Let me be clear about what I mean when I say “militia”. There is a far cry between those who care about their right to own and operate guns and those who train to use those guns in some grand anti-government scheme.
Dictionary.com defines militia as such:
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.
When I am talking about militias, I am talking about definition #4. These are the guys who get all the press. This is what the group Hutaree was before they were all arrested recently in a huge FBI sting.
Now, I don't want to come across as saying that all such anti-federal government militias are illegal or wrong. I can understand that people have a deep seeded hatred of the government and that they do not want their rights infringed upon. I understand the right to bear arms. While it is about 150 or so years outdated, the right to bear arms was designed so that private citizens could defend themselves against any aggressor, foreign or domestic. This right allows the militia groups to believe that if they had to, they could defend themselves through force if the government tried to impose some kind of unwanted legislation on them.
My hypothesis is that most of these groups go along with the militia idea because it makes them feel good about themselves, it makes them feel powerful against “the man”. When in reality, if it came to blows, the federal government would quickly put an end to any such uprising. A militia of 20 men would not stand a chance against the combined might of our country's military. The only difference the militia would make is that a lot of innocent people would die in the conflict.
Take the Hutaree militia, for example:
“According to the indictment, the group had been plotting for two years to assassinate federal, state or local police officers. "Possible such acts which were discussed," the indictment says, "included killing a member of law enforcement after a traffic stop, killing a member of law enforcement and his or her family at home, ambushing a member of law enforcement in rural communities, luring a member of law enforcement with a false 911 emergency call and then killing him or her, and killing a member of law enforcement and then attacking the funeral procession motorcade" with homemade bombs.” - Eugene Robinson – Washingtonpost.com
Apparently, their goal was to create an anti-government uprising. Hypathetically, that sort of incident could cause the deaths of a multitude of people, government or otherwise. Even if the uprising was successful, the most it would accomplish is a bloody war and the government creating stronger restrictions on gun control and militia activity. Fortunately for the Hutaree folks, they were stopped before any action was taken.
Which brings me to another point. The Hutaree were an extremely well organized group of individuals. Their goal was singular and unified. However, they were easily infiltrated by the FBI. If any of the more militant groups out there think they haven't garnered the attention of the federal government, they are wrong. In most cases, once a group like Hutaree gets big enough to do something significant, they already have the attention of “the man” and can expect to be investigated. Remember kids, the folks at the FBI do that whole military-type investigate and arrest thing full time. They are professionals and they are very good at their job. A point they proved steadfastly by apprehending the nine Hutaree members without having to shoot anyone.
So, back to my original question; why aren't there any crazy, violent, left-wing militias? The Michigan militias are 100% right-wing, gun loving people who embrace violence as an ends to a means. That is often the message you get from people who consider themselves “right-wing”, even politicians. When you hear Sarah Palin say “don't retreat, instead – reload!” you and I might know she doesn't actually mean we should go stockpile guns, but the people on the fringe, the ones who are actually stockpiling guns, are bolstered by this kind of language. The other argument people make is that many people on the right denounce Sarah Palin's rhetoric and that kind of language. That is great except that right now, she is one of the most vocal parts of the right-wing, she can't help put to be heard.
My point is this: the right-wing tends to be bolstered by talk of anti-government violence and the left-wing tends to not not. Most right-wingers abhors gun control and most left-wingers embrace it. The right-wing has a streak of threatening violent rhetoric and committing violent acts against our government and government buildings/employees. The left wing does not. You may, as I do, condemn PETA for their many violent acts of arson, and their agenda may be just as “out there” as the Hutaree, but PETA is not planning on instigating a uprising against our federal government.
Like it or not, we need those federal, state or local police officers. Without them it would be the wild west all over again. We need the IRS, without them very few people would pay their taxes. Our country has grown too big to be without that kind of authority. Of course, if you don't like that, you can always just move to Costa Rica.
