This comment was left on Facebook under a post promoting
my latest Oath Keepers column. I just don't have time for detailed one-on-one exchanges, but I feel like addressing points publicly raised, so I'm including my response here:
David Codrea I have read your article on the Chattanooga Shooting and Jihad. If you truly believe what you wrote then I must ask you why you are not screaming at the top of your lungs that we must revitalize that specific power "To repel Invasions"? The Constitution is clear in this; Article 1, Section 8, Clause 15, along with the hundreds of corresponding state statutes that originally gave force to that authority. As Adm. Yamamoto warned the Japanese command that they could not invade the US because, "There would be a rifle behind each blade of grass". Imaging the benefit to society in general. We have now approximately 750,000 so-called law enforcement that is in no way capable of curtailing crime or the build up of gangs. With a revitalized Militia, we would have every able bodied person who has regular duty armed at all times. Crime on the streets and in the halls of the legislatures would diminish, and we certainly would not have millions of illegal aliens roaming our streets. Are you one who truly wants to keep the US free, and safe?
First of all, I've been beating that drum for many years. From an article I wrote about George Bush appointing an anti-gun Homeland Security Czar after 9/11:
Promote and utilize, rather than prosecute, armed citizen volunteers training
and acting in concert for homeland defense, that is, provide leadership to
restore the Constitutional militia.
I can come up with all kinds of examples from before and after that, but then again, so can anyone with a burning desire to see them, a search engine, and more spare time than I do on their hands.
As for repelling invasions, that's a non sequitur in terms of the article I'm inviting a discussion on. The Chattanooga killer
was a naturalized citizen, welcomed into this country, all done "lawfully" in accordance with policies instituted by Congress, the very people tasked by the Constitution "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
The Republican establishment is as much behind the "invasion" as the Democrats. I can neither envision nor expect they will be motivated to totally reverse their immigration stance and then perform a duty they have institutionally ignored without a compelling "or else," especially with the powerful twin incentives of cheap labor and votes their masters are whipping them with. Lord knows the few of us raising the "pathway to citizenship" warnings aren't getting any help from the vast "single issue" majority.
As for my screaming at the top of my lungs to make anything happen, I could only wish I had that kind of political juice. The fact of the matter is, I can barely persuade a handful of readers to share links now and then, or to send an email. The minute I bring up donating a dollar or two to worthy causes, support drops exponentially. "
Profiles in apathy" is another recurring theme I've addressed over the years without making much progress at inspiring change.
I don't have high hopes that
most gun owners would willingly submit to the rigors and enforceable discipline of well-regulated militia duties and endure long term risks, hardships and sacrifices. History would seem to bear that out even in revolutionary times. Hamilton even addressed continued militia service in
Federalist No. 29, when he acknowledged "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped."
As for Yamamoto's "rifle behind every blade of grass," sorry, but I advocate against repeating and propagating
unsourced quotes. And as for questioning my sincerity ("if you truly believe/are you one who truly wants...?"), if my challenger truly believes that, his time would be better spent where such doubts don't come up.
There's always going to be people who think I need to do this or that, or say something differently, or emphasize something else. If I do what one person wants, someone else will think I should have made a different choice.
There's nothing stopping anyone who's dissatisfied with that from doing things their way.
