Peaceful means of advancing liberty are by far more effective, however I think peaceful means only work when your voice is heard. With the NDAA and H.R.347, which are big steps towards the president being able to silence political opponents. I'm having a hard time believing that rational DEFENSIVE militias are a bad thing. Any thoughts?, am I wrong? Is there a line that once crossed violence is ok? Is it a good or bad idea to have a militia with the purpose to ONLY use violence when peaceful means aren't possible? There are examples in history when peaceful means weren't possible an example would be germany in 1940, or was peace an option and I'm just missing something? The only incentive for a monoplolized government is to increase, so wouldn't that mean that peaceful means will eventually be rendered ineffective? I'm not violent this is just theoretical and I'm not saying militias should be used now, I just heard Ian on free talk live say that militias are always bad. I'm having a hard time seeing that and I'm wondering if I'm missing something.