Talk:Militia (United States)

History Please

This article seems to have become a sounding board for both sides of our whacko political spectrum. There is no place for the political views regarding this topic! Lest we forget, this article is posted under the United States Military History. As such it seems we'd do well to add some information from John R. Galvin's work regard the importance of the early militia on colonial life. For example, the importance of electing officers within early militia units can't be over emphasized in shaping the direction this country took. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.26.42.181 (talk) 08:01, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Not familiar with Galvin, but indeed a bit more on Am. colonial militias would be welcome. In the Massachusetts Bay Colony, village militia monthly "training day" was commensurate with "court day"; when grievance petitions would be heard & local men 16 to 60 would practice the manual of arms on the village green or square. Similar local militias were integral in the Am. Revolution (by which time they had been around for >100 years) & were the best reason why a right to keep and bear arms was included in the original Bill of Rights: to maintain that well-regulated militia. 74.103.95.163 (talk) 03:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

POV

Report from Iron Mountain is a hoax. No debate except among crackpot conspiracy theorists. The author and publisher have published articles explaining the hoax in detail. It is world famous as a hoax.

Left-wing scholars? No way. Both are respected published authors.

Cut out the POV insertions.--Cberlet 01:24, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Cberlet, the "respected authors" you speak of are only respected within certain circles. The way you edited the page makes it POV towards the left-wing. Iron Mountain is believed to be authentic by the right-wing, you said so yourself. Therefore, your statement is one sided and must be made Neutral as per Wikipedia's policys. You've been here long enought to know this.

I know your postion on this subject (I've read some of your material from the Southern Poverty Law center), even though I agree with some of your material, it does not give us the right to slant this article. You must aproach this subject objectively and in a totally neutral manner. I can do it, so I know you can.

As a side note, I despise the right-wing militia groups, but Wikipedia is no place to push that type of political rhetoric.Tetragrammaton 01:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling internationally-know and respected authors "left-wing" is biased and violates NPOV.--Cberlet 02:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments

I have filed a request for comments (politics) on this page.--Cberlet 03:03, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Calling studies "left-wing" or "right-wing" is POV. The studies about the contemporary militia movement are by internationally known and respected authors. If you want to divide up the "Supportive" studies into participant and scholarly, please do so, if you can supply the publisher to see if they are scholarly or mainstrream or not. It is not NPOV to pretend that a notorious and well-known hoax document might be real. It is a hoax document believed to be rue by some. Do we say that some argue the earth is flat, but othes argue it is round? Please!--Cberlet 03:08, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I find the title "Critical of Private Militias" to be much more Neutral. I hope we can agree there. While the title "In Support of Private Militias or Critical of Government" is acceptable, I think you and I can find a better way to word it.

How about "Critical of Govenment, works commonly used by Private Militias" as some of those works do not, in and of themselves, mention the militia movement. Those works are however, among the most common works referenced by the militia movement.

The Iron Mountain reference needs more work. I agree, the document is a hoax, but our mutual agreement on this issue does not make it any less POV, these groups believe in it. Therefore, according to Wikipedia's POV policy, we should reword the line to make it more neutral.Tetragrammaton 03:37, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

We can fiddle with the language. Happy to. But I think your position on Iron Mountain is a total misunderstanding of what NPOV means.--Cberlet 04:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay lets work with wikipedia's definition of NPOV posted here;

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these are fairly presented, but not asserted. All significant points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It is not asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests the neutral point of view is a point of view. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of debates. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed.

Therefore I submit this as one possible NPOV wording;

"A document publicly declared a hoax by its author, widely believed to be authentic within many right wing political groups"

The satire part is unnessary, as a user can find that out by following the link to the main article.Tetragrammaton 04:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Chip Berlet. I had no idea who you were, nor whom you were affiliated with. I know understand why you're so combative.

I knew you wrote a piece for the Southern Poverty Law Center, and I thought it was a bit off in left field, but then again so is Morris Dees and the SPLC. No doubt, Dees has done some great things in stopping anti-semitism (if you hadn't already guessed it, I'm Hebrew) and exposing white-supremists. So I respect that, but he, and after reading your Bio here at Wiki, I see that you are also, more than a little biased (it would seem) whenever the militia subject comes up (or right-wing). Allow me to reiterate, I had no idea who you were, I'm not into right wing or left wing politics. My forte is constitutional law, so forgive me if I'm a bit naive on the details of extremist rhetoric of the left and right.

Now that I know who you are, and read your article on the private-milita movement, I cannot help but think anything you post here isn't a bit biased. I've seen what you've had to put up with, I'd be more than a bit biased myself after that.

The reason I bring all of this up, is because it is relevent to how you edit this article, I'm trying to be totally neutral here, I question whether you are or not. Perhaps you are, but after reading up on the authors of the books which criticize these groups, I've found them to be left-wing, in the sense of the term as it is commonly understood in the United States of America.

That said, Chip Berlet, I will revert anything you edit that indicates a Point Of View which is not Neutral. This is Wikipedia not Research Associates' PublicEye.org website. Please keep your personal feelings and any bias you may have against right-wing groups on your own site. Again, let me say, I dislike them also, but wikipedia is nobody's political "soap-box" so let's try and keep it neutral, okay? You know as well as I do that Wikipedia is not a place for the viewpoints of the ridiculous right-wing or the lunatic left-wing.

As a side note, this post was not meant as any kind of attack on you, I am simply expressing my concern over your feelings on this subject as they may interfere with how you edit this article. This post was made in good faithTetragrammaton 06:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

It is not possible to threaten me with a revert war and challenge my ability to edit in an NPOV way, and then claim you are acting in good faith. Please return to a more courteous and constructive attitude. I have been through mediations and even an arbitration where the majority view was that I am able to edit in good faith and in an NPOV way. That view may not be universally shared here on Wiki, but it has been discussed at length by a number of administrators. I am deeply offeneded by your comments. Yes, what you wrote was clearly an attack on me. Please stop it.--Cberlet 13:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

You are not being threatened or attacked Cberlet. If I seem curt with you its because you have a reputation, which you have created for yourself. No insult was meant, and I am being honest with you when I say that. You say you have been through mediations and arbitrations and you can edit in good faith and in an NPOV way, good, I'll take you word on it.

Now back to business. After going to the Library and thumbing through the contents, indexes, and reading the summaries of most of the books listed in the "Critical of Government" list, I found that most of these works pre-date the militia movement, and make no mention of forming a private militia. However, private-militia groups have some of these works listed on their websites, so I felt that since most of these works came before the militia movement, they were an influence on the movement and not a product of it.

Therefore, I changed the subsection's title to a more accurate description of how these works relate to private militia groups.

Also, the book by Mr. Larry Pratt appears to be a book more about gun politics than militia politics, I think it should be stricken from the list.Tetragrammaton 01:27, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Sounds OK. I liked the new subhead. As you say, more acurate. I tried a new arrangement and tweaked the wording slightly. Pratt was influential in some militias.--Cberlet 03:50, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

I first took a look at this page because of the RfC. One error I see is the use of the phrase "'Patriot' subculture". Patriotism is not a subculture in America; rather, it is mainstream. Perhaps a better phrase would be "ultrapatriotic subculture." Applejuicefool 14:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The U.S. Constitution says,in the Bill Of Rights that Americans have the right to a 'well-regulated' militia. How do we define what is well-regulated? If we assume that the U.S. Army is a well-regulated military force,then we may compare a so-called militia to the U.S. Army. The U.S. Army has doctors whose duty is to remove any soldier who is physically unfit for duty. They also have psychiatrists whose duty is to remove any soldier who is mentally unfit for duty. Does a militia have a psychiatrist on it's staff,to remove any militia member from the organization,if he appears to be mentally unstable? I have never been a member of any militia,but I assume that they do not have any psychiatrists on their staff. Therefore,mentally unstable individuals are never remopved from militias,since there is no psychiatrist to remove them. The so-called militias that exist today are not well-regulated miltias,they are actually terrorist organizations. I believe this issue has the potential to be the basis for future edits on Wikipedia. Anthony Ratkov User:Anthony Ratkov—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.221.72.176 (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, well regulated is shown by obeying orders from officers and commanders and successful action on the field. I agree they would be held to the standards of the army in regulation. By the 5th amendment, giving Militia members the same trial as army or navy soldiers, discipline would be high but there would be a reduced expectation, given the shorter training period of the militia. Also, in the Federalist 46 Madison uses: regulation, discipline, conducted by governments; with respect to the Militia. Regulation must refer to the training prescribed by congress and discipline must refer to the training carried out by States. You might sense this from context.

Discipline and regulation must both succeed for a militia to be well regulated. Also, federal regulation must not be severe enough to interfere with the necessity to the security of a free state or state training so much as to alienate them from society. No solid evidence, just the feeling so far; so this is all just opinion but am hoping to get someone pointed in the right direction.

Researching the Department of Civilian Marksmanship

First, let me say I like your new arrangement Cberlet, looks good.

