Reclaiming the Well-Regulated Militia

The Duty to be a Citizen Soldier

It is a congenital defect of right-wingers to be always on the defensive. The conservative’s primary role in the last 2 centuries has been to serve as the foil for the all-conquering progressive, a sort of WWE-style heel, fated for perpetual defeat.

Whenever the right has the briefest ascendancy, they celebrate rolling back 30% of the transgressions leftists imposed on them in the last round, and then slide back into complacency with a glassy smile. The left continues its seemingly inexorable march, two steps forward, one step back.

Nowhere has this retreat been more dangerous than in the debate over private armaments, and never has it been more pressing than right now.

The Left has told us that, akshully, the Second Amendment doesn’t protect individual right to bear arms, because of the militia clause. This is par for the course in bad faith leftist argumentation. Nothing surprising or even very interesting about it.

What is truly insane though is that most on the right cringe at this spurious objection and lament that the Founding Fathers were so vague. “Why did they have to put that line in there about the militia! Why couldn’t they be more clear, so we can better defend Muh Individualism?”

You fools. They couldn’t have been more clear. The militia line is the most important part of the amendment, and it was always meant to be the ultimate guarantor of liberty against just such tyrannical usurpers as we have faced for the last century. But the right retreated from the real meaning of the second amendment, leaving the field to the progressives. Thus, we find ourselves in our current predicament.

It’s time to take back the real meaning of the Second Amendment and the Founding Fathers’ vision of a free people.

There seems to be a consensus in the Zeitgeist that we are headed for some kind of civil conflict over the next few years. In my opinion, this outcome is avoidable only through the expedient of peaceful national divorce. But in either of those cases, the role of militia in securing our safety and liberty will be crucial. Either we will rediscover the original American concept of the militia, or we will be subjected to either totalitarian tyranny or violent chaos. Or, God forbid, both.

But even if you are of the opinion that things will only get better, and we are about to enter a new spring time of American unity, I would propose that, if we care about liberty, we should still be examining the idea of the militia in order to prevent ourselves from coming so close to the brink ever again.

To that end, we will look first at the theory of the militia, and then at what we can still do in practice.

The Forgotten Half of the Second Amendment

The text of the Second Amendment reads: “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”

Far from being an oversight, the mention of the militia is very intentional. Modern conservatives like to talk about how the 2A is meant to protect us from the government, but then cringe at the mention of militia. This makes no sense! Did you think the Founders proposed that individuals would fight the government on their own? Absurd. The Founders meant for private citizens to be armed and trained together to defend their communities as a corporate unit, without having to have recourse to a government run and funded standing army, which they deplored.

The Second Amendment wasn’t written to preserve gun culture, or hunting or any other Fuddy nonsense. It was written to preserve freedom, from external threats and also from the state itself.

What is “Well-Regulated”?

In 18th-century English, “regulated” didn’t mean “controlled by government.” The regulatory state did not exist then. In common parlance “regulated” meant “in proper working order.”
Samuel Johnson’s Dictionary of the English Language (1755) defines regulate as “to adjust by rule or method; to bring to order.”
A “well-regulated clock” kept time properly; a “well-regulated mind” was disciplined.

In the 18th-century Anglo-American world, regulation in a martial context referred to training standards and discipline. When British officers spoke of “regulating” troops, they meant drilling them properly.

So a “well-regulated militia” meant one that was well-trained and well-equipped, i.e., a militia capable of functioning effectively.
In colonial and early American law, this meaning was concrete. Statutes required all able-bodied men to appear for musters, bring their own musket or rifle, powder, and ball, and keep them in working condition.
“Well-regulated” meant fit for service, not state-controlled.

Who is the Militia, and What is It For?

The Founders were not vague about what they meant by the militia or what it was for. They meant the whole body of the people should possess arms and know how to use them as a unit, in order to resist either invasion or tyranny.

James Madison, in Federalist No. 46 (1788), contrasted a federal standing army with the armed populace:

“Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed… still it would not be going too far to say that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”

He continues:

“To these [the State governments] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties.”

Tench Coxe, one of Madison’s allies, wrote in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette (June 18, 1789):

“As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

Coxe was commenting on Madison’s draft Bill of Rights. “The next article” became the Second Amendment.

George Mason, author of Virginia’s Declaration of Rights, stated plainly during the Virginia Ratifying Convention (June 16, 1788):

“To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

And when asked who the militia was, Mason answered:

“Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”

Richard Henry Lee echoed the same republican warning in Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788):

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves… To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

This is the real meaning of the Second Amendment: a whole people armed and trained to protect themselves against tyranny.

