We must remember our founding fathers insisted on a distinction between the “genuine” Militia and a “select” militia, which they viewed as a danger, just as much a danger as a standing army. They did not want a militia whose members might consist of anything less than the entire people, or at least able-bodied ones in a certain age range, because if selected on any other basis, they might be used to oppress other parts of the population. In this case our founding fathers would clearly consider Oathkeepers to be a "select" militia with over 60% of the group is former military and police, not to count a few civilians who never served.
To say it more simply, Oathkeepers would be a legally sanctioned "genuine" militia in accordance with the Constitution if they fully complied with the Constitution. Instead they are an unlawful radical militant group outside of the Constitution, and what our founding fathers would clearly call a "select" militia.
We must remember our founding fathers insisted on a distinction between the “genuine” Militia and a “select” militia, which they viewed as a danger, just as much a danger as a standing army. They did not want a militia whose members might consist of anything less than the entire people, or at least able-bodied ones in a certain age range, because if selected on any other basis, they might be used to oppress other parts of the population. In this case our founding fathers would clearly consider Oathkeepers to be a "select" militia with over 60% of the group is former military and police, not to count a few civilians who never served.
ReplyDeleteTo say it more simply, Oathkeepers would be a legally sanctioned "genuine" militia in accordance with the Constitution if they fully complied with the Constitution. Instead they are an unlawful radical militant group outside of the Constitution, and what our founding fathers would clearly call a "select" militia.