While researching the Morill Act of 1862, I came across a reference to the War Department's appropriation's budget for the year 1903, and a speech given by President Theadore Roosevelt on the requirement for the creation of both a Federal Militia (which led to the creation of the National Guard) and the "arming and disciplining of the militia at large, in the art of the rifle." Apparently the DCM/CMP was created to properly train the militia (unorganized) in the use of arms, for the defense of the nation, should they be drafted into military service. This organization, now the non-profit corporation for the Civilian Marksmanship Program (still a part of the DOD), still exists and has the same mission as it did when it was created in 1903.

The reason I bring this up is; a)These private militias are not, to my knowlege, affiliated with this organization, and b) this organization was created to provide for the proper training of the unorganized militia in the United States and is a LEGAL means of registering a gun-club with the US government, in order to train in a military fashion, yet none of these groups are registered with it, nor do they seem interested in become affiliated with it. (Which is probably a blessing, IMHO).

While it is not illegal within the United States to train with friends and/or family as a group, in the use of arms, for one's own personal enjoyment, training for government service, or even nationalistic reasons (on a personal level), it IS UNLAWFUL (as opposed to illegal) to train to overthrow the United States government, as that can easily be construed as sedition.

I'm currently trying to collect as much information as possible on this aspect of the militia of the United States, in order to point out (in a Neutral manner) that there is an organization created for the training of the militia, where people interested in excercising their duty to the United States government, i.e. training in the use of military arms (like the M1 Garand, M14, or M16, or their civilian look-a-like), can legally and do so without all the insane right-wing rhetoric and hate-speech.Tetragrammaton 18:24, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Minor point about sedition. As best I can tell, it is an obsolete law in the US. The Sedition Act of 1918 was an amendment to the Espionage Act of 1917 that was repealed in 1921. Earlier sedition laws might still be in effect in the US, although I am not certain anyone seriously can even make the case they are still in effect. Sedition laws in the UK are an entirely different matter, though. Yaf 17:14, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

That is interesting how you point out all of these "LEGAL" means of brushing up on marksmanship and training in a military fashion. All of these means of training are, in one way or another, aligned WITH the government. However, one of the greatest of US presidents; one of the architects of our constitution once said this about our second amendment:

  "The strongest reasons for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect 

against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson Now, why would it be expected that a militia that is supposed to protect AGAINST a tyrannical government join institutions created BY it? 216.220.0.9 (talk) 00:20, 30 March 2010 (UTC)216.220.0.9 (talk) 00:24, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I've read the Reference link about the CMP (at http://www.odcmp.com/about_us.htm) as well as the federal code that defines the CMP (see http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/36C407.txt). I find nothing about the CMP that even mentions militias, nor anything stating that the CMP is responsible for "registering a gun-club". In fact, I'm not aware of any US requirement to register a gun club (or a militia for that matter). Please feel free to point me to the laws that state otherwise. Jurros (talk) 02:29, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

"Gun Culture" in the United States includes all gun owners

I find it offensive, to say the least, at the very suggestion that private-militias are somehow synonymous with the gun culture in the USA.

The gun culture in the USA consists of every single gun owner, various 2nd amendment defense organizations, the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and various other groups, including those of us who are left-of-center, center, and right-of-center in American politics. Therefore, I amended the article to a Neutral viewpoint, as it is clearly POV to assume that all gun owners are members of, or sympathetic to, private-militia groups.Tetragrammaton 04:24, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

By John Ross' definition, the term gun culture does not consist of every single gun owner. Many police officers, for example, may own a gun, and may even carry a gun daily, but this does not make them a member of the gun culture. The difference is that members of the gun culture have a very strong interest in guns, and practice their shooting skills regularly, not just enough to qualify once a year on the range to maintain their law enforcement credentials.

That said, gun culture is likewise not synonymous with private militias, either. Private militias and members of the gun culture may have overlapping interests in guns, but that doesn't equate these two distinctly different groups. Authors John Ross and Boston T. Party may appeal to some militia members, but to say they only appeal to these private militia groups is offensive, too. Have attempted to craft a balanced approach, addressing all concerns. We may not be there yet, but I think we are closer. Yaf 07:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

The Morrill Act of July 2nd, 1862

Spent a considerable time at my local University Law Library reading over this act.

I am adding it into the main text of the militia article because it clearly states that as part of the land grants for state colleges and universities, the curiculum is reqauired to include "military training in federally aided land grant colleges, in order to prepare well-educated young men for leadership in the militia." The term militia used in this Act is referring to the Federal definition as per the Militia Act of 1792 and the Militia Act of 1852.Tetragrammaton 06:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll add more on the militia act of 1852 later. This act essentially removes the phrase "all able-bodied white males" to "all able-bodied males, including freed negro slaves."Tetragrammaton 06:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Minutemen as militas?

Are the Minutemen considered a militia? All they do is call the border defence when they spot an illegal, they don't take them into custody themselves. / Carolus

No Carolus, they are not, my mistake. Tetragrammaton 03:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The original 18th century Minutemen are definitively the "militia" as referred to in political and legal documents of the time. So, it is important to be specific as to which Minutemen you refer to when discussing whether or not they were a militia -- the original 18th cent. organization by definition was; the present-day anti-immigration activists are not. Collabi 23:58, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Why the post-mordem on the Private Militia portion of the text.....

This was discussed in great detail on the militia page's discussion board. I will revert it back to private-militia organizations as the Militia Act of 1903 is still in force in the US, as is the US Constitution. These private groups which call themselves militia are made up of members of the organized militia but have no legal right to appoint officers over themselves, and/or activate themselves into actual service. Though they have the constitutional right to assemble and train for military duty, they do not have the power to regulate themselves, that power belongs to the Federal congress.

It is for this reason that I chose the title private-milita organizations, as these groups are organizing into brigades, battalions, etc. without being called up to do so.Tetragrammaton 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

Well Cournal is a tricky title isnt it.? Someone who sees the defacto government as acting non-constitionally or neglecting in regulating said citizen's defensive groups could easily use the provisions of the Declaration of Independance and other forbearers rants about duty to throw off despotism to conceptually at least, justify organising the "unorganised" militia in a nomen juris sence. signed (CSA Col. appointed) Governor Confederate state of Kentucky (land)

Early Independent Militias?

I vaguely recall mention of colonial militias forming and training before the Revolution without legislature orders or approval, in cases where the colonial governments were deemed entirely controlled by royal governors and their stooges. These unorganized militias essentially formed a "shadow militia", much as the committees of correspondence formed a "shadow government". They could perhaps be held up as being akin to the natural right to self-defense or defense of community, apart from the duty to state.

It is also possible that Article the Second of Amendment's "right of the people" language was referencing such a natural right as well, since the amendment does not refer to a duty to the state. This unfringible right to bear arms could be seen in the documented martial sense, as opposed to the private sense, and simultaneously seen as a right to operate in private militias, as opposed to state militias.

And participation in private militia (classic sense, as in a "soldierly state") could even be demonstrated via a "militia of one", of self-defense.

The KKK

The Klu Klux Klan in not a militia group. The KKK is motivated by racial hatred and seeks to "purge" society of its undesireables. Anyone who has done even the most remote research on so called "Patriot" literature will note that those groups are motivated by Federal and State encroachments on the rights of individuals. It is clearly POV to list the KKK as a militia group without providing any credible evidence to support such a wild claim. Tetragrammaton 07:02, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There is plenty of credible evidence of this, meeting WP:ATT: Quoting from the book The Ku Klux Klan and Related American Racialist and Antisemitic Organizations: A History and Analysis by by Chester L. Quarles, Published 1999 McFarland & Company, ISBN 078640647X, Page 135.

The Militia Movement. Although they trace their history back to the pre-Revolutionary War era, most militias have been around for less than three decades. "It is important to remember that one of the most famous militia movements in the U.S. is the Ku Klux Klan, that arose as a militia during the turmoil of Reconstruction,"...

For further details of this KKK militia, see also the voluminous testimony from the 1872 Select Committee on the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, United States, Congress on Google Books. SaltyBoatr 15:23, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, Charles L. Quarles, I'm not surprised that he would make such an error. That idiot groups gun-rights advocates in with "Klu Klux Klan" members as is shown here from the very same book you quoted;

Under the title Klan Surrogates on page 149:

"The militia is increasingly becoming confrontational. It also represents a diverse grouping that includes the following:

Suvivalists

Gun rights activists

Advocates of "sovereign citizenship"

The confrontational wing of the antiabortion movement

Apocalyptic millenialists, including Christians who believe we are in the "end times"

Christian Reconstructionists..."

If I were to use this individual's line of thinking, the National Rifle Association and the Civilian Marksmanship Program could be considered Klu Klux Klan surrogates. Which is preposterous. Charles L. Quarles is a propagandist and his works are dripping with POV vitrol.

As a Hebrew, and a 2nd amendment advocate, I take great personal offense to this man's anti-semitic comments. Jews for the Preservation of Firearms Ownership is a gun rights advocate group and their position is to preserve the right to keep and bear arms to prevent a Holocaust from happening in the US. In essence Charles L. Quarles is calling them a KKK surrogate as they are a gun rights group. His gross oversimplification and generalization of the term "militia" is laughable. I don't care how many PH.Ds he has, the man is a fool.

