Thread: I don't know where this is coming from, but there is a sudden pushback/confusion about the use of the word "militia." Here is some information on what this word means and my argument for why it's important to use it.

(2) Some people are saying that we should not call paramilitary, extralegal groups "militias" because this implies they are part of legal, state law enforcement.

(3) I don't think this is a fair point. Webster's gives us three handy definitions for the word-
"1a: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
The militia was called to quell the riot.
b: a body of citizens organized for military service"

(4) "2: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service"

(5) "3: a private group of armed individuals that operates as a paramilitary force and is typically motivated by a political or religious ideology
specifically : such a group that aims to defend individual rights against government authority that is perceived as oppressive"

(6) This last one, (5)/definition 3, is correct for the militias that we've been talking about this election year. These are the militias we've largely been talking about since the early 1990s.

(7) We don't need to clarify that people are in an illegal or self-proclaimed or otherwise qualified militia, and here is why. When we are talking about the militia MOVEMENT, it's all extralegal to some degree. See https://www.npr.org/2020/08/30/907720068/are-citizen-militias-legal

(8) Wait, wait, you may say! What about the Second Amendment and the "well-regulated militia" of early America? Great question. That militia does still exist! But not as a militia.

(9) In 1903, the militias of the Second Amendment got incorporated into the National Guard, where they continued to be, and continued to be quite "well-regulated." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

(10) The private militias, paramilitary groups that are burgeoning now as they did in the early 1990s, do not have a clear historical descent from those earlier militias, although they sometimes claim they do. But the early militias sought to defend the state and or nation

(11) Whereas some, but not all, of the militias of the 1990s were populated by white power activists interested in overthrowing the nation. (Where did the guns, money, and people from the white power movement in the 1980s GO? Into the militias.)

(12) There are some excellent books to read about all parts of this history. I talk about militia movement formation in Bring the War Home. And I think this is another great read https://www.powells.com/book/well-regulated-militia-the-founding-fathers-the-origins-of-gun-control-in-america-9780195341034

(13) Related: I have been writing about the militia movement since 2005 and I just heard this critique of my use of the word yesterday, from several different places at once. Interesting. When language becomes contested in this way, it calls out for examination.

(14) The groups I am talking about ARE militias. They are paramilitary (using military weapons, culture, uniforms, tactics as civilians). They are extralegal (working outside the law). They are not part of the state.

(15) I worry that the push to qualify definitions might create the idea of good, or neutral militias that ARE legitimate. These are not. They are not neutral observers. They are not keepers of law and order. They are paramilitary groups.