In defense of the militia

USA Today (Society for the Advancement of Education), July, 1996 by Dave Skinner

A cover story on the militia movement in the U.S. was published in USA Today in January 1996. Mr. Skinner, a defender of the concept, discusses the merits of the militia in the following article. The author indicates that he is not a member of a militia, but "a pro-choice Republican [who fits] the angry white male stereotype almost perfectly inasmuch as I live in a ratty trailer right next to the tracks, drive a 1965 van, belong to the National Rifle Association, and have lots of guns I don't `need.' "

"I ASK, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people," maintained George Mason at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. If Mason were to stand before Congress and make the same pronouncement today, he would be committing political and professional suicide. He would be derided as a hopeless crank, an antediluvian dinosaur ready for the rest home. The voters certainly would send him there next chance they got.

After all, reasonable people reject militias out of hand. Who would wish to be associated with packs of heavily armed blue-collar racists tramping about the local woods, carrying on about secret codes on the backs of road signs, black helicopters, and assault weapons? Surely, we have evolved somewhat in the last two centuries.

The moderates are quite correct. Modern extremist militias certainly aren't the whole people. Most of us are smart enough to discount the possibility of a New World Order conspiracy. Our government is too inept and our press too mercenary to cook up such a plot, much less keep it secret.

I've always considered myself a logical, straightforward person. The thought of training for guerrilla warfare against my government seems to be a feeble endeavor. Running around in the woods a couple of weekends a year would be nothing against a brigade of Special Forces equipped with night vision, artillery, gunships, and the fine edge that comes from living the life of a soldier. Going up against such a fighting machine not only would be stupid, but nihilistic.

For all the reams of print and miles of tape expended on militias since the Oklahoma City bombing, no journalist that I'm aware of has gone beyond the present incarnation into the historical concept of a militia. For all the ranting about what a militia is, I haven't heard a peep or seen a microdot about the historical intent of militias. We no more can ignore the historic implications of the militia as a concept than we can their presence as a part of our current reality.

The constitutional treatment of a "militia" came from a very real post-Revolutionary fear of standing armies and armies of occupation, both of which the British Crown had installed in the Colonies. The Second Amendment, concerning the right to keep and bear arms, and the Third, which prohibits the quartering of soldiers in private homes by the government, both directly address a staunch determination by Americans never to be subjected to such a state of affairs again.

In a more modern sense, the seemingly dated Third Amendment enjoins the Department of Defense from parking Bradley Fighting Vehicles and posting troops in either the ghetto or the nicer parts of town. Given current worries about crime and the expense of maintaining military bases, having Uncle Sam's finest in our homes might not sound too bad. Nevertheless, 200 years ago, there were quite a few people who were experts on the subject, and the Third Amendment reflects their concerns.

As for the Second Amendment, much of today's contention centers on the clause "well regulated Militia." The popular interpretation places government in a regulatory role regarding militias, but that's probably because of our current cultural viewing of government as the "great regulator."

Until as little as a century ago, however, "well regulated" meant something else entirely. Italian political philosopher Niccolo Machiavelli apparently was the first to broach the term, in his "Discourses" on government dealing with the Swiss approach. The Swiss extended certain concepts of Roman citizenship and pioneered democratic rule by full citizens, quite an achievement even for the Age of Reason.

Machiavelli tied war, vested interests, citizenship, costs, benefits, and mercenary vs. citizen armies into an assertion that only those willing to bear arms for their country should enjoy the rights of citizenship. Machiavelli was no altruistic believer in the rights of the commoner; instead, he was an unscrupulous schemer who devoted his life to studying the consolidation of power. Even his dark mind, though, recognized the valor inherent in soldiers fighting for self-interest. He advocated regulating the institution of citizenship so only those willing to lay their lives on the line should be able to reap the benefits of victory.

During an era where wars were fought by hordes of serfs or mercenary armies hired by the highest bidder and loyal merely to gold, such thinking was radical. The mere idea of fighting wars in which the combatants had a stake beyond mere survival was outrageous and, at the time, unique to the Swiss.