Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tl00441)

The meaning of the term "militia" has changed almost as drastically as the
symbolism of Thor's Hammer(the swastika).  Just as the swastika was, at
one time, a representation of a good thing, the term "militia" was equally
attributed to a group of citizens who worked together toward good ends.
Patrick is correct.  The militia referred to in the 2nd Amend. is an
organization of sorts with the intent to protect their communities,
states, etc.  In "The Federalist", by Hamilton, he refers to militias as
being "an auxiliary force" to the state.  But, like Thor's Hammer, people
have twisted it and made it into something it is not.  People have taken
the term, "militia", and have given it a bad name.  As Estrella(I think)
said, the organizations which the media gives the name "militias" are not
really militias at all.

Well, that's not entirely true either.  In McVeigh's case, I think that
perhaps the militia he was formerly a part of was actually one of the true
militias.  The media has, as has been pointed out, warped information a
bit so that the blame could be put on the militia itself, rather than
McVeigh.  The facts are that McVeigh was thrown out of the militia before
the bombing, and it was probably his views that got him thrown out in the
first place.  Now, whether the militia threw him out because of his
radical views or because he wanted things done too quickly is still left
to question.  If the case is the latter, then the militia may have put the
ideas into his head, meaning for him to be ready when the "time was
right", but realizing that his tendency to "jump the gun" would put their
plan into jeapordy, they got rid of him.  Its hard to tell, but as for me,
despite my current circumstances, I must give them the benefit of the
doubt.  I still stand by the "innocent until proven guilty" standard of
law.  (The problem we are having here is that no one wants to investigate
anything in order to determine who is the guilty party, and have now begun
to turn things around in order to place the blame on the victim.  I
believe the term used in this case is "victimization", but I'm not quite
sure that's right.)

My friend is writing another letter, in which there is an excerpt from
"The Federalist" which I referred to earlier.  I'm kind of worried about
him, however.  His fear and paranoia have seemed to turn into aggression,
and he now talks about starting a "true militia" which will be recognized
by the state as an auxiliary force.  I don't know if he wants to do this
to threaten the fascists, or if he really feels that the community needs
militia support.  If it is only the latter, I feel I can stand by him.  If
it is both, I will most likely leave his plans to himself.

With regards to my other friends, (the ones directly assaulted by the
militia), they share my views on the matter.  They only want a voice, not
an army.  I feel that we have a strong enough government here, and if we
could cure their blindness, the problems we have could easily be taken
care of in peaceful and legal ways.

---
Jaqi.