I believe the militia work has been truly bastardized.
The word has the equivalance of citizens bucket brigate.
Just from observation, those who want individual rights eliminated
will go after the guns and will say whatever
to get to their goal.
Look at the guy who wrote that alleged historical book about
gun ownership not being prevalent.
He lied and fabricated according to his piers but no one is
condeming because they agree with his goal.
Common sense dictates the founders were adressing the rights
of the individual.
Take the third ammendment, not to quarter soldiers, is this a conlective right? no,
Is the first amendment a colective right for groupthink? no
The fourth and fifth regarding government acts? no
The constitution was founded by individuals comming together.
The United States did not form itself out of a vacume.
It was not a collective act, it was a collection of acts.
Yes. It has only been for about a year or so that the liberal media has begun using the word "militia" for any group outside the US. Now it is commonly used to refer to armed bodies committing atrocities against unpopular minorities in places like Indonesia.
This is due, no doubt, to the growing court recognition that the "militia" is distinct from the "army". As this notion becomes more ingrained, it becomes necessary to demonize the "militia" in general and not just named groups in particular states.
Previously, this wasn't necessary because the liberal viewpoint was that the "militia" was the army and independent groups that called themselves "militia" were outlaws.