I have no qualms about telling the truth about the so called "militia movement" but it is irresponsible and unprofessional to place a label upon them without just cause. These organizations spew enough ludicrous misinformation to properly critique and illustrate their deviant behavior, we don't need to elaborate or sensationalize them beyond what is factual.

J.J. Johnson was the former leader of the Ohio and Las Vega militia organizations during the 1990s, do you think HE is a member of the KKK?

Let's keep the article clean and free of POV shall we?Tetragrammaton 02:05, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please stop these improper and disruptive deletions. The KKK is widely considered by scholars to be a militia. The insertion is proerly cited. The deletion is not appropriate.--Cberlet 02:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Chip knock it off, your bias on this issue is clearly noted in your online works. You claim that the KKK is widely considered to be a militia by "scholars." Are these "scholars" unbiased or are they left-wing protagonists. Adding the KKK reference into the article gives the reader the impression that the Klu Klux Klan is a militia group, which is not the case. No militia organization, legal or otherwise, shares the viewpoints or motivations of the KKK. The KKK has always been a racially motivated organization that feeds on bigotry and uses religion as its justification. You know this. As a Bostonian I understand where your bias comes from, but the fact of the matter is these militia groups spread throughout the country are nothing like the "knights of the White Camilla" or any other KKK faction. The "private-militias" claim to include all peoples in their ranks, regards of race,color,or creed.

Your view, in your own words, is very slanted on this subject;

Militia-like organizations have existed within the right for many yearsin the form of Ku Klux Klan klaverns, the Order cell (out of Aryan Nations), and the Posse Comitatus. But today's citizens' militias, which have sprung up across the country over the last three years, represent a new and ominous development within the U.S. rightwing.

But we need to be very careful that we describe the militia phenomenon accurately. Otherwise, we will not blunt the threat, and we may only aid those in this country who are all too eager to curtail our civil liberties.

The first point to underscore about the militias is that not all militia members are racists and anti-Semites. While some militias clearly have emerged, especially in the Pacific Northwest, from old race-hate groups such as the Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nations, and while the grievances of the militia movement as a whole are rooted in white-supremacist and antiSemitic conspiracy theories, many militia members do not appear to be consciously drawn to the militia movement on the strength of these issues. Instead, at least consciously, they focus on blaming a caricature of the government for all the specific topical issues that stick in their craw.

To stereotype every armed militia member as a Nazi terrorist not only increases polarization in an already divided nation; it also lumps together persons with unconscious garden-variety prejudice and the demagogues and professional race-hate organizers.

Chip stop pushing your left-wing ideology on this article. There is no room for left-wing conspiracy theories about KKK/militia connections or "evil" Christian fundamentalists hiding behind every militiaman. As I've stated before, your reputation preceeds you and I doubt the objectivity of your motives in editing this page. You're too left-wing to be trusted in this case. It would be like John Trochman trying to edit this page, the page would be slanted towards a right-wing bias, which is precisely what I'm trying to avert here. I endeavor to make this page neutral and adding indefensible opinions about the KKK being a "militia" only undermine the neutrality of this article. A militia is an organization of citizens who actively train in the use of arms for the defense of a country or its principles. That ideaology is central to most militia organizations and you know it. The KKK does not do this, and never has. The central theme of the Klan is now and always has been racially motiviated, and you are well aware of that. I know because I've read your articles on the subject. Any "scholar" worth his PH.D should know this. The KKK is a racist organization, not a "militia" group.

Allow me to further stress my point by giving the FBI's assessment of militia organizations;

Most militia organization members are white males who range in age from the early 20s to the mid-50s. The majority of militia members appear to be attracted to the movement because of gun control issues, as epitomized by the Brady Law, which established a 5-day waiting period prior to the purchase of a handgun, and the 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, which limited the sale of various assault-style weapons. Many militia members believe that these legislative initiatives represent a government conspiracy to disarm the populace and ultimately abolish the Second Amendment to the Constitution. The federal government's role in confrontations with the Branch Davidians near Waco, Texas, and Randy Weaver at Ruby Ridge, Idaho, have further fueled conspiratorial beliefs that the government is becoming more tyrannical and attempting to reverse constitutional guarantees.

Militia members generally maintain strong Christian beliefs and justify their actions by claiming to be ardent defenders of the Constitution. They often compare the American Colonial period (1607-1783) to their present existence by relating significant Colonial dates and events to lend historical weight to their own beliefs and actions. Many militias claim to represent the ideological legacy of the founding fathers tracing their core beliefs to select writings and speeches that predate the Revolutionary War. Colonists at that time rebelled against the tyranny of King George III and what they saw as the British government's practice of oppression and unjust taxation. Various present-day militias pattern their actions on what they believe their ideological ancestors would do if they were alive today.

Using their interpretation of constitutional rights and privileges as their calling, militia members and antigovernment extremists have challenged federal and state laws and questioned the authority of elected officials to govern, tax, and maintain order. In doing so, they have created concerns for law enforcement and public officials who come into contact with them. Still, many militia members and individuals who espouse antigovernment beliefs remain law- abiding citizens and do not advocate terrorist acts. Many organized militias have, in fact, condemned the Oklahoma City bombing and have stated that those responsible for the attack do not represent the philosophy and goals of today's militia groups.

I see the motivating factors behind private militia groups to be gun-control, government micromanagement of individual's private lives, the New World Order conspiracy theory, and perceived socialist programs implemented by Federal and State governments. No racism Chip. Is there racism within their ranks? I'm sure there probably is, but it is not what their ideology espouses and is not why they organize into their unauthorized para-military units. In contrast, the KKK organizes for the purpose of depriving one or more groups of people of their inalienable rights due to that groups race or religion. The KKK forms its groups to "cleanse" our society of people like me, a Hebrew. The Klan also doesn't make any claim of being a militia or affiliated with the "Patriot" culture in the US. The KKK is Not a militia, never has been, and most likely never will be. They're a racist group of bigoted assholes, nothing more.Tetragrammaton 05:52, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

I find your ad hominim attack on Mr. Quarles ultimately irrelevant considering that you ignore the record of the Reconstruction Era Klu Klux militia activities in the 1872 Select Committee on the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, United States, Congress. Bottom line: The statement that the Klu Klux was a militia meets WP:ATT. SaltyBoatr 17:21, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please also explain why you focus only upon the 'patriot culture'? That is only a tiny piece, covering only a few decades of the history of militia in the United States. SaltyBoatr 17:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean when you refer to this source as a record of "Ku Klux militia activities." I browsed through it and could not find any discussion of the KKK as a militia organization. There are a lot of mentions of militia, but all the examples I could find discussed the militia in opposition to the Klan. There were numerous mentions of "negro militia," "colored militia," and "State militia." Also some discussion about whether militia units in the southern states were linked to the Loyal Leagues or Union Leagues (Reconstructionist organizations that were diametrically opposed to the Klan), but as far as I can see no one describes the Klan itself as a militia in that source. PubliusFL 18:36, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for asking. Yes, I share your questions about the 1872 report, and agree that we should be cautious about using it as a source for the article because it is a primary source. Regardless, in conjunction with the other secondary sources I cited, the 1872 report provides an astonishing glimpse into that era. That said, and with the qualification given that it is a primary source, I understand that:

Essentially three militia groups were involved, 1) The colored militia, an organized militia. 2) The Republican militia, an organized militia. and 3) the Democratic 'white' Klu Klux militia, an extra-legal militia. Due to the Republican perspective of that Congress, the terminology of the word 'militia' is used only for the organized militia. I see no doubt that the extra-legal Democratic 'white' Klu Klux militia clearly meets our accepted definition of an extra-legal citizens paramilitary, which we also call a militia. No need to accept my personal interpretation of this, as my citations[1][2][3]of secondary sources suffice on their own. SaltyBoatr 19:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See also the book The Reconstruction Ku Klux Klan in York County, South Carolina, 1865 to 1877 By Jerry L West. Published 2002 McFarland & Company ISBN 0786412585. On Page 57 it describes three KKK militia units formed York County, South Carolina in January of 1870. SaltyBoatr 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See also the book Dictionary of Race, Ethnicity and Culture By Guido Bolaffi. ISBN 0761969004, 2003 Sage Publications Inc. On Page 171 it describes how the Klan has formed into militia groups in modern time. SaltyBoatr 18:03, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

This encyclopedia describes the KKK as a paramilitary organization, in context of the Brooks-Baxter War. Which by our definition is a militia. SaltyBoatr 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

See also, Documentary history of reconstruction; political, military, social, religious, educational & industrial, 1865 to the present time. Pages 73 to 76, by Walter L Fleming. Cleveland, D., The A. H. Clark company, 1906-07. OCLC: 74376432, which describes the 'White Militia' aka 'Monk's Militia' which on Page 74 is self-described as "Klu Klux", and on pages 75 and 76 of a 'gang of militia' with a Jim Thorp killed and charged as "Captain of Klu-Klux".SaltyBoatr 20:56, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

My criticism of Mr. Quarles is justified for the reasons I gave above. He is clearly pushing a very left-wing definition of the word "militia" which could easily encompass groups such as the National Rifle Association, CMP, and even some of the more militant Feminist organizations in this country.

