In Praise of the Arizona Citizens Militia
Thursday, July 22nd, 2010
I am reposting this article because, while I do not agree completely with the ACM’s actions, this article hits on great points involving the general government’s (most people call this federal, mistakenly) lack of action in several capacities. — ZeroSignal
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
July 21, 2010
I do not want to say “Hurray” for what the Arizona Citizens Militia (ACM) is doing. On the other hand, I do not want to discourage what they are doing.
Let us look at what is happening on the Arizona (and other states) border, but, primarily, the boundary between two nations. There are armed people who are part of an organized group. They are not military, so they are either paramilitary or militia. I am not aware that Mexican has any provision in their Constitution, which provides for militia, which would mean that they are paramilitary. So, we can safely assume that they are, in fact, a paramilitary organization.
So, why are they crossing our border? They are, admittedly, bringing drugs into this country. So, where is the Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA)? Well, they are well known for busting doctors , patients and providers, who prescribe, prepare or use marijuana in states which have, under the provision of Article IV, Section 4 of the Constitution (guaranteeing every state a Republican Form of Government), determined that medical marijuana be made available to patients. They are, however, conspicuously absent from the arena where tons of drugs, not authorized by any law, cross the border, monthly.
Another reason for crossing the border is that they are acting in the capacity of “coyote”, transporting people, illegally, across the door for the purpose of taking advantage of the many programs and businesses in this country that will ignore the federal laws regarding immigration and provide benefits or employment to those who have so entered the country. This makes them conspirators to criminal activity — those paramilitary that provide escort service.
Finally, they are entering the country both armed and, most often, uniformed. They may not be armed with American high powered rifles, able to place a projectile exactly where intended, even at great distances, but they are armed with military rifles, both semi-automatic and fully automatic, the latter being available only to licensed people in this country (I wonder where these Mexicans got them?). This constitutes, by the very definition, an invasion. Entry by organized, armed intruders across the border from one country to another can be described as no less than invasion. So, where are our military that should be protecting us from that invasion? Some might argue that they are busy invading other countries, though, clearly, they are not hear protecting our borders.
The Founders, however, understood from history that the best defence against such invasion, or any incursion, especially with their concern over standing armies, lay in the historical role of militia. Militia, if properly trained and armed, is ever-present, throughout this great nation. During the Revolutionary War, they were called upon, especially if they were local to the need (fight), though they would travel into other colonies, as they did for weeks after the British were chased back to Boston, in April 1775, crossing colonial lines to aid their neighbors. Tens of thousands responded to the call — when the British invaded Massachusetts.
These militia activities allowed time for the newly forming government to gather its resources and, over time, transfer military authority to the Continental Army. However, once the Continental Army was created and functional, the militia did not disband and go home. They remained on duty, or, at least, on call, to deal with any threat that arose, throughout the entire war. These were the true citizen soldiers – our first line of defense.
So, when the government is unprepared, or unable, to deal with such an invasion, those Founders had the foresight to assure that the means would always be available for Americans to defend themselves from such invasion.
Consider that, like those first militia in Massachusetts, that these action are voluntary, until such time as the government and/or the people find, in their minds and hearts, the wherewithal to fund and compensate them for protecting us against a foreign invasion, they will continue to do so because they are, with their very lives at stake, true Americans.
No, I cannot say “Hurray” for what the ACM has done, for there is no “hurray” in war, until the final victory. I can, however, offer my thanks, and my most sincere gratitude, for those who have stood, and risked their lives, and continue to dos, that which the failing government has been unable, or, unwilling to do.
There is more to this, please Read the Full Article
Category : General
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
I appreciate you reposting my article, however, I want to make clear that what is written directly above my name credit:
“I am reposting this article because, while I do not agree completely with the ACM’s actions, this article hits on great points involving the general government (most people call this federal, mistakenly) lack of action in several capacities.”
Was not written by me, nor does it reflect my opinion of the matter.
I cannot judge another man’s reasoning, his background, his motivation, or his methods. I can only say that we have to support the actions of others 100%, whether we agree completely, or not.
Rather than offer an opinion that indicates, and, encourages disagreement, we would serve ourselves far better if we were to say only good of those who work for our common goal. And, we should expect that others in the community would treat us with the same respect.
You have not worn the shoes of those in Arizona, nor have they worn yours. It would be far better to say nothing than to saying anything, at all, that was negative. Until we learn and understand this, we have made ourselves subject to second guessing by every patriot, rather true, or not, to effect and restrict how we cat.
Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
Gary, Thank you for the comment, and allowing us to repost and link your wonderfully written article. I do have to disagree with statements like:
” I can only say that we have to support the actions of others 100%, whether we agree completely, or not.”
This seems to be the premise of your argument, however it’s very flawed.
I do not agree with murderers actions (this is an example, I’m not speaking about the ACM, I was actually thinking along the lines of Manson), nor do I support them to any proportion BECAUSE I do not agree with them.
I have edited our repost to show what are my comments and detach them from your material.
Admin,
Thank you for clarifying the post.
To the other point, Manson could not, in any way, shape or form, be considered a patriot.
Some consider what has happened along the Arizona border to be murder. They fail, however, to recognize that those who were “murdered” had firearms which they intended to use. Those intruders were also breaking in to “our house”, the United States of America, with those firearms.
The problem, however, arises in that if we choose to condemn the actions of others, we also subject ourselves to like criticism is we do something that we believe to be reasonable, but others don’t. Once that door is open, we tend to impose upon ourselves an overly cautious consideration of doing anything.
If you read history (not textbooks), you will find that many who ended up supporting and fighting in the Revolutionary War were revolted at the idea of firing, from ambush, on British soldiers. They did get some pres, back then,, but, fortunately, they were overridden by those who supported this “savage” activity. Consider what would have happened if the voice of condemnation had prevailed?
It comes down to something that my father taught me, long ago. If you can’t say something good, don’t say anything at all. He was an officer in the Navy, and he gave me the following example (which I have sued, successfully, in my career as a Surveyor). When the commanding officer was doing an evaluation of another officer, one that very few liked or got along with, he had asked my father what his opinion/judgment of that officer was. My father’s answer was,
he always has well shined shoes”. My father garnered respect for his response.
Who/what gave us the right to judge our fellow patriots? We all recognize that it may come to a real battle, though we hope that it does not. Can we judge how sever the problem is in Massachusetts, if we live in Georgia? Or, should those colonists in Georgia support those colonists in Massachusetts, or, keep their mouths shut?
Respectfully,
Gary Hunt
• I’m curious where you feel I construed that Mason was a patriot, in fact I don’t recall putting anything about patriots in my response.
• Some people do indeed feel that it is murder, and if you go by any definition of murder, they are correct.
• I do not see how you can judge the intent of someone you have never met, so to say that they intended to use their firearms is very misleading, unless of course you’re one of those guys shooting at them, at which I would yield to your judgment.
• Your shear existence and the existence of humanity opens you to criticism, to say we open ourselves up, by doing the same in kind, is asinine.
• Our country would not be a country if we followed silly sayings like ‘if you have nothing good to say, say nothing at all’ in fact that completely eliminates dissent which is of course the true form of patriotism
• Any number of things could have happened if those who condemned ‘ambush’ tactics had had their way. To speculate is just that, speculation.
• The ability to think, and reason, and to use logic to deduce truth gives us the right to judge whomever/whatever we want, that does not mean we can or even should act on those judgments (in a legal sense).
• To your last point I defer to my response above. Yes someone at location ‘A’ may make judgments about location ‘B’, under the assumption they have reliable information from which to make judgments.
o No one needs ‘keep their mouth shut’, nor should people in one location of necessity support people in another location due to similar or even exact circumstances. This is the very reason that each state has a Republican form of government, so that the people of each state may dissent against their government for change.
I would like to take a second to point out another reason for the revolutionary war then taxes. We the people seperated from the british so that we can rule and govern our territories in a way that agreed with the people. It was meant to give voice and reason to all descions of the state. Each state was allowed to make thier own desicions and they did not have any obligation to follow blindly behind any other state. Thats the power of liberty and the ability to speak out against those things that you disagree with. In a matriarchal society a person could not speak out against the decision of those ruling without disappearing. These are powerful things that we have fought so hard to make what they are…God given Rights!
Free expression and discussion are appropriate, and protected, I have no disagreement with that.
However, there are situations that, due to the significance of the consequences of failure are far more dismal than controlling your expression.
Believing in Freedom of Speech, the Founders still jailed those who spoke against the ‘rebels’, or, in some cases, killed (not murdered) them.
We are at a crossroads in our history. That which the Founders gave us, and which is our birthright is threatened far more than ever before in our history.
The necessity of pulling together is far greater than ever before.
I would suggest that you consider reading Divide and Conquer( http://www.outpost-of-freedom.com/blog/?p=102 ).
Wonderful, thank you Gary I will certainly check it out.