Bearing Arms and Militia

[Ken Medlin <dev-plan@moscow.com>]

The monologues pouring out on the 2nd Am. and its interpretation haven't 
seemed to generate any statement representing a Native American 
viewpoint. If any social community in the US has a "right" to take up 
arms to redress wrongs and oppressive laws, broken treaties, etc., it's 
our indigenous citizens. Under the interpretation that citizens have the 
constitutional right to arm themselves in defiance of an unjust, 
oppressive govt., NA tribes/nations ought to organize militias and take 
back their lands, waters and hunting grounds, right? Now, under such a 
legitimate situation, what do you think the rest of you, who sit on their 
ancestors' lands and take fish from their once pristine waters, would do 
in "self defense"? Of course, you'd call out the Army and Air Force to 
":protect" your hallowed grounds.
     As for getting "back" what they lost, there's the story of two 
Navajo chiefs, sitting at the base of Shiprock discussing how they could 
better the lot of their people .One chief says, "You know, we ought to do 
what the Germans and Japanese did. They went to war with the U.S., and 
lost. But after the war, the U.S. poured billions of dollars into those 
countries to rehabilitate them. Look at those defeated countries now! I 
say, let's declare war on America, and we'll get a new deal."  The other 
chief replied:  "Maybe so, but suppose we win, then what?"  
     So everybody can have their own militia, but without  counting on 
victory -- it costs too much. Or, is there another moral to the story?

------------------------
William K. Medlin
Dev-plan associates
930 Kenneth Street
Moscow ID 83843
208/892-0148
dev-plan@moscow.com