I disagree with your self-determiniation that your opinion meets the standards of the WP:ATT. It clearly states;

Wikipedia:Attribution is one of Wikipedia's core content policies. Together with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, the two determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in articles; that is, content on Wikipedia must be attributable and written from a neutral point of view. Because the policies are complementary, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another. For examples and explanations that illustrate key aspects of this policy, see Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ.

The Wikipedia:Attribution/FAQ states that;

A questionable source is one with no independent editorial oversight or fact-checking process, or with a poor reputation for fact-checking. This includes websites and publications that express political, religious, anti-religious, or racist views that are widely acknowledged as extremist. It also includes gossip columns, tabloids, and sources that are entirely promotional in nature. Questionable sources should usually not be used as sources except in articles about themselves; see the self-publication provision of the policy.

The sources you are sighting, with the exception of the 1872 Select Committee on the Condition of Affairs in the Late Insurrectionary States, may be poor sources. I will check them out and get back to you. Mr. Quarles is a poor source without a doubt, his list of KKK surrogates in his work clearly show a far-leftist line of opinion and his work on this subject should be ignored.

SaltyBoatr, it would seem you are interested in contributing information about KKK groups that organized into militia-like gangs might I suggest you add your information about the Klux militia to the Klu Klux Klan article in Wikipedia, because that is really where it belongs. This artticle is unbalanced by the information you provide as the KKK was never a legitimate militia nor did it claim to be. If you do still wish to add it to this article, then I will balance the article with information on left-wing militia groups, as that is the only way to ensure NPOV here.

Perhaps a new section should be added to the article entitled: Quazi-Militia or Militia-like organizations, where we both (you and I) can start this section with information on the KKK and Black Panthers and see where it goes from there.

I am interested in what course you would like to pursue here, and will work with you provided you can maintain neutrality on this subject. I know Chip cannot, which is a pity because he seems like a very intellectual gentleman outside of this subject.Tetragrammaton 01:26, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain why you insist that the article feature the 'patriot culture' form of militia? This is only a small portion of the full history of militia in the United States. SaltyBoatr 03:21, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

By "Patriot Culture" I assume you mean the ridiculous right-wingers who believe in the whole New World Order nonsense. I focus on the "private-militias" because most of these groups, according to the FBI, consider themselves legitimate militia organizations whose authority comes from the 2nd Amendment, and other constitutional sources. Unlike actual hate-groups who usually base their authority on some religious principle, like Christian Identity who think their the "children of Israel". My primary focus in this article since the very begining of it (Chip Berlet and I started it quite awhile back) was the historical aspect of strictly the legitimate unorganiized militia and National Guard. The "private-militias" were put in as an afterthought to help differenciate between the actual unorganized militia and National Guard, and these idiots running around the back woods of America playing G.I. Joe. However, Chip seems hell bent on "exposing" these groups as white-supremists when that is not the overall case. Many of these groups are racially, and ethnically diverse what binds them together is this belief in an international conspiracy that wants to take their rights away from them. Some are "white-power" groups masquerading as private-militias but many are not. Unfortuneately Wikipedia has the "original research" rule so I am unable to use my own research material from the 1998-2000 period in which I studied militia organizations in the state of Colorado by doing field research. In other words, I went to gun-shows and public militia meetings to gather information on these groups for a paper I wrote on the subject. I've actually met John Trochmen, and Mark Koernike in person. Neither of which espoused any "hate-speech" towards any racial, ehtinical, or sexually-oriented group. The focus of all of their rhetoric was on the evils of socialism and how the Clinton Administration was preparing to enslave the US population. This was complete poppycock, but not hate-speech. Much of the published "scholarly" work reflects a very bias view of these already assinine groups. I fail to see how lying about them and lumping the "gun-culture" in with them will help expose these groups for what they are; those who engage in such hype are acting foolish, IMHO. It is for that reason I have labored to try an keep this article factual and free of both left and right wing bias. My initial knee-jerk reaction to your (SaltyBoatr) KKK entries is spawned by much of the nonsensical edits of this page in the past. If I had my way, the "private-militia" section would be stricken from the article and only the history of the organized and unorganized militia would be presented here, but Chip might have kittens if I did that so I cater to his desire to have such a section here :).Tetragrammaton 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I see 'actual unorganized militia' defined in the Militia Act, every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age. You seem to be using some different definition of 'actual unorganized militia', can you point to your definition using secondary sources? SaltyBoatr 14:03, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No SaltBoatr, I am using the definition found in the Militia Act of 1903(USC Title 10, section 311). BTW, I see by your user profile you were a wiki member under a different name, I am curious, whose "sock-puppet" are you? Chip's perhaps? =^_^= Tetragrammaton 14:52, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I ask that you avoid personal attacks and assume good faith. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I finished researching Mr. Walter L. Flemming, he was Pro-KKK and thus a right-wing source. I see his opinion's about the KKK being a militia as being politically bias. At the time of his work (post-civil war period) calling the KKK a militia was an attempt to legitimize their racist activities. I think it best if we do not contribute to that line of thinking.Tetragrammaton 15:10, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Your ad hominem attack on Dr. Walter Fleming does not directly address the issue of whether the book: Documentary history of reconstruction; political, military, social, religious, educational & industrial, 1865 to the present time. Walter L Fleming. Cleveland, D., The A. H. Clark company, 1906-07. OCLC: 74376432 is a reliable source. SaltyBoatr 15:22, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, the =^_^= is a smiley face, indicating that I am joking around with you. Relax will you. Tetragrammaton 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your smiley face qualified your personal attack on me, not your attack on Dr. Fleming. SaltyBoatr 16:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My criticism of Fleming is hardly an attack, I'm simply pointing out that his view is bias in favor of the KKK. If you really want to use Fleming as a credible source, we can, but I'll warn you right now, I will use the information in his volume to show how blacks were deprived their right to keep and bear arms and thus prohibited from excercising their duty to train in the use of arms as unorganized militia, due to racist gun-control laws. Keep in mind that at the time he wrote his book, the Militia Act of 1792 was still in effect and had been amended in 1862 to enclude freed black slaves. After the 14th amendment was ratified, all Americans of African decent were subject to the requirements of the 1792 Militia Act.Tetragrammaton 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to learn more about this, I highly recommend the excellent book: The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics by Don Fehrenbacher. Oxford University Press: 2001. ISBN 0-19-514588-7. By the way, I see no 'duty to train' in current federal law for unorganized militia. SaltyBoatr 16:15, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

I would like to thank you SaltyBoatr, because of your insistance on adding the KKK section I am acquiring a whole new repertoire of information on the racist roots of gun-control and how gun-control has deprived law-abiding Americans of African Decent of their rights.Tetragrammaton 01:55, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I am presently in favor of titling the section 'Reconstruction era milita', or something similar. The extralegal white militia was only one part of the militia mix during that era. Indeed, an extremely interesting period in the history of United States militia. I am presently researching this history, and welcome help in expanding the Militia (United States)#Reconstruction era militia stub section. See, for instance, The Battle of September Fourteenth 1874. SaltyBoatr 15:59, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The title sounds good, all that I ask is that you make the word 'militia' plural so that the different types of militia of the period can be discussed.Tetragrammaton 01:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

revert of apparent original research

Could you please point to credible secondary sources for proposed new the 'Extra-Legal/quasi-militia paramilitar groups' section? Where is this concept defined? Thanks in advance. SaltyBoatr 03:14, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

No problem. But first I must ask, do you consider the ADL(Anti-Defamation League), and Marxists.org credible sources?Tetragrammaton 03:45, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

ADL information on New Black Panthers, and additional articles on both them and the Nation of Islam. The Anti-Defamation League references the New Black Panthers as a "militia" which, using the guidelines you have set here, qualifies them for addition to this article. The ADL is well respected.Tetragrammaton 04:32, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I cannot answer your question in the abstract because it depends on the context. I do agree to stick to the guidelines given in Wikipedia policy, and specifically here: WP:ATT#Wikipedia_articles_must_be_based_on_reliable_sources SaltyBoatr 15:27, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

If the context of Extra-legal/Private Militia means any armed, paramilitary organization that organizes into military style units/militias without Congressional authority than the Black Panthers definitely qualify, so do the Young Bloods, the Nation of Isam is debatable.Tetragrammaton 03:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Your definition appears to be personal. Wikipedia articles must be based on reliable sources, not personal opinion. SaltyBoatr 15:44, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

No, actually SaltyBoatr I gave you a link to the ADL article which refers to the Black Panthers as a militia;

Michaels (at right), born Aaron McCarthy in Dallas, had worked at various Christian radio stations in the city before he started producing Dallas County Commissioner John Wiley Price's nightly radio show "Talkback" in 1990. He credits Price, who made a name for himself organizing a series of confrontational protests in the Dallas area, with introducing him to black nationalist ideology. When Michael McGee appeared on "Talkback" in 1990, Price urged his listeners to give money to the Black Panther Militia.

