Well, I'm not going to run for re election. Hopefully I will be replaced by Zanas, but I don't have a clue about his thoughts on this subject. I'd like to discuss on issues like: have this region the right to act unilaterally in events like the Pacific crisis or the proposed invasion of Coahuila and Tamaulipas? Why do we need so different types of militia? What's the reason to maintain regional laws where such militias are described as "paramilitary" forces? Why don't we have a regional emergency plan coordinated by civil authorities instead of by a commander of a paramilitary unit? I have a bunch of questions like these. It's just for fun, as our speaker says in his campaign's opening speech.
Its sad to hear that you're leaving the legislature.
You've always been a very thorough and engaging legislator and though we've often disagreed you've brought a lot of intellectualism and great debate to the legislature.
As for your questions; even without the Militia in its current form, the same bill would have been proposed. The Northeast had no problems trying to do the same thing with their National Guard and the Midwest would have presumably used their National Guard if annexing the Pacific as well. The name doesn't really encourage or discourage odd actions from the legislature, its nothing more than a reflection of what created it. The South has always been a very individualistic and government-distrusting region. The creation of the less centrally organized Milita is just a reflection of this. Calling them paramilitary was probably a mistake on the part of those long ago who wrote the bill, but it still reflects the idea that the government isn't the only armed group out there. Its all very tied in to American gun culture.
