How do we know when vigilantism or a well-regulated militia is appropriate – and promise fulfillment to our elected officials?

How do we know when vigilantism or a well-regulated militia is appropriate – and promise fulfillment to our elected officials? Date: 02/24/25

Author: Margaret Allen, Ph.D.

The Second Amendment doesn’t only talk about guns or ‘the right to bear arms.’ This amendment to the Constitution starts off with the notion of ‘(a) well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…’ suggesting that there are times when the people must take matters into their own hands as many of those who ratified the Constitution and the Bill of Rights did themselves against what they thought, at the time, to be a tyrannical government. 

In recent months, we saw President Trump release and pardon the January 6 rioters. Pardons do not necessarily condone past activities, but in this case, the pardons seemed to many Americans to allow for the people rising up against the government in this one instance. For the record, I don’t agree with these pardons nor the actions of those who participated in the overthrow of the capitol on January 6th. Still, I understand their frustration, as many felt unheard by their government and felt that they had no actual, legitimate recourse other than to demonstrate (a demonstration that got wildly out of control and maybe was even manipulated). 

As attorneys and politicians (and their employees) at the federal and local levels make up the rules as they go along, we again are in a situation where people feel unheard. They feel like they cannot redress their government in any meaningful manner where the government might hear them. Many politicians believe they have numerical imperatives for their actions, but they fail to understand that having numerical superiority of those who vote is not the same as a numerical imperative, as their job is to represent ALL of the people, not just those who might vote for them. When politicians govern via polling numbers, we all fail, and this is particularly dangerous in a two-party system like the one we currently have in the United States. 

So, at what point is it appropriate for citizens to rise up against their government and exercise the first part of the Second Amendment? When is it appropriate to use a well-regulated militia (I’m not saying they should carry weapons/guns – or use the second piece of the second amendment), but how do we as a people who feel failed by a system of governance that has become too bureaucratic, insular, arcane, and inane for any regular person to understand know it is time to form a well-regulated militia? 

When is it time for the people to take back power by force and by making an example of those who mock the system? How do we make sure that we, the people, act against bureaucrats, technocrats, kleptocrats, and others before they’ve made it so we cannot form those well-regulated militias that we have a right to convene to protect ourselves from the next set of oligarchs and their well-paid attorneys? 

Can you carry a sign in front of a person’s office today? Can you go to their home and protest (peacefully) out front? Can you talk with their colleagues and peer groups to ensure they know their neighbor/peer/employee/employer is part of the problem? Can you talk with their religious leader and let them know of this problematic citizen? Can you make sure that when they are in public they hear from you and your peers? Can you make sure their spouses and adult children know your thoughts? Can you post your interactions with them? 

Can you gather a larger group of like-minded people if these measures don't work and brainstorm ways to be a disruptive (and, at this point, non-violent) well-regulated militia? Can you and your group decide what line(s) you will not let your governments cross before you do take more severe actions and what those actions will be? Can you let those in power and those minions who carry out their will know your intentions and then follow through with your promises? Can you take one small action in this direction today? 

These are not threats or seditious activities, but accountability checks on representatives who are supposed to represent everyone, whether or not those people voted for them or voted at all. 

About the Author: Margaret Allen is the pseudonym of a local PhD professor who wishes to remain anonymous due to concerns about social and political backlash.

 © 2025 Redress South Bend  – All Rights Reserved.

Use of any or all of this article must be credited and linked to Redress South Bend.

All opinions and views in this piece are attributed to the author and are not necessarily the thoughts or opinions of Redress South Bend.