Inspired by McGee's appearance, in 1990 Michaels organized a group of like-minded followers, which he named after the original Panthers; he registered the New Black Panther Party name in 1991. Like McGee's Black Panther Militia, Michaels' NBPP borrowed the militant style and confrontational tactics from the original Panthers while ignoring some of its core principles and community service programs. "Survival programs are good, but they don't make us free," Michaels said.

— The New Black Panther Party for Self-Defense, Anti-Defamation League

The ADL is as credible a source as any of those currently given here. They refer to the Black Panthers as a militia.Tetragrammaton 01:44, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

distinction between 'Private Militia Organizations' and 'Extra-legal/Quasi-militia paramilitary groups'

Tetragrammaton, you appear to see a distinction between 'Private Militia Organizations' and 'Extra-legal/Quasi-militia paramilitary groups'. I don't see any distinction or difference defined in Title 10 Section 311. Please identify the distinction and/or difference using credible secondary sources. SaltyBoatr 15:15, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

The term "private" is NPOV. One of the definitions of Private is one who does not hold public office. These people do not hold a public office. They are members of the unorganized militia, but they are organizing into units without Federal approval.

Extra-legal is a term used to describe an activity that is not regulated or sanctioned by law. Extra-legal is synonymous with Illegal. There is a controvery over whether or not these militias have a legal right to do what they are doing. My opinion, and obviously yours, is that they do not but, we must keep the article NPOV. I didn't want to over burden the article with a huge article on Illegal/Unauthorized/Extra-Legal/UnSanctioned militias so I chose the neutral and IMHO docile term "private."

While I feel these groups are not operating in a legal capacity I can't edit the article that way because it can be argued that they are operating along the lines of the 1st and 2nd Amendments, albeit a very thin line. As you know the 1st Amendment to the US Constitution guarantees the right to free speech and to peacefully assemble. These groups can say what they want, and assemble privately so long as they do not assemble for insurrection, or rebellion. Yes I know their rhetoric could constitute this kind of action but they don't act on it. The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the people to keep and bear arms, so they can have their weapons. They can also train with weaopns for the purpose of improving marksmanship as per the Title 32 subsection 578:102. One of the many problems I have with the "militia movement" is that they are NOT members of the CMP, nor do they show any willingness to join the CMP. However, I must keep a NPOV viewpoint in this matter so I chose "private" militia over "Un-Regulated" or "illegal" militia.

I hope that adequately answers your question.Tetragrammaton 03:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually not. I asked for credible secondary sources and you responded with your personal opinion. SaltyBoatr 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

My apologies SaltyBoatr, the University of Pennsylvania Law Review published a report on "Private-Militias" in April of 1996. This article refers to these groups as "Private-Militias." However, my suggestion for this article was to separate the "right-wing" citizen-militia types that organize under the premise of protecting their natural rights from the groups that organize under racially bias doctrines in order to avoid confusion and clarify in the article that there is no relation between "citizens-militias" and groups like the KKK and Black Panthers.

The citizen-militia groups believe they have the right to form militias. These groups are formed to oppose what they see as unconstitutional and tyrannical practices of both State and Federal government authority.

The New Black Panther Party (not the original) and especially the KKK, have organized their groups for racist or hate motivated reasons which have very little to do with the US Federal Constitution or the rights of all Americans.

For example, the Ten platforms of the Black Panthers shows a very anti-American and anti-White doctrine;

What the New Black Panthers Want, What the New Black Panthers Believe

1. We want freedom. We want the power to practice self-determination, and to determine the destiny of our community and THE BLACK NATION. We believe in the spiritual high moral code of our Ancestors. We believe in the truths of the Bible, Quran, and other sacred texts and writings. We believe in MAAT and the principles of NGUZO SABA. We believe that Black People will not be free until we are able to determine our Divine Destiny.

2. We want full employment for our people and we demand the dignity to do for ourselves what we have begged the white man to do for us. We believe that since the white man has kept us deaf, dumb and blind, and used every “dirty trick” in the book to stand in the way of our freedom and independence, that we should be gainfully employed until such time we can employ and provide for ourselves. We believe further in: POWER IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! WEALTH IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE! ARMS IN THE HANDS OF THE PEOPLE!

3. We want tax exemption and an end to robbery of THE BLACK NATION by the CAPITALIST. We want an end to the capitalistic domination of Africa in all of its forms: imperialism, criminal settler colonialism, neo-colonialism, racism, sexism, zionism, Apartheid and artificial borders. We believe that this wicked racist government has robbed us, and now we are demanding the overdue debt of reparations. A form of reparations was promised 100 years ago (forty acres and a mule) as restitution for the continued genocide of our people and to in meaningful measure and repair the damage for the AFRICAN HOLOCAUST (Maangamizo/Maafa). We believe our people should be exempt from ALL TAXATION as long as we are deprived of equal justice under the laws of the land and the overdue reparations debt remains unpaid. We will accept payment in fertile and mine rally rich land, precious metals, industry, commerce and currency. As genocide crimes continue, people’s tribunals must be set up to prosecute and to execute. The “Jews” were given reparations. The Japanese were given reparations. The Black, the Red and the Brown Nations must be given reparations. The American white man owes us reparations. England owes us reparations. France owes us reparations, Spain and all of Europe. Africa owes us reparations and repatriation. The Arabs owe us reparations. The “Jews” owe us reparations. All have taken part in the AFRICAN HOLOCAUST and the slaughter of 600 million of our people over the past 6,000 years in general and 400 year in particular. We know that this is a reasonable and just demand that we make at this time in history.

4. We want decent housing, fit for shelter of human beings, free health-care (preventive and maintenance). We want an end to the trafficking of drugs and to the biological and chemical warfare targeted at our people. We believe since the white landlords will not give decent housing and quality health care to our Black Community, the he housing, the land, the social, political and economic institutions should be made into independent UUAMAA “New African Communal/Cooperatives” so that our community, with government reparations and aid (until we can do for ourselves) can build and make drug free, decent housing with health facilities for our people.

5. We want education for our people that exposes the true nature of this devilish and decadent American society. We want education that teaches us our true history/herstory and our role in the present day society. We believe in an educational system that will give our people “a knowledge of self.” If we do not have knowledge of self and of our position in society and the world, then we have little chance to properly relate to anything else.

6. We want all Black Men and Black Women to be exempt from military service. We believe that Black People should not be forced to fight in the military service to defend a racist government that holds us captive and does not protect us. We will not fight and kill other people of color in the world who, like Black People, are being victimized by the white racist government of America. We will protect ourselves from the force and violence of the racist police and the racist military, “by any means necessary.”

7. We want an immediate end to POLICE HARRASSMENT, BRUTALITY and MURDER of Black People. We want an end to Black-on-Black violence, “snitching,” cooperation and collaboration with the oppressor. We believe we can end police brutality in our community by organizing Black self-defense groups (Black People’s Militias/Black Liberation Armies) that are dedicated to defending our Black Community from racist, fascist, police/military oppression and brutality. The Second Amendment of white America’s Constitution gives a right to bear arms. We therefore believe that all Black People should unite and form and “African United Front” and arm ourselves for self-defense.

8. We want freedom for all Black Men and Black Women held in international, military, federal, state, county, city jails and prisons. We believe that all Black People and people of color should be released from the many jails and prisons because they have not received a fair and impartial trial. ‘Released’ means ‘released’ to the lawful authorities of the Black Nation.

9. We want all Black People when brought to trial to be tried in a court by a jury of their peer group or people from their Black Communities, as defined by white law of the Constitution of the United States. We believe that the courts should follow their own law, if their nature will allow (as stated in their Constitution of the United States) so that Black People will receive fair trials. The 6th Amendment of the United States Constitution gives a man/woman a right to an impartial trial, which has been interpreted to be a “fair” trial by one’s “peer” group. A “peer” is a person from a similar economic, social, religious, geographical, environmental, historical and racial background. To do this, the court will be forced to select a jury from the Black Community from which the Black defendant came. We have been and are being tried by all white juries that have no understanding of the “average reasoning person” of the Black Community.

10. WE DEMAND AN END TO THE RACIST DEATH PENALTY AS IT IS APPLIED TO BLACK AND OPPRESSED PEOPLE IN AMERICA. WE DEMAND FREEDOM FOR ALL POLITICAL PRISONERS OF THE BLACK RED AND BROWN NATION! We want land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace. And, as our political objective, we want NATIONAL LIBERATION in a separate state or territory of our own, here or elsewhere, “a liberated zone” (“New Africa” or Africa), and a plebiscite to be held throughout the BLACK NATION in which only we will be allowed to participate for the purposes of determining our will and DIVINE destiny as a people. FREE THE LAND! “UP YOU MIGHTY NATION! YOU CAN ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU WILL!” BLACK POWER! History has proven that the white man is absolutely disagreeable to get along with in peace. No one has been able to get along with the white man. All the people of color have been subjected to the white man’s wrath. We believe that his very nature will not allow for true sharing, fairness, equity and justice. Therefore, to the Red Man and Woman, to the Yellow and to the Brown, we say to you “THE SAME RABID DOG THAT BIT YOU, BIT US TOO!” ALL POWER TO THE PEOPLE!

