"Conspiracy-minded antigovernment 'Patriot' groups."

The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) has released its annual report claiming that there is a rise of "conspiracy-minded antigovernment 'Patriot' groups." They also highlight militia groups as being a threat. (Read the Reason.com report.)

I thought that the Second Amendment gave us the right to bear arms and form militias. Is that not what it states in the Bill or Rights? Let us review it once again:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Oh, what a minute! It also states that a militia is "necessary to the security of a free State." So, a militia is a good thing. In fact, it promotes security. A militia is in league with the TSA then, right? Both are there to keep terrorists from getting us.

So, why are militias a bad thing again? Why would the Federal government be afraid of militias from the several States securing their freedom? After all, the 50 States are sovereign powers and have their own governments don't they? They are to be a check and balance with the Federal government with the people. Those three elements compose the three branches of the American system of government. What's the problem then again?

Granted if a militia was to break the law, then they would not be securing the State. Thus, they would have become more of a gang and not a militia. So, yet again, I see nothing wrong with Americans exercising their constitutional rights in a militia.

Let's also look at another misuse of a word from the West Point report, "antifederalist."

Potok is pulling a bait and switch here. As noted above, the SPLC keeps its count of hate groups, such as the various competing Klans, separate from its list of anti-government "Patriot" groups. The West Point report follows suit, though instead of Patriot it uses the label antifederalist.

Not long after gaining our independence in 1783, the two party system emerged. Those who favored a strong central government would be labeled as Federalists (Alexander Hamilton, John Adams). Men who favored limited government and State's rights were known as Democratic-Republicans (Thomas Jefferson, George Mason, Samuel Adams), but were labeled by their opponents as Anti-federalists. Obviously in an attempt to paint them in a negative light.

So, here we see the same label being used against people today who are against big government policies and philosophies. They are also dragging the name "patriot" through the mud. Soon I wouldn't be surprised if they attempted to attack our founding fathers by calling them "terrorists." They were in fact men who refused gun confiscation, spoke out against the government, and formed militias.

Just because a group of people exercise their right to assemble or their right to free speech in opposition to government policies does not make them a "hate" group. If so, wouldn't that mean that Rand Paul and his follower's commentaries on the current administration would classify them as a "hate" group? Also, if they owned firearms, would that then make them a "conspiracy-minded antigovernment patriot group?"

This all seems to me like an attempt to justify the Federal government's right to "defend" itself from the people. The SPLC report just adds fuel to the fire of concerned citizens, who fear the government might be overstepping their bounds.