Tuesday, April 13, 2010

Tea Party Militia?

From the AP:

"OKLAHOMA CITY – Frustrated by recent political setbacks, tea party leaders and some conservative members of the Oklahoma Legislature say they would like to create a new volunteer militia to help defend against what they believe are improper federal infringements on state sovereignty."

Say what??? Listen, I'm angry too. But, hold on Pistol Pete...a militia? Full disclosure: I've never been to a Tea Party, nor do I plan on attending one. But, I thought the Tea Party Movement was a grassroots organization focused on throwing support and raising moolah for small government/like minded candidates; not readying an anti-government paramilitary.

I don't want ANYONE from ANY political party adding to or reinterpreting the existing US Constitutional Amendments. Case and point, Oklahoma State Senator Randy Brogdon, R-Owasso (who would like to be Governor): "The Second Amendment deals directly with the right of an individual to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from an overreaching federal government."

No, no, no. The actual text of Amendment II: "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." Notice that there's no mention of protection "from an overreaching federal government".

Sooners, y'all need to rethink things:

1) As the article points out: "the National Guard already provides for the state's military needs"

2) Just in case you're thinking about it, succession is illegal: Texas v. White 1869.

3) As Glenn Beck's favorite sound bite points out, Obama told us so:

4) The United States is a Democratic Republic. We delegate authority to our elected representatives, they are supposed to follow the Constitution. If they don't follow the Bundle of Compromises as Doug Llewelyn would say: "Don't take the law into your own hands: you take 'em to court." 19 states are following Mr. Llewelyn's advice (Oklahoma ain't one of 'em).

5) Rhetorical chatter about militias doesn't serve any purpose, unless you like being called a 'right wing extremist'. An armed Tea Party militia in Oklahoma would be reported in the news next to a photo of Timothy McVeigh, guaranteed.

Don't get me wrong, I'm a big fan of the Second Amendment. The Founding Fathers knew the value of a strong and organized militia. They had this little thing called the Revolutionary War that they had to fight. Things are a bit different now, I'd say. While paranoia is great for TV ratings, the mid-term elections are just seven months away. I would much rather rally the conservatives and take back the House and Senate than rally the militia to do God knows what.

1 comment:

  1. When the 2nd amendment was ratified the actual reason we were given the right to bear arms was for the sole purpose of the people defending against an overreaching government, foreign or domestic. I think he may be using that as his justification for a tea party militia.

    Regardless of its intent or purpose I surely am glad we have the right, and secondly I am glad it's mostly conservatives who have the guns ;-)