— New Black Panther Party, Ten Platforms

In contrast the Militia of Montana's website claims;

The Militia is not an "Anti-Government" group, but an "Anti-Corruption In Government" group. The Militia is We The People enforcing the God given rights that every human being should have. Militia members do not walk around carrying guns and wearing army fatigues, looking for someone to shoot. A Militia member is a person who has sworn to uphold the Constitution and all laws which do not conflict with the Constitution, a Citizen who is willing to give his/her life in the defense against foreign or domestic invasion of Family, Home, Neighbors and Country. A Militia member is not your enemy, but on the contrary, a protector of the Constitutional Rights of everyone in the United States of America.

— Militia of Montana, What is the Militia?

That statement is all-inclusive. Within that page this group claims legitimacy, not through some religious or political ideology, but on the Federal Constitution and laws of the United States. I'm not saying their correct in their assumption, what I am pointing out here is that THEY believe they are obeying the law and protecting the law; i.e. the US Federal Constitution. That's a far cry from the Black Panther's platform, which is clearly anti-semitic, anti-American, and anti-white and claims its legitimacy based on anti-Capitialist ideologies rather than American law. There is a clear distinction between the two groups.

The KKK's platform is not much different than that of the New Black Panthers rhetoric.

The Knights ' Party Platform;

1 The recognition that America was founded as a Christian nation.

As James Madison, known as the "Chief Architect of the Constitution" stated; " We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves to control ourselves to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

2 The recognition that America was founded as a White nation.

America was born as an extension of White European heritage. Those who formed the very ideals that we cherish such as freedom of speech, trial by jury, innocent until proven guilty, free enterprise, etc. were of White European heritage. All of the early laws of the United States from its very inception restricted citizenship to White people and all of the early charters, laws, compacts, etc were signed into effect by White people.

3 Repeal the NAFTA and GATT treaties.

These "laws" given to us by the Democrats and Republicans is damaging to the American worker and will eventually put millions upon millions into desperate poverty.

4 Put America FIRST in all foreign matters

The first and only concern of our government should be for the citizens of the United States.

5 Stop all Foreign Aid Immediately

Hundreds of billions of dollars are sent overseas every year while our people remain in need, our schools need funding, our infrastructure needs rebuilding and our citizens fight to keep their bills paid. This money should be used to support the decaying Social Security and Medicare programs, to help send kids to college, and to rebuild our infrastructure. Keep American Taxes in America!

6 Cut off trade with countries that refuse to establish strict environmental laws.

We should promote a fair system that allows for a clean environment in our own country and does not interfere with the free enterprise system. We also promote an aggressive search for and use of non-polluting and clean energy sources such as solar energy.

7 Abolish ALL discriminatory affirmative action programs

The federal government has enacted programs and laws designed for the exclusive discrimination against those of White European ancestry. Promotions, hiring and scholarships should be based on ability and not upon a person's race

8 Put American troops on our border to STOP the flood of illegal aliens

America is being over run by illegal immigrants mostly from nonwhite countries who do not share the Christian European values of our nation's founders. Immigration should remain open to all White Christians throughout the world . There is not one single country that does not persecute it's White Christian citizens such as in South Africa where the violent crime against Whites is at an all time high. The entire reasoning behind the forming of America was to allow one place in the world where White Christians could live together in harmony without any outside interference from those of other religions or races.

9 Abolish all anti-gun laws and encourage every adult to own a weapon

The cure for crime in America is not take guns off the streets but to put more guns ON the streets. Violent riminals should be punished, but law abiding citizens should be allowed to defend their homes, business and families with out fear of the federal government treating them as the criminal.

10 Actively promote love and appreciation of our unique European (White) culture

We must recognize it as the bedrock of American liberty and self government.

11 Outlaw the purchase of American property and industry by foreign corporations and investors.

The land belongs to Americans and their posterity and should not be up for sale.

12 Drug testing for welfare recipients

We recognize that not everyone receiving assistance is on drugs, but those who are should not be receiving your tax money. Welfare should be for those who need it - not those who abuse it.

13 Repeal the Federal Reserve Act.

This illegally passed law gives control of our money to a private corporation. We must return to debt free money - interest free currency issued by Congress as prescribed in the U.S. Constitution.

14 Balance the budget

Just as any family must balance their budget so must the federal government. Accordingly all present federal debt owed to the criminal private Federal Reserve corporation should be canceled.

15 Rehabilitate our public school system.

We must remove the humanist influence in our schools and teach fact based curriculum to further the students knowledge not someone's opinion. Parents should have the option of private or home schooling if they prefer and students should be free to practice their Christian faith in the classroom.

16 A flat income tax should be introduced to allow for the funding of community, state and federal projects.

This should be the one and only tax allowed. It is the only fair way to collect revenue and does not discriminate against any economic class.

17 Abortion should be outlawed except to save the mother's life or in case of rape or incest.

While we stress the need for a moral and Christian lifestyle, we applaud those women who choose to give life when faced with an unplanned pregnancy. Furthermore, we recognize a woman's right to self-defense. While occurances are rare, a woman should not be forced to carry a rapist's seed to fruition.

18 We support the death penalty for those convicted of molestation and rape

The only way to put an end to this cycle of abuse is to stop the sexual abuser once and for all.

19 We support a national law against the practice of homosexuality

This is a Christian nation and the Bible condemns homosexual activity and the perversion of our society which it encourages.

20 We support the placing of all persons HIV positive into national hospitals

While the AIDS virus is almost inclusive to homosexuals and those not of European ancestry, many innocent people have ontacted the virus. Despite the moral character of a person, the virus is still highly contagious with new and deadlier forms coming out constantly. Everyone who gets it dies! Aids carriers should receive proper medical care while a cure is being researched. This is the only way to stop the spread of the disease. They should be kept from coming into contact with uninfected people.

21 Restoring individual freedom to Christian America.

People should be allowed to hire who they want, live where they want and practice the Christian faith as they lease. Likewise people should be able to sell to whom they want , rent to whom they want and socialize and conduct business with who they want. The government should not interfere with the everyday lives of white Christian Americans.

22 We support the voluntary repatriation of everyone not satisfied with living under White Christian rules of conduct back to the native lands of their people

The brightest and best minds of all races will be able to run their own affairs without outside interference. To support their efforts we should provide the financial and technological resources needed for a limited period of time in the building or rebuilding of their independent nations. After that their success or failure is totally up to them.

23 Everyone who can work should work

A workfare program should be established to assist those who need help for a limited time. Furthermore we recognize that with an end to the insane economic policies which are currently engaged in this country, many families would not be forced into the welfare system in the first place.

24 We support a return to parental authority without government interference in the raising of our children

We want to see the National Education Association and the Child protective agencies put out of business. Child abusers should receive corporal punishment - if they abuse their children then they should fear the law. However, today too many freedoms are being taken away from parents in the so called name of " child protection". Child destruction is their real goal!

25 We respect the right of homeowners and that no one should ever be forced from their home for the non payment of taxes

26 We support state sovereignty resolutions

Each state should be able to officially declare that any power of law not directly given to the federal government by the constitution can be nullified by the state congress. We furthermore recognize that the 10th Amendment means that the federal government was created by the states to be an agent of the states instead of the states being an agent of the federal government.

27 We advocate a strong defense department to safeguard American citizens

We believe that the defense dept. should consist of volunteers of both men and women with women being excluded from combat positions. Furthermore we believe that the defense departments sole mission should be to defend our borders and not those of any other country or nation including the interference into their private affairs.

28 We support all U.S. veterans

We should find those that are missing and take care of those who have come home.

— The Klu Klux Klan, Klu Klux Klan Knight's Party Platform

As you can plainly see SaltyBoatr, there is a similar pattern between the motivations of the Black Panthers and the KKK. THE BLACK NATION the Panthers speak of in article 3 of their platform and THE WHITE CHRISTIAN NATION the KKK speak of in articles 1,and 2 share a similar vein of thinking. They both claim the existance of a Nation-State which is contrary to the United States Constitution, and in particular its "Bill of Rights," and both groups claim an Extra-legal/unsanctioned authority to carry out their demands. The Black Panthers claim an Extra-Legal authority from some socialist ideal to defend their "oppressed" people from CAPITALIST/White-man's tyranny. The KKK claims an Extra-Legal authority from Christianity/God to defend "endangered" Christian Whites from minorities, Jews, homosexuals, and illegal aliens. Both of these groups, and especially the Black Panthers, are known to parade in public with arms from time to time as a paramilitary group and engage in illegal activity on no authority except their own.

On the other hand, the "private-militias", like the Militia of Montana, seek to rectify what they believe or view as unconstitutional laws and treaties. These groups advocate survivalist training, firearms training, and political change through voting, and education. The Black Panthers and KKK both advocate violence or disenfranchisement against the groups they dislike. The rhetoric of the "private-militias" advocates violence only as a last resort against what they believe is or will be government tyranny. The only groups they claim to dislike are political groups, like socialists, communists, and fascists, who they believe will enslave all Americans regardless of race, national decent, sexuality, or creed.

The "private-militias" are not using an Extra-legal authority in their claim of legitamacy, they are using the US Federal Constitution and the idea of what a militia comprised of during the late 1700s.

