When the country was founded, the militia was considered a common component of normal society, and a strong militia was considered vital for the prosperity of towns, cities, colonies, and territories. The term militia described those citizens who were not part of the organized army, but fought to protect and defend those who could not fight or were not inclined to fight. This country owes a great debt to the militia who fought against the British army and the mercenaries hired by King George, and without the participation of ordinary citizens in the militia, the United States of America would not exist.

In the twenty-first century, the term militia has vulgar, barbaric, or sinister connotations, and the idea is treated with hostility by Big Media and many citizens. A quick Internet search for "militia" returns information that varies from somewhat benign historical references to scathing condemnation of all militias as "right wing extremist groups" whose only reason for existence is to kill those that they hate.

Wikipedia says this about the militia:

The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. It is a polyseme with multiple distinct but related meanings.

The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) Web site says this about militias:

The militia movement is the youngest of the major right-wing anti-government movements in the United States (the sovereign citizen movement and the tax protest movement are the two others) yet it has seared itself into the American consciousness as virtually no other fringe movement has. The publicity given to militia groups in the wake of the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, when the militia movement was erroneously linked to that tragedy, made them into a household name... Indeed, reporters, pundits and politicians alike have used the term so frequently that it is often tossed about carelessly as a synonym for virtually any right-wing extremist group. Yet the militia movement is neither generic nor dismissible as a comic subject. If militia groups were not, in fact, involved with the Oklahoma City bombing, they have nevertheless embroiled themselves since 1994 in a variety of other bombing plots, conspiracies and serious violations of law. Their extreme anti-government ideology, along with their elaborate conspiracy theories and fascination with weaponry and paramilitary organization, lead many members of militia groups to act out in ways that justify the concerns expressed about them by public officials, law enforcement and the general public.

Those two opinions about what a militia is vary wildly. The ADL definition seems to leave no room for the possibility that a militia could exist for useful and noble purposes; in their view, militias are constrained to being extremist and right-wing, assuming that the term "right-wing" includes only the Nationalistic component and ignores the classic liberalism, conservatism, and fundamentalism components. It should not be difficult to understand why the ADL would be concerned about a surge in any Nationalistic movement in the United States of America, even though our Republican form of government and the Bill of Rights ought to preclude the development of a situation in the United States of America in the twenty-first century similar to the National Socialist movement in Germany in the 1930's.

Indeed, it could be stated that the best way to counter a National Socialist movement, antagonistic to any specific group such as Jews, African Americans, Hispanics, Catholics, etc, would be to form a network of cooperative militia units across the country, all working together to defend the individual and civil rights of those groups and provide a sanctuary for traditions, values, community, and education.

The true militia tradition goes back hundreds of years, and ought to be revived instead of reviled. Today, many people fear armed individuals, and recoil in horror at the thought of their fellow citizens taking to the streets, armed with a capable battle rifle and hundreds of rounds of ammunition, to repel an invasion, stop a terrorist attack, or apprehend a violent criminal gang as part of a posse called out at the request of the sheriff. Today there is a great fear of armed citizens, but it was not always that way.

James Madison, paraphrased by a delegate in the following discourse, spoke about the usefulness of a militia as a means to counter small, localized insurrections or invasions as an alternative to calling on the army:

Mr. MADISON supposed the reasons of this power to be so obvious that they would occur to most gentlemen... If insurrections should arise, or invasions should take place, the people ought unquestionably to be employed, to suppress and repel them , rather than a standing army. The best way to do these things was to put the militia on a good and sure footing, and enable the government to make use of their services when necessary.

That a militia was required was not questioned. There was much agreement in the form the militia was to take also, since it had existed in the past and been so effective in the war of independence. The model had been established and was to be preserved. Richard Henry Lee wrote about the militia:

Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it.

In 1788 he also wrote about the militia:

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms.

James Madison made these comments about the militia:

An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.

Tenche Coxe wrote in the Pennsylvania Gazette on February 20, 1788:

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms against each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.

George Mason expressed his concern that the federal government could or would destroy the militia if it was given the power to regulate it:

There are various ways of destroying the militia. A standing army may be perpetually established in their stead. I abominate and detest the idea of a government, where there is a standing army. The militia may be here destroyed by that method which has been practised in other parts of the world before; that is, by rendering them useless by disarming them... Should the national government wish to render the militia useless, they may neglect them, and let them perish, in order to have a pretence of establishing a standing army... But when once a standing army is established in any country, the people lose their liberty. When, against a regular and disciplined army, yeomanry are the only defence, yeomanry, unskilful and unarmed, what chance is there for preserving freedom? ... Forty years ago  when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them  but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually  by totally disusing and neglecting the militia.

Alexander Hamilton also wrote about the necessity of the militia to suppress small scale, localized insurrections and invasions in Federalist Paper number 28:

Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national, resumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection  whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government. Regard to the public peace, if not to the rights of the Union, would engage the citizens to whom the contagion had not communicated itself to oppose the insurgents; and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.

Patrick Henry, one of the most outspoken delegates, spoke at length about the loss of liberty through the elimination of the militia and was adamant about not allowing the federal government to regulate the militia. He argued that if government was given the combined power of the treasury and the only means for the citizens to resist a professional army, the God-given gift of freedom would be doomed:

Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies, when our only defence, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? ... Is there a disposition in the people of this country to revolt against the dominion of laws? ... The honorable gentleman who presides told us that, to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed  if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone; and you have no longer an aristocratical, no longer a democratical spirit. Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all? You read of a riot act in a country which is called one of the freest in the world, where a few neighbors cannot assemble without the risk of being shot by a hired soldiery, the engines of despotism  We may see such an act in America... Sometimes, the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be  capable of... that the preservation of our liberty depends on the single chance of men being virtuous enough to make laws to punish themselves... Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the real object of having those arms  in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us  as in our own hands? ... Congress, by the power of taxation, by that of raising an army, and by their control over the militia, have the sword in one hand, and the purse in the other. Shall we be safe without either? Congress have an unlimited power over both: they are entirely given up by us. Let him candidly tell me, where and when did freedom exist, when the sword and purse were given up from the people  Unless a miracle in human affairs interposed, no nation ever retained its liberty after the loss of the sword and purse. Can you prove, by any argumentative deduction  that it is possible to be safe without retaining one of these? If you give them up, you are gone.