They aren’t organized by the Sate. They have no official authority. So they aren’t really a Militia.
They are a literal gang.
Stop calling them Militia.
It’s a term used to describe a military force comprised of civilians. There’s even a modern connotation of being against the state.
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
Gangs aren’t purely for military purposes, so if the purpose of this gang is an armed attack against a govenrment agency, then it’s not unreasonable to call them a militia.
Boiled down, “militia” doesn’t mean much more than “group of non-soldiers organised in a soldier sort of way with the intention of doing soldier sort of things”.
I think the term is private vs state militias, and with this article being about armed militias, we are talking about armed private vs armed state militias. I think technically all 50 states have laws on the books that prohobit various forms of private armed militia activity. Is it enforceable? Maybe, but that would maybe probably cause a nation wide incident given the amount of violence these groups can wield (though they would probably still lose against any organized state militias or any official state/federal military force), as well as increase the chance of a homegrown insurgency popping up. That’s just my armchair opinion or thought about it though, I’m just armchairing here.
They aren’t organized by the Sate. They have no official authority. So they aren’t really a Militia.
They are a literal gang.
Stop calling them Militia.
Militia isn’t defined by being part of the State.
It’s a term used to describe a military force comprised of civilians. There’s even a modern connotation of being against the state.
Gangs aren’t purely for military purposes, so if the purpose of this gang is an armed attack against a govenrment agency, then it’s not unreasonable to call them a militia.
So a militia, comprised of terrorists… seems fair.
I don’t understand. Do you find that confusing?
Boiled down, “militia” doesn’t mean much more than “group of non-soldiers organised in a soldier sort of way with the intention of doing soldier sort of things”.
I think the term is private vs state militias, and with this article being about armed militias, we are talking about armed private vs armed state militias. I think technically all 50 states have laws on the books that prohobit various forms of private armed militia activity. Is it enforceable? Maybe, but that would maybe probably cause a nation wide incident given the amount of violence these groups can wield (though they would probably still lose against any organized state militias or any official state/federal military force), as well as increase the chance of a homegrown insurgency popping up. That’s just my armchair opinion or thought about it though, I’m just armchairing here.
Call them terrorists. That’s what they are.
paramilitars