I may not agree with these Citizens-militias about "black helicopters, or the New World Order" but I'm not going to lie about them and claim that they are Extra-Legal. I would also like to see an unbias, neutral, primary or secondary source which uses that term "Extra-legal" with regard to these "right-wing" militia groups, like Militia of Montana. As you SaltyBoatr are the editor who changed the article and used that term, the burden of proof is on you. I would very much like to use the term "Extra-legal" to describe the racist Black Panthers and KKK groups but that would be POV because there are no sources to my knowledge that use this term to describe them. Though I'll bet if I looked I could find some.Tetragrammaton 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree that extralegal means 'not regulated or sanctioned by law'[4][5] and 'being beyond the province or authority of law'[6]. I am not sure what Extra-Legal means. By the way, extralegal is not synonymous with illegal. SaltyBoatr 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

SaltyBoatr, according to Roget's New Millenium Thesaurus, Dictonary.com entry on illegal, Extra-legal is a synonym. Word Web Online, also lists Extra-Legal as a synonym for illegal. The link to dictionary.com you provided has extralegal defined as not permitted or governed by law as you posted above, however, I followed that link at Dictionary.com to Thesaurus.com where it lists various synonyms for the illegal entry (I was redirected from Extra-legal), it lists Extra-legal as a synonym for illegal. The other two sources you cited list the word Extra-legal as synonymous with nonlegal. The word nonlegal is as vague and ambiguous as Extra-legal and can easily be construed to mean illegal. The word must be removed from the article as it is clearly POV.Tetragrammaton 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

You wrote "While I feel that these groups...". I still am in the dark as to your opinion or definition of which groups are these groups. SaltyBoatr 15:37, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

The Black Panthers and KKK are these groups and a clear distinction must be made in the article between these groups and "private" or citizens-miltiiasTetragrammaton 01:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Michael Bellesiles

Please do not use this man's work, it is inaccurate and riddled with flaws. Even the normally very Liberal Russell Baker has called him "the Milli Vanilli of the academic community" for his attrocious book Arming America which academics, journalists, and critics on both sides of the political spectrum took issue with. I am not surprised that he used the term Extra-legal to describe the militia. I did a google search through the book that was cited in this article and it actually refers to Ethan Allen as a "terrorist" on page 1 of his book Revolutionary Outlaws: Ethan Allen and the Struggle for Independence on the Early American Frontier. National Public Radio (a left-wing source if there ever was one) in its morning edition on March 4th 2002, baked Bellesiles crediblity over a slow fire until he was properly roasted for being an asshat and fabricating historical "evidence". This individual's work is not a reliable source, don't use it.Tetragrammaton 02:36, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Oh and here's an article about what became of Bellesiles after the Arming America scandal.Tetragrammaton 03:05, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

The University of Virginia Press, publisher of that book, is a reliable source and can be presumed to have vetted the Bellesiles book sufficient to meet the standards of Wikipedia per WP:ATT. We are to apply the Wikipedia standards, not personal standards. I understand and appreciate your personal concern about Bellesiles, but our job as editors is to set aside our personal opinions and to edit based on WP:Policy. SaltyBoatr 15:45, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Then you will have no problem using another source other than Bellesiles as he does not represent the majority of Historical review of the extremist right-wing militia movement of the United States. Please use a Historian who has not tarnished his career with personal views and propaganda. Might I suggest your reading over this book as it deals directly with the right-wing militia movement, not Ethan Allen or other remotely related subject. Dr. Darren Mulloy is a respected Historian whose reputation has not been tarnished. Dr. Mulloy has a more balanced view of the militia movement and isn't pushing a gun-control agenda like Bellesiles. As a side note allow me to express that it's a pity about Bellesiles I am saddened by his choice to put personal bias over professional objectivism. Lying about one's adversary will only strengthen support for him, not bring him down. Therefore, we need to tell the truth lest we give aid to these groups.Tetragrammaton 00:31, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I did use another source[7], the book by Willard Randall, which you deleted out[8] without explanation. Please explain yourself. SaltyBoatr 16:11, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Unlike Bellesiles, I have no problem with Willard Sterne Randall as a source. However, Willard Randall uses the term "Extralegal" as a synonym for illegal or unlawful. For example, on page 261 he writes;

The ex-burgesses voted to declare an embargo on all imports from England and, furthermore, to call a colony-wide extralegal convention—in effect, to set up a provisional government.

That was an illegal act under British law at the time.

As a source the book you quoted uses of the term Extralegal to describe the actions of the founders[with Emphasis on Washington] of the United States prior to and during the Revolutionary War on pages 153,241,261,272,273,and during the Constitutional Convention on page 433.

SaltyBoatr, is there some reason you cannot use a source that speaks directly about the modern private-militias? Since that is where you are tagging the term "Extralegal" to in the article. These right-wing groups would probably love your edit of this page because it essentially puts them on par with Ethan Allen, Benjamin and William Franklin, George Mason, Patrick Henry, and George Washington. Not to mention the "extralegal" proceedings which surrounded the Constitutional Convention and the creation of the Federal Constitution and its bill of rights including the 2nd Amendment.

I can't seem to follow where you're trying to go with all this. One day you're posting that the Second Amendment Foundation is a fringe group the next day you're trying to convince me that private-militias are Extralegal militias like those led by great American heros like George Washington and Ethan Allan. Make up your mind will you.

By the way, SAF is NOT a fringe organization, as a Liberal, and a Democrat, I take issue with that prejudice statement. Please choose your words more carefully next time. Believe it or not SaltyBoatr, there are those of us on the left that, in addition to being pro-choice, pro-gay rights, anti-Bush, and anti-discrimination also recognize the Standard Model of the 2nd amendment as the correct model. Would you allow me to call the Brady Campaign a "fringe" or "Lunatic" group? In addition, if you had followed the link to the page they were quoting you would have seen that the citation is from the

University of Pennsylvania Law Review April, 1996

Comment, Page 1593

Since when is the University of Pennsylvania a fringe group? SaltyBoatr, you are begining to undermine your own credibility by harping on the "Extralegal" label and attaching your personal idea of what the militia is to this article. If you insist on using it, I will humor you and add it myself. However, I will also add information on Ethan Allan as an "Extralegal" militia leader of Vermont during the American revolution, I will add that the delegates of the constitution organized an "Extra-legal" continental army comprised of militia and note that at the time they were a private militia formed in violation of the law and I will add that they were fighting a tyrannical government; i.e. that of King George the 3rd, and I will use the sources you provided to do so.

I trust you can see that in doing so the term "Extra-legal" will also add credibility to the private militia movement that exists today, which is something I DO NOT WANT TO DO!!! Which is why I keep asking you not to use this term to describe the right-wing modern militia movement. I believe that adequately explains my objection to using Willard Sterne Randall's use of the term "extralegal" in his book George Washington: A Life as a source to describe right-wing militia groups in modern times. If you want to use the term to describe George Washington, Ethan Allen, and the other Revolutionaries that fought in the American Revolutionary War, I have no problem with that.Tetragrammaton 02:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

StormFront "Militia"

Dilentante is correct, though clearly a P.O.S. website, the Stormfront hate site is not a militia group in and of itself and the book Terrorists Among Us: The Militia Threat makes no such claim. It states on page 2;

The Aryan Nations Internet website also contains a photo of the present leader of the organization, Richard G. Butler, posing in a Nazi salute from the pulpit.¹

The note for ¹ is where the stormfront website is listed, and that is about all the book states on the subject. According to Wikipedia's WP:ATT rule the source must be attributable to the context in which it is being used, and in this case it is not.Tetragrammaton 00:34, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Also, this book relies heavily on Captain Snow's personal opinions and experiences rather than on government data or credible published material. The usefullness of this source to this article is questionable as it is impossible to check on whether the Captain's experiences are the truth or politically motivated bias.Tetragrammaton 00:38, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

I came to this article from looking through the edit history of a certian user to correct unhelpful edits. I reverted because AFAICT from the stormfront article, they are just an internet hate message board. I am not familiar with that source at all, but I am inclined to take your word about its reliability. -- Diletante 02:02, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Picture of militia

I liked the old picture better as an iconic representation of what the original "militia" meant in the context of the country's laws. This more present image of a National Guardsman called forth into the standing army just isn't as, well, picturesque, nor is he really serving in the militia in the classical sense (he's a militiaman drafted into Federal service in a foreign country, rather than a member of organized citizens defending their homes). Collabi 18:14, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by classical sense, would you explain? How can you claim: rather than organized citizens defending their homes. Certainly the militia acting in Afghanistan is organized and comprised of ordinary citizens. Certainly their action is an act in defense of our homes, subsequent to the 9/11 attack on our homeland. Since 1903, for more than a century; legally, officially and practically the National Guard is the dominant, predominant and largest militia in the United States. Plus, the old photo is well used already, with multiple opportunities to see it all over Wikipedia. The new picture is certainly more contemporaneous and certainly more pertinent to the present day sense of Militia (United States). Bottom line: immediate trumps iconic, contemporaneous trumps 'classical' and pertinent trumps picturesque. SaltyBoatr 19:54, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the old picture, although I think a modern photo of a Guardsman would be nice to add later in the article. A Guardsman in Afghanistan, however, is legally not serving as a militiaman, however, so for use in this article (rather than, say, in the National Guard article) a photo of a Guardsman in a domestic training or disaster response situation would be more appropriate. A photo of a Guardsman on federal service overseas is not particulary relevant. PubliusFL 22:18, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

