The case of that wretched governor of Missouri and his cronies listing followers of Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and Chuck Baldwin as potential terrorists for the secret police to watch is well known by now, and may be looked at on the web. The logic of Governor Jeremiah Nixon et al was of this form:
- most milita members favor 3rd Party candidates
- Ron Paul etc are or have been 3rd Party candidates
- Therefore, people with Ron Paul (or the others’) bumper stickers should be watched
We can chuckle at the logic of this no doubt government-school educated governor. But not at his content.
A militia is the citizenry armed to defend itself — whether against roving criminals or a rogue regime.
In the uneducated mind, there is an ambiguity in our Second Amendment, when it says, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Is it the “milita” or the “people” that have the right? ask our government-indoctrinated subjects.
In a free republic, these entities are congruent: the same citizenry that gives its consent to the civil rule also constitutes the militia. There is no contradiction between them. When the citizens must take up arms against their own government, it means the government has failed; has usurped rights not ceded to it: it has become a tyranny.
To his partial credit, Chuck Baldwin’s response (which also contains a link to the official response from all three) never exactly ratifies the tyrants’ condemnation of militias. However, it is only partial credit, for Baldwin says
The obvious inference of the above statement links Ron Paul, Bob Barr, and myself to potential dangerous “militia members.”
This statement is fraught with ambiguity. Does he object only to “potentially dangerous” militia members? (And what good is any militia unless it is potentially dangerous?) Moreover, putting “militia members” in quotes draws attention to the unreflected appropriation of the term as used by Tyrant Nixon, but leaves other issues unaddressed: the implicit slander of real militia members and the need to affirm the crucially important role that militia as such should play in preserving our liberties against tyrants like Jeremiah Nixon.
Instead, Baldwin’s response is basically two arguments: (1) a populist protest that 75% of all Americans agree with at least one thing on the list of terrorist-favored items, and (2) profiling is wrong.
(In passing, note that amongst whites, probably essentially all would “fail” Nixon’s test by the criterion of at least one item in the list, and amongst non-whites, it would probably be at least 50%. So the total would undoubtedly be higher than 75%, but any number given would also obscure a significant underlying reality.)
More importantly, profiling is not wrong. Profiling is a most necessary law-enforcement concept. Without it, criminals would rarely be caught.
What is wrong is this particular profile: the tyrants that have gained power in Missouri are calling darkness light, and light darkness. They are profiling against the good, and favoring the wicked. They are servants of Satan occupying the seats of Justice. They are proof of the ongoing need for militias.
That is what should have been pointed out. Instead, our fearless leaders gave the tyrants a good, sound beating with their hankies.