Parity of Arms: The Militia and the Standing Army

The Militia Act of 1792 made this principle law. It required every able-bodied male citizen to arm himself with a musket, bayonet, cartridge box, powder, and ammunition, the standard infantry weaponry of the day.
There was no difference between what a soldier carried and what a civilian was expected to maintain.

This is the critical fact modern debates ignore. The Founders did not imagine citizens with inferior arms facing a government with superior ones.
The militia was intended to be a match for a standing army, a structural counterweight to centralized power.

Otherwise, what exactly would be the point of all of their above explicit statements? There could be no hope of preserving liberty if the people were disarmed relative to the state.

The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) states it outright:

“A well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; standing armies in time of peace should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.”

The Founders feared a professional army precisely because it could become an instrument of tyranny.The militia, the armed body of the citizenry, was the solution.

The Spirit of Resistance

Thomas Jefferson expressed the necessity for a spirit of righteous resistance in his 1787 letter to William Stephens Smith:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.”

Jefferson asserts the evident principle that rulers must always be conscious that the people retain the means of resistance. The awareness of this balance of power is what keeps their lust for power at bay.

How would such a balance be possible if there was not an armed body of citizenry with parity in armaments?

The American Revolution Itself Was Sparked by Disarmament

The logic of the Second Amendment was a direct result of the War For Independence.
On April 19, 1775, British troops marched on Concord to confiscate colonial powder stores and cannon.
The colonists attacked them, and the Revolution began. Had the colonists not resisted this seizure of their weapons, there never would have been a free American Republic. (Note that they did not wait for the Redcoats to show up, they attacked them on the way.)

The National Guard Fallacy

Leftists often claim the Second Amendment requirement for private arms is outdated because now we have the National Guard.

That’s false both historically and legally. The National Guard was created by the Dick Act of 1903, more than a century after the founding and is now a federally funded reserve component of the U.S. military.

The Founders’ militia was something entirely different. It was:

• Unpaid except when mustered.

• Privately armed and equipped.

• Locally trained under civil authority.

• Commanded by officers chosen from among the people.
  
  

It was decentralized by design, since it was a people’s defense system, meant to keep the state’s military power in check.

The Guard, by contrast, is federally funded, federally equipped, and ultimately under presidential command. It is a standing reserve force, not the “well-regulated militia” envisioned in 1791.

We can easily see how such a military unit, far from being the kind of freedom-preserving militia envisioned by the founders, is rather an extension of federal power even more deeply into the states. Does anyone seriously think that National Guard units, trained, equipped, and paid by the federal government would ever act as a check on federal power?

The Civic Duty To Bear Arms

To the Founders, the right to bear arms came with a duty to train, maintain, and be ready.
The militia laws of their day required participation. Communities drilled together. Arms inspection days were civic events.

The idea that defense should be outsourced to permanent professional forces would have struck them as both impractical and dangerous.
A people who refuse to defend themselves, they believed, will not remain free for long.

The willingness to fight for your land and people is the very essence of patriotism. If this sentiment extends only to regime adventures in far away lands, it is of little use. To be ready and willing to defend your community against all threats, including the regime and its apparatchiks, is a patriotic obligation.

What Can Be Done?

At this point you’re likely thinking: “This is all fine in theory, and maybe this was the Founders intention, but we’re very far from that now. So what do we actually do?”

The answer to that should be fairly straightforward, but before spelling it out, let’s clear the air of obtuse objections.

The typical normie objection to any kind of training or preparation for conflict is to say “Well, if you’re fighting the government you’re already toast, so save your effort.”

This is obviously a very poor veneer to cover sloth and cowardice. Even if it were true, it would betray a servile soul, which deserves to be counted among Aristotle’s natural slaves.

But of course, it isn’t true at all. The possibilities before us are not a binary between “everything goes peachy” and “Citizens are at open war with a united federal military.” Both of those options are quite unlikely, in my opinion.

No, there are nearly infinite gradations on the continuum between those extremes. These include for example: the further breakdown of law and order and intensifying anarcho-tyranny in Blue areas; clashes between federal and local forces over immigration; the use by Left-wing powers of paramilitaries like Antifa and the cartels to terrorize right-wing areas; and of course, nearly infinite other possibilities we can’t yet predict.

