Are militias, that are meant to protect our freedom, meant to be lead by the state?
For centuries before the drafting of the Second Amendment, European political writers used the term "well regulated militia" to refer to the citizenry on the whole, armed with privately-owned weapons, led by officers chosen by themselves.
Nowadays that'd be called guerilla. Militia implies a poorly trained, mass-conscripted force. The stuff of nightmares.
"Nowadays that'd be called guerilla."
Aren't gueillas usually led by some socialist fool?
Yes, for freedom requires a well-managed government.
No war in the US has been a guerilla war.
No just war in the US has been won by arms either.
They need not be. leading a successful guerilla action would confer libertarians almost unlimited goodwill, as it has done for socialists for more than a century. I'm looking at you Hong Kong.
"Guerilla" fighting is a school of tactics, not really a description of the forces. Militia could be well organized into traditional military units and fight in platoons, companies, etc, or be utilized in guerilla warfare, or police actions, etc.
The defining characteristic is just that it's primarily a fighting unit that's self-armed and supplied. They can even be commanded by, and work with, regular army units, and have training.
Don't the Swiss have a militia these days? That's hardly a libertarian paragon.
All militias don't necessarily have to be statist, just how all guerilla forces don't necessarily have to be socialist.
You can't hurry up good times by waiting for them.