An Unregulated Militia
I remember someone once posing the question, “how close is a random white man to being a cop?”
It always stuck with me. I knew what it meant to the extent that I knew the vast majority of white people in this country support our police system ranging from unconditional support to only surface level reform. But over time and the count of victims of brutality who are too many to name, I realized its deeper meaning. It’s not just support. It’s not just that white people consistently face shorter sentences than black people in this country or get acquitted all together. It’s not just that white people are statistically less likely to be profiled and harmed by police by orders of magnitude. It’s that the sheer proximity of all these factors literally can make any white person, especially a white man, adjacent to having the power of police.
To act in their place when they see fit without regard.
On November 19th that was reaffirmed once again.
Like George Zimmerman before him in the murder of Trayvon Martin, the majority of legal and social systems at hand support this ideal. The police may have the badge, but white men with guns are place holders in their absence. While black women defending themselves from their rapists and traffickers and standing their ground are left with little to no recourse in the same courtroom.
Sure, there will be exceptions — ultimately Ahmaud Arbery’s “neighborhood watch for jogging while black” killers were recently found guilty, although the DA who knew the killers and delayed prosecution has not been yet — but as much as that may seem like a semblance of justice, it also points to the vast disparities of the way state and federal law are interpreted in the courts. Just like how Derek Chauvin was convicted and Joe Panteleo was not, a system that does not set a clear message categorically disincentivizing and dismantling police brutality and armed “proxy” neighborhood forces, instead just sets parameters.
Of which state and which means are best to carry out actions of hate and brutality based on generations of fear.
A legal system cannot be arbitrary. The circumstances by which someone can use lethal arms to defend themselves can’t depend on whether the first cop to arrive to the scene is having a “good or bad day.” Or whether they come from a department that turns a complete blind eye to excessive force and corruption or only a partial one.
Or a judge who sees pity in a white defendant before they even speak or one who has ruled in accordance with the law regardless of complexion.
Or the perceived threat of a black kid with a toy gun and a white teen with a loaded Ar-15 in a protest.
Disparities in our legal system and gun rights will always intertwine. However, the fervent support for the second amendment was never really about the singular right to own a gun.
It’s only partly about defense from government. Since, ultimately, even the most anti-government extremist knows, in the instances where they are actually getting in the way of state sanctioned procedures, they will likely die trying. These are acts of martyrdom. The state will always have more firepower. The most recent of the endless stream of school shootings in this nation reinforces that perpetrators act to make statements, seek fame in a ‘righteous’ or self aggrandizing cause — in life or death.
It was never really about the letter of that law. It was about what it served as. The vehicle it provide. That place holder.
Of ‘law and order’
The ability to be the law and order.
With or without the need of affiliation or membership to something greater. The freedom to choose either.
An impromptu army.
Vigilantes for America.
An unregulated militia.
