Lies of Omission

Thursday, October 1, 2015

The Irrational Mr. Roberts

Bill Roberts has submitted another address to militias from his point of view over at Western Rifle Shooters Assn. entitled Current Militia Movement Ver. 2.0. Go there and read and you will see that my refutation derives from his actual text, not made up paraphrasing on my own.


To begin with, I do not agree with Mr. Roberts' assertions, however I do applaud his willingness to engage in the discourse. As he has refrained from the condescension he feels for militias, or anyone who would act to retain their liberty, I, likewise, will refrain, as much as possible, from belittling his point of view.


Roberts gives the etymology of "militia" as miles meaning soldier and itia as the state, or soldier of the state. Government forces.


He goes on to describe the First Continental Congress as taking place on September of 1774, sort of brushing off the fact that, by his reasoning, the governors and/or representatives of the colonies attending the First Continental Congress, along with the militias they controlled, were the first traitors to British rule.


Roberts' take is and has been since the beginning of his dispatches to the militias that they have no business forming into groups or making preparations to resist government aggression on the grounds that they operate under no governmental authority, without recognizing the irony of his legitimizing the First Continental Congress.


It was a more amenable political structure at that time, there were governors of the colonies who did not agree with the Crown. There were militias available to those governors for mutual protection that were closely associated with those colonies and consisted somewhat of citizens of those colonies, but they were, as Roberts so eloquently points out, illegally operating as militias since they were not sanctioned by the British government in that role.


I am the first to agree that one epoch in history cannot be on a level with another. There is no way to compare exactly what the militia movement and the patriot/liberty community of today would equate to in the 18th Century, but it is easy to know the principles upon which the forefathers of this nation decided that their condition was intolerable.


Yes, their political organizations were more solidly established against a foreign nation, with a foreign army as an extension of that political reality. It was much easier to make the distinction between friend and foe, but the issues were largely the same, the violations similar to what we endure from our own government. It is not hard to imagine a person raised under British rule to feel that they were being attacked by their own government for little else than protesting against taxes.


I do not want to go too far into Roberts' instructive dissertation, because I find the very basis for it rationally flawed. Just as it would be useless to quote our forefathers to him about the dangers of a standing army, it is useless for him to describe exactly why the people are not allowed to arm themselves and prepare for the aggression of our government forces against its citizens.


What Roberts has missed is the proper discourse, which must include: What level of oppression is to be tolerated before armed resistance is acceptable to government authority? (there would never be that point, would there?)


There are no laws that allow us to engage in resistance at a certain point of suffering, so using the Constitution as legitimacy for oppression is ridiculous. Using the Constitution to prove that we have no right to oppose those who have rejected it is likewise irrational.


I do agree with Roberts on one issue: there are a lot of societies who suffer under much more aggressive and complete oppression than the citizens of the United States. To expect us to suffer that much and more in order receive his (and others of his ilk) blessing for resistance is very telling indeed. We are jealous of our liberty, entitled to our rights and fully within the blessings of our founders to resist the oppression we now feel.


That sort of statement is laughable to Roberts, a person standing on the other side of the line, dispensing oppression, enforcing tyranny. I would expect no less.


3 comments:

  1. Well he's wrong. The Militia at it's base is answerable only to the immediate community it is formed from. Forming a militia is as much a right of US citizens as gun ownership and free speech and can be done whenever that community feels the need and for whatever reason. It then has the power of law behind it that comes from the entity that it formed from. It can be a suburb, neighborhood, town or village, county, state etc. The militia only becomes a part of the federal government when it is called up and Congress agrees to pay it and incorporate it into the military. The President can call up the militia BUT he can not operate it without Congressional approval for long.

    Checks and balances that I know our politicians don't seem to want to use these days or even admit are on the books but that does not change the facts regarding legality. The militia belongs to the people at what ever level they decide to use it. It does not belong to any particular State or Federal government until they call it up. Even then they have to declare how they are forming it and at no point does it remove militias under that tier of government either. You can have county militias under the Sheriff while other militias were sent to operate under the state military.

    All this was understood even before the French and Indian wars. The militias were always there and could be used but in times of emergency communities often had to call them up themselves and then volunteer to fight with the military and other militias that had already been called up legally by a higher government tier. The matters of pay or official service were often hashed out later.

    So in effect from a pro-big government point of view militias may not be legal until the federal government acts but that is like saying no entity can govern themselves at all. Now forming a militia from just a bunch of guys from different locations grants you zero official legality from any tier of government but you are not violating any law by doing so.


    ReplyDelete
  2. TL, it's worrisome to me that CA is so tolerant of their (Roberts, Barry, Baugh, et al) collectivist bent, and excuses them in favor of "conversational discourse". This is what I think of every time any of them step to the podium: https://theintercept.com/2014/02/24/jtrig-manipulation/

    Notably: https://firstlook.org/wp-uploads/sites/1/2014/02/deception_p24.png

    Artfully delivered collectivist drivel is still collectivist drivel, no?

    ReplyDelete
  3. CA Rifle and Pistol Association is standing for the Second here is CA--
    Carol-CS

    ReplyDelete

About Me

My photo
I am a published and produced writer, a novelist, a freelance writer, a playwright and blogger.