I do not believe Americans will be fighting head to head with their own military. No one, military or civilian, wants that. I do think that we will likely see a more or less gradual reduction of state capacity, with “informal” groups and institutions filling the void. There’s no way to know how severe this will be, and it will likely vary considerably from place to place, with cities bearing the brunt. If you’re in an area that’s already high crime and low trust, my guess is that it will only accelerate.

If you’re away from hot spots with a strong community, and the disorder doesn’t impact your livelihood, then it could go on for a decade without affecting you much.

But in all of these cases, it makes sense to train.

As we saw in the theory section, martial training is not an individual exercise. It is meant to be a community function. And this is where many will find themselves wanting. Who are your neighbors? Who are your friends? Do you have people that you can trust who live nearby who you can rely on?

For many, the answer is no. If so, this should be the number one priority. Get to a place where you can have a values-aligned real world physical community. If you do nothing else, just this will be the 80-20 of surviving whatever comes next. Humans are social animals. We survive and thrive in organized groups, cooperating together. Being an athletic, fit, well-trained marksman with the most tactical kit will do you very little good if you are still living in an apartment surrounded by commies when/if things get rough.

Maybe you can’t get out of your area for financial or other reasons. Then what do you do? Well, certainly not nothing. Again, there’s a continuum of possibilities, and giving up puts you closer to the worse end of it. You might not be able to live in a close-knit group of like minded people in a defensible small town, but you can certainly do more than nothing. Dedicate time and energy to finding the like-minded people who do exist and building relationships with them. Again, this is far more important than any workout routine or weapons training you might do.

With that said, what should you do physically? Individually, we obviously need to get in shape. I’m not talking about going to the gym for aesthetics. I mean functionally fit. Pull-ups, push-ups, squats under load, running, fireman carry (you should be able to pick up another adult and carry them 30 yards if need be), etc. If there’s an obstacle course in your area, run it. See how you do. All of that is going to be far more useful than heavy bench press, however fun that might be.

Learn first aid. Get medical supplies.

And of course, weapons training. I’m no weapons guru, so I have nothing unique to add here. There are countless quality channels on YouTube of experienced veterans demonstrating individual and group drills you can do. I would suggest after you learn the basics, to do weapons drills after significantly fatiguing yourself so you get used to target acquisition, accuracy, reloads etc. while your heart rate is elevated and your muscles are tired.

The kind of groups you train in and their dynamics will depend entirely on you and the people you know, so there’s not much to say there. Ideally, you’d have local veterans with experience who can provide guidance and structure to the civilians.

Don’t overlook the basics. Have emergency sources of food, water and energy. Naturally, you’ll also want lots of ammunition. After all, you may need to hunt!

If you don’t have a pickup, consider replacing one of your vehicles with one. Consider off-road vehicles. Get a bike. Kulak has a great piece on realistic prepping advice that gives a much better breakdown than I can about what specifics you should look into.

Now normietards will say things like: “if society collapses, having water treatment (or whatever else) won’t help, how long will that last?”

(I know this sounds retarded, but many people do actually think like this. It excuses their lack of agency as sophistication and cleverness.)

Again, there’s a very long continuum between “Everything is peachy” and “Total societal collapse back to the stone age.” Very likely you will find yourself somewhere between, possibly experiencing temporary shortages or outages rather than some Hollywood dystopia.

And even if everything is not only peachy, but only gets better from here on out, culminating in a full-on rainbows and unicorn utopia, it won’t hurt anything for you to have prepared in case things don’t go that way, and instead follow the usual patterns of history.

In Summary

The Founding Father’s vision of a free people rested on the premise of an armed populace, trained to fight. The second amendment enshrines this principle explicitly in the Constitution. Although we may not be able to fully realize this vision at present, having been reduced to a relatively disarmed state vis-a-vis the government, there is still much we can do within our current strictures. You can:

• Find friends

• Train with them

• Get in shape

• Have emergency plans for food, water and energy

• Have ammo

After Charlie Kirk’s murder, and with the continued rise of left-wing violence, you shouldn’t have too much trouble finding people who are also looking for security that doesn’t rely on our ever-treacherous Regime. But it won’t be the majority. Most are asleep and will remain so until the day they die. This should not perturb us. The American War for Independence was fought by a very small portion of the population. Most estimates show 10% of the population or less served in any martial capacity. So do not be dismayed at the pusillanimity of the masses, they are not required.

We leave them with the valediction Sam Adams gave to the cowards of his day:

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”