken with
"Private Ryan" guilt, the rebuilding of our lawful and
constitutionally-mandated militia would be a worthy project
indeed.
___________________________________________________
Richard Poe is a freelance journalist and a New York
Times-bestselling author. His latest book is WAVE 4. Poe's
Website appears at RichardPoe.com.
All Rights Reserved © NewsMax.com
Bard
"The preservation of the sacred fire of liberty and the destiny
of the republican model of government are justly considered
deeply, finally, staked on the experiment entrusted to the
hands of the American people."
George Washington, First Inaugural Address, Apr. 30, 1789
What will you do when they come to take your guns??
Called by the F.B.I. "the most dangerous book in print", if the government
had the power to ban books, this one would be at the top of their lists. Of
course, the book is NOT a blueprint for terrorism, but rather a look at one
possible scenario of the future of America if the present insane policies of
our ZOG government are continued.
_The Turner Diaries _ , by Dr. William Pierce is now BACK ON LINE. I do not
know if this is an authorized website or not. The last time a similar site
was threatened with legal action and taken down.
However, if you want to preview an on-line e-version for free, here
it is:
http://www.propatria.org/patriot88/turner/intro.html
For those of you who can afford it, the book can be purchased directly from
the author's site and in bulk at discount at:
http://www.natall.com
Tripp
------------------------------------------------------------------------
eGroups.com Home: http://www.egroups.com/group/theeagle-l/
http://www.egroups.com - Simplifying group communications