In the abstract sense I guess all armed forces are "defending their homes" but the legal definition of militia, in the sense it was used when the pertinent laws were written, referred to the local forces that fought defensively only within a few miles of their hometowns[9]. Troops that travelled to fight were part of the standing army. Troops fighting overseas are legally not militia, and conversely the standing army is forbidden from enforcing laws within US borders. I feel that the current photograph blurs this distinction because it appears to depict an American soldier in a foreign country, which can lead to the impression that the militia are simply a branch of the United States military, which they are not. They are local troops under state or municipal authority, except when called up by Congress, at which time they are no longer militia. Collabi 22:53, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Minor clarification - they are still militia when called up by the feds if they are being called up for one of the missions listed in the Constitution's "second militia clause." Those missions just don't include overseas deployments. So (for example) the National Guard units federalized by George H.W. Bush during the 1992 Los Angeles Riots under the authority of the Insurrection Act were militia, but the National Guard units federalized by George W. Bush for service in Iraq and Afghanistan are not. PubliusFL 23:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Pardon me, too much original research. Article 1 Section 8 of the US Constitution allows for the Federal Congress to pass laws regulating militia, like the Dick Act. The pertinent law is the Dick Act, and it has been law for more than a century now. And, totally in accordance with US Code Title X, Part 1, Chapter 13, § 311 (b)(1), the current photo very aptly, accurately and centrally depicts the modern United States militia.

Indeed, the old photo depicts a statue of a militiaman, John Parker, that technically was not ever even a member of the United States militia. (John Parker died in 1775, a year before the origin of the United States.) Clearly, the present photo accurately represents the real, relevant and predominate modern United States militia. Original research aside. SaltyBoatr 02:27, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

No original research, to be sure, and I'll thank you for not assuming otherwise. The Dick Act (as amended by subsequent legislation) is the pertinent law, but the relevant (amended) provisions of the Dick Act were enacted under Congress' power to raise and support armies, not Congress' power to regulate the militia. This is not original research, but well established law. As the Supreme Court unanimously said: "Thus, under the 'dual enlistment' provisions of the statute that have been in effect since 1933, a member of the Guard who is ordered to active duty in the federal service is thereby relieved of his or her status in the State Guard for the entire period of federal service. . . . The unchallenged validity of the dual enlistment system means that the members of the National Guard of Minnesota who are ordered into federal service with the National Guard of the United States lose their status as members of the state militia during their period of active duty. . . . In a sense, (Guard members) now must keep three hats in their closets - a civilian hat, a state militia hat, and an army hat - only one of which is worn at any particular time. When the state militia hat is being worn, the 'drilling and other exercises' referred to by the Illinois Supreme Court are performed pursuant to 'the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress,' but when that hat is replaced by the federal hat, the second Militia Clause is no longer applicable." See Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990). Also see the contrast between the definitions of "Army National Guard" and "Army National Guard of the United States" in 10 U.S.C. 101(c), and between "active duty" and "full-time National Guard duty" in 10 U.S.C. 101(d). Your photo depicts federal active duty military service, not militia service, and is not the best choice for this article. PubliusFL 20:03, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Good points. Does the current image fit all criteria? SaltyBoatr 21:20, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I like the new image. The article is plenty long enough for more than one image, though. The picture of John Parker's statue might make a nice addition to the colonial or Revolutionary War section. PubliusFL 21:32, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

I also think the new image successfully depicts a present-day militiaman while underscoring the essentially domestic nature of their service, and that we could still include that attractive Minuteman statue picture in the article. I'm pleased that such a consensus was reached. I only wish the ACM were as eager to call my research "original"! Collabi 03:06, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I too appreciate both the collaboration, and the beauty of that photograph of that statue made in 1900. Though, I believe that the engraving of the painting by Ralph Earl, which was published in 1775, the same year as the battle, is likely more historically accurate than a photo of a fictionalized statue and better suited for the article. I decided this, after searching of books published prior to 1900 for the name John Parker and Lexington I found very little written about John Parker (indeed I found none), though I only searched public domain books on books.google.com for a half hour. SaltyBoatr 21:18, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

As anyone else noticed the "new" picture is now a jack-booted hostile white male appearing to intimidate a black female in a disaster zone? I am certain this was not unintentional from the plethora of pictures that could have been hosted (Maybe the timeless soldier holding a baby?) Why don't we just use this picture to represent the National Guard? [10] Chudogg (talk) 06:10, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

When I look at that picture I see a selfless man working hard to help a woman in need. None of those Kent States pictures appear to meet the licensing requirements of Wikipedia. SaltyBoatr (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Redirect to Constitutional militia movement

Removed paragraphs from "Modern private militia organizations" as violations of WP:OR, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. This section, in its previous state, and the Militia movement (United States), in its present state, are little more than one-sided, defamatory polemics. It is also not supported that there are militia movements in other countries. If there are, stubs for these should be created. Redirected to Constitutional militia movement as apparently more compliant with Wikipedia policies. Bracton 06:02, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

merge? (into section Modern Militia)

[[]][[]]

[[]][[]]

Spanish-American War Section

The synopsis of this section does not match what the reference states. The reference states the militia failed to meet equipment expectations, not a general failure to meet expectations. It was, and to a certain degree still is, common practice to field the militia with weapons and equipment a generation older than the regulars. I have never read anything that stated the militia of the Spanish-American war were less than adequate. Montizzle (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The stub section does not state "a general failure" like you see. It simply says 'failure' which is broad enough to cover whatever type of failure(s) occurred. We probably agree that this section needs expansion, considering the country afterwards chose to legislate the Militia Act of 1903, such a drastic change in the militia structure, with the failure of the Spanish-American War militia fresh in their mind. SaltyBoatr (talk) 14:50, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Why the Turner Diaries link?

The See Also link to The Turner Diaries seems pretty POV, since I don't believe the book has anything to do with militias. I haven't read it personally (and have no interest in doing so), but unless a reason can be given for the link, I see no reason to include it. To me, it smacks of someone who doesn't like militias adding it to make a point, when the book has no real relevancy to the subject. Just because The Turner Diaries and militias both have some connection the the extreme Right, they doesn't mean their linked to each other. It would be akin to me going to the page on PETA and adding a See Also to the Anarchist Cookbook. They're both generally thought of as Left-oriented, but have nothing to do with each other.

Removing it for now. If there's a more substantial connection that I've over looked, please add it it back and state your reasoning here. Regards, 98.89.21.253 (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Doing a quick Google Books search I see that several reliable source books make the connection between The Turner Diaries and the modern militia movement. Post-George pg 152 quote: "The Turner Diaries is regularly referred to by...anti-gun control militias", and Hoffman pg 113 quote: "The Turner Diaries has long formed an integral part of the beliefs of...militia adherents". I could go on, there are several other reliable references making the connection. SaltyBoatr (talk) 18:54, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

The link to turner belongs in the article on the modern militia movement. it doesnt need to be here. however, making the link to modern militias as prominent as one can, including it in the leded, for instance, makes sense, as many people will ask "are modern militias like the militia mentioned in 2nd amendment?", and dont want to scroll down through pages of text to find out if it is.(mercurywoodrose)76.254.36.244 (talk) 03:11, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Actual US Code

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311 § 311. Militia: composition and classes (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.5.110.200 (talk) 20:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Definition

Surely there are three types of militia - the formed (now largely absorbed into the National Guard), the unformed militia (a military force in theory only), and the unofficial vigilante groups who call themselves militia.203.184.41.226 (talk) 07:14, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

Spitzer

Somebody has sprinkled this article with unecessary refs to Spitzer. He is an advocate of Gun Control and should not be the most referenced person in the article. (He was, but I took care of that) Yes, I have all of his books, and yes I think he is right about many things, but we need to put Wikipedia first, and not ref every single paragraph with something from Spitzer. This article does not exist to boost his Google ratings. --Sue Rangell ✍ ✉ 03:40, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

removing refs?

Could someone explain why removing refs and the paragraph about the political dichotomy of the public popularity of the militia versus the military value is a good thing aside from calling it spam? Hipocrite (talk) 17:36, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

xkcd

Depending on how many people actually read xkcd's TITLE popup, this page might be ripe for repeated vandalism: http://www.xkcd.com/1485/. Although it looks like someone has already executed the suggested find-and-replace, it's slightly amusing, so I'll leave it up to a more responsible editor to revert the changes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Svoida (talk • contribs) 06:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

Done. Yeah, funny how Randall messes with wikipedia - not. This page as well as Militia_organizations_in_the_United_States go on my watchlist now, but there are probably others. We should talk about (semi?)protection of such pages for probably a week or a month. --Enyavar (talk) 06:49, 11 February 2015 (UTC)