I'm not wild about militia movements, but i'm even less happy about further eroding constitutional protections. So long as they obey the law, and aren't engaged in insurrection, sedition, or planning to harm anyone for whatever nebulous goals, i believe they are protected under the constitution. Disliking a group doesn't make them illegal, if it did we'd have taken out the WBC folks a long time ago.
I guess it is better to be safe than sorry. I just do not see the government or English forces coming to steal our land and burn down our houses.I believe that is why the constitution gave the militia's the right to develop in the first place. Then again, there is the eminent domain law which allows the government to take people's land and divide it between third parties. I do believe the owners of the land get compensated though. Not that it makes it right.
A militia is only protected to the point of it being organized. If the movements are unorganized and unregulated, then by no means is the militia protected. The militia cannot go unregulated because it could eventually strip normal every day people of their rights. So the bottom line is, yes if it's regulated, but no if it's unregulated.
The United States Constitution protects the development of militia movements. Unless a militia group has proven to be engaged in criminal activity or is breaking the law, there is nothing the United States government can do about stopping their development. I think that even if we don't agree with such groups, they still have the right to assemble.
The US constitution does not generally protect militias. This is because most militias are out to harm the general public. The constitution is there to keep people safe from things that can impose on their freedom. While militias may have some freedom of speech, they don't have the power to threaten the government.