The Battlefield and the Citizen Soldier

President Obama stated, “A lot of gun owners would agree that AK-47s belong in the hands of soldiers, not in the hands of criminals — that they belong on the battlefield of war, not on the streets of our cities.”

I agree with his assessment that those weapons should be in the hands of the soldier, the ‘citizen soldier’, the Militiaman, whose role is “necessary to the security of a free State”.

Let’s remember some very important points of fact when we hear the president’s words since he speaks not only from experience, but also his agenda.

1. His administration has plainly stated that the US is now part of the battlefield in the “war on terror”, therefore making places such as New York City a part of the theater of war.
2. “Fast and Furious” enforces that statement by placing thousands of weapons in the hands of drug cartels that have made our border with Mexico a battlefield where thousands have been murdered over the last few years, including some of our own LEO’s.
3. That our borders have been opened to millions of undocumented, and illegal immigrants whose identities, and what plans they may have are not readily known, some known terrorists.

Those “assault weapons”, of which the president speaks, need to be manned by someone other than thugs, or domestic and foreign enemies. That someone should be the individual in his constitutional role as a member of the “Organized Militia”, or those of the un-organized Militia. World history demands it, and the Second Amendment, which prevents congress, or anyone else for that matter, from infringing on “the right of the people to keep and bear arms”, is mandated through the Constitution, and the states Militia Act’s.

The need for the Militiaman should go without saying since it is government that instigates wars, often without our approval. War, once it has begun can take any form, including an undefined battlefield as the enemy may, at any time, take the fight to our very doorsteps.

If as commander-in-chief his statement was to call us to arms, then he is indeed leading us in the right direction, and we should all be looking to acquire an AK type weapon. If the president was not calling forth the Militia, then we should ask the question; does our great leader intend to leave us defenseless from a threat that he himself has made evident by the expansion of Homeland Security, the NDAA, or the myriad of other rules and regulations that have been set in place?

Why did the Colonists have a Militia? Why did our Founders deem the Militia so important as to make it a vital part of our Constitution, and the fundamental, and inherent law enforcement arm of the People?

One reason was to guarantee the People’s ability to resist tyranny without fear of being outgunned by the tyrant. The tyrant is obviously well armed and increasing that capacity by orders of magnitude.

Another reason would be to defend the nation against foreign invasion, taking into consideration that our own militaristic actions around the globe could very well be cause for such an event. How would we face an invading army if we were allowed only the use of muzzleloaders?

Our nation is more than capable of withstanding the actions of one, or maybe two invaders, as long as we have a well-armed citizenry. Admiral Isoroku Yamamoto is credited with saying “You cannot invade the mainland United States. There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass.” 

However, it appears more likely that the enemy stalks the halls of government rather than a battlefield 10,000 miles away. Currently we are facing the dismantling of Posse Comitatus, and we may very well be placed in a position that forces us to confront a standing army that is conducting searches on our streets and highways.

The president by his statements on the possession of an “assault weapon”, hunting, and self defense has made it clear that he has no understanding of why we have a Second Amendment, and why the individual must be armed with a military style weapon.

Or is he simply promoting a lie that many Americans believe; we the People have no right to defend ourselves from the transgressions of government.

There are after all many who argue that self-protection against the government is a ridiculous notion without merit. Our Forefathers thought otherwise. “I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past”, and if not only the past, but also the present does not cause us to think, I fear for the well-being of my children, and their children.

I would much rather place my faith in what the Constitution says rather than what someone with a black robe, or ‘control freak’ mayor interprets in order to establish their own agenda.

Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15 states, “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”. The Constitution does not say that the army should repel invasions because the Founders limited the means to keep a standing army, “but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years”.

The colonists had enough experience in the matter so that men such as George Mason debated for the importance of the individuals “right to keep and bear arms”. Mason wrote, “That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”

Mason was not the only Virginian who understood the need for the citizen to be armed. Thomas Jefferson said, “Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”

So when we’ve studied the enumerated powers of the Constitution, the Second Amendment, and the writings of our Founders, we find that there was a consensus that it is ‘the People’ that must be armed, and that there was an inherent fear of standing armies, and powerful governments.

If the Constitution clearly names the Militia and its function, where is it today? There are no amendments to the Constitution that repealed the mandate and the function of the Militia.

The Militia stands idle because there is not a state legislature, nor governor who will revitalize the institution. The Militia as it was instituted would have no choice but to arrest “under probable cause”, the majority of those in government who have abandoned their oath of office.

So the question should be, who is the real enemy of our state?

Is it the elusive terrorist across the globe that lives in a cave, or straps bombs to his body in a desperate attempt to stop invaders from massacring women and children?

Is it the Chinese to whom we’ve sold untold military secrets?

Is it the Russian’s who keep telling us to stop our aggressive maneuvers near their borders?

Perhaps it is the UN whose disarmament agenda of people’s around the globe is responsible for the slaughter of hundred’s of thousands, possibly millions, of people?

Even more ominous is the thought that the real enemies are those people we elect to represent us; the bureaucrats they enlist to “eat out our sustenance”, or the judges we assign to protect our rights.

Our rights are sacred, and we should not let them go easily no matter what century it is, or what proclamations are made by some celebrity, or a pretender to office, as “[T]he right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave.” –John Adams

‘Nick’