Disturbing comment by a "senior Bush administration official"

[Pebcac]

From an article regarding Hezbollah, Lebanon, and Syrian involvement:

"Syria must get out, and Lebanon must have unfettered elections, then Hezbollah must disarm. ... There is no place for an armed militia in a democratic society." (emphasis mine)

While I realize that the person is most likely talking about terrorist organizations, and I might very likely be reading too much into the statement, I don't think the Founders would agree with the italicized section of that comment. In fact, I should think they would argue the exact opposite.

Foreign soldiers? No question that they gotta get the hell out and let those people vote how they want. But armed militias are how people protect themselves from tyranny--internal and external--when their governments have failed them. Given that Lebanon is practically in a state of anarchy, what can those of us on the outside really expect?

The way the comment was structured just suggests to me that, regardless of the circumstances, governments (including our own, regardless of what the Constitution says or the Founders wrote) consider any armed body of men not part of the standing army to be a threat. It seems to me that there is a continuing attempt to associate evil things with militias. If it's a bunch of terrorists, call them that, not militias.

Original article here: CNN.com

 

[PaleRyder]

Republicans have voted to take our gun rights away right alongside the Dems.
I don't know why this statement would surprise anyone.

 

[OF]

I'm sure they were referring to an armed terrorist faction within the society controlling the direction of things through violence, as opposed to an armed citizenry ready to defend themselves from oppression. Night and day.

The Bush administration is on record with more pro-2nd Amendment rhetoric, findings and studies than who knows how many past administrations combined.

Now we have a Sec of State who is a self-described "2nd Amendment purist" as well as a justice dept. that reversed the existing BS and declared the 2nd an individual right, via policy.

We're not getting everything we want out of them, but it's a big step in the right direction - and if we don't give credit where it is due, we're likely to find our allies in the administration feeling 'underappreciated' for taking the stands they have.

- Gabe

 

[cuchulainn]

Gabe's on target

When discussing matters from that part of the world, the term militia refers to the followers of warlords, not the populace from which an army could be drawn.

It's as if Bush said, "Drugs have no place in civilized society." That wouldn't mean he wanted to outlaw aspirin and Tums.

 

[Pebcac]

When discussing matters from that part of the world, the term militia refers to the followers of warlords, not the populace from which an army could be drawn.

That's my problem with it. I wish they would pick a term other than "militia." Whenever you see "militia" used by the press or by a government official, there's always a negative connotation, and I don't see them limiting that usage to the rougher corners of the world. The mountain-man tinfoil-hat guys who use the term to describe themselves don't help, either.

I would just like to see the term used where it's seen as a good thing, like the Founders did when they included it in the Second Amendment.

Just to be clear, I don't mean to equate the guys at Lexington and Concord with the fanatical maniacs spraying automatic weapons fire about the streets of Beirut. My point is that, by using the term "militia" in regards to those nut-jobs, the waters are muddied. IMHO, we are fast approaching a time where the term will exclusively be applied to armed whackos, and the Second will lose some strength because of those not able to see through the rhetoric.

Edited to add: Re-reading my original post, I realize that my point wasn't very clear. That's what I get for typing as I think, rather than organizing my thoughts and then typing them out.

 

[USAFNoDAk]

I think we need to keep in mind that we, as peacable and armed citizens, are not supposed to form our own militias without being called out by govt. or law enforcement officials. If the SRHTF, all bets are off.

Even in the US, you don't see bands of armed people taking the law into their own hands, nor do we see bands of armed people taking law breaking into their own hands (with the exception of gang members possibly). I think this is what was being referred to, though the statement maker could have chosen the words more wisely.

If we had violent thugs running around with arms, I think most of us would want those thugs disarmed and arrested. Is Hezbollah being sanctioned, trained, and given orders by the Lebaneze govt.? If not, then they are operating outside of what we in the US would claim to be lawful militia activities.

Just my .02 worth.

 

[Pebcac]

I think we need to keep in mind that we, as peacable and armed citizens, are not supposed to form our own militias without being called out by govt. or law enforcement officials.

I don't think that's always the case. To the Founders, militias existed in large part to serve as a check against one's own government. Now, I'm not advocating that people maintain standing militias, but I disagree that a militia must wait for some National Guard-style call-up.

Even in the US, you don't see bands of armed people taking the law into their own hands

Not often, but it does happen. For example, there was the Battle of Athens.

Like I said, I realize that the guy was talking about Hezbollah terrorists when he used the term, and I don't mean to suggest that those terrorists are a legitimate militia. I think the term was likely chosen because, to most in government, "militia" is a bad word that applies to such terrorists rather than to citizens collectively defending their rights by force. Rather than stating that an armed band has no place at all in a democracy as the official did, I submit that a true militia composed of the good men of that country could help restore law and order until there is an official body available and willing to do so. It's idealistic, yes, but it happened in this country nearly 250 years ago, and I do not believe that it is impossible that it ever happen again.