“Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.”Thomas Jefferson
Now what is it that every gun grabbing hoodlum says about the militia being the National Guard????
Subscribe to:
Post Comments
(
Atom
)
I interpret the 2A differently. In my own words I interpret it thus,
ReplyDeleteAn army is needed to keep the country free, "however" the people shall be allowed military weapons.
You can't have both a "regulated" militia and allow "the people" right to bare "arms" without infringement. To regulate anything first you need to measure it. And "registration" is measurement; that is knowing who has what. Another word for "registration" is control.
The word "militia" is used in the 2A because your Founding Fathers didn't believe in standing armies. But for a militia to be effective that has to be strong control from the centre aka government. In fact the more part-time the soldiery the more professional and disciplined the permanent core of the force has to be.
So I read it as "we have an army (militia), but the people should be allowed military arms".
Actually the US Army is probably more unconstitutional than a US citizen owning an AR or even a M16/M4 real assault weapon.
Article 1, Section 8 (Powers of Congress):
ReplyDeleteTo raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
Please remember that rights are NOT "given", "allowed" or "granted". The rights pre-exist governments and "shall not be infringed"
ReplyDeleteThe 2nd is more like "Since these rights exist anyway, it would be cool if people help out with a militia or something like it. Don't jerk around with their equipment."
Yes I see where you are going with that. My point is that for any force to be effective its command authority needs to know what forces it has available. If 2A really inferred everybody was in the militia then the only way it would is for their to be registration so the command new what was available. The "militia" and "the people's right to bear arms" are entirely separate. Well "regulated" also infers things like "musters", "training", "proficiency", etc. rather like the Swiss practice.
DeleteI think we all agree on the important bit though which is the "right to bear arms". :)
i think you're over thinking this. minutemen would assemble during times of crisis bringing along their weapons and ammo. sometimes a call would go out, other times they would simply assemble because they all sensed the need. once assembled then they would sort themselves out. once sorted they would have a well regulated militia.
Deletenevertheless, i don't mind you disagreeing. its cool. what we're really talking about is the destruction of liberties.
Yes I agree. My fear is you guys go under and its the end of Western civilisation. On my more positive days I think the Left pushing their agenda could actually result in a rebirth of our shared 19th century values. I think many are heartily sick of everything from Third World immigration to gender politics to legalised drugs to statism and everything in between.
DeleteMinutemen as a well regulated militia? Um. No. Sorry! ;) Again I see where you are coming from but your Founding Fathers weren't unfamiliar with military terms and matters, and were very precise (and concise) in their use of language. Again note the word "militia" not "army". They would have been very aware what gave us British the most trouble and it wasn't frontiersmen with rifles. The anti-gunners use "militia" as a foundation for an argument against the private citizen holding arms; "militia" being used as a by-word for army and control. Any time pro-gunners use the term "militia" they re-enforce that idea; as I said regulation means control, control is infringement. The Left put the government before the people; "the government and its people". And to the Left the army is the government. The Left don't really see the Clausewitzian Trinity which was shall we say the European model of the modern era. And the system as put forward by your Found Fathers, "government of the people, by the people" is a complete anathema to the Left; "the people and its government".
De-coupling the two clauses as I have done shows as I say what I believe to be the true (or better!) interpretation: The state needs an armed force, but the people should be able to hold arms. If you think about it isn't that really the essence of the Revolutionary War? Even though it was proper field armies that decided the war, it was the initial armed resistant of the private armed citizen against the state's army (the British Army and RN) that started the event.
The 2A is worth over thinking. However you read it the essence to the likes of you and me is abundantly clear. Perhaps that is why the wording is so clever? We read it in so many ways, but still come up with the essential meaning which is more visceral than literal.
how do you account for the contrary statements with regard to a standing army (they were against it) and statements indicating the desire for every citizen to be a soldier with your view that a well regulated militia indicates an organized and standing unit?
DeleteUm. Think about it this way. Many US rural towns don't have professional firemen, they have volunteers who train to be firemen but spend their days doing their real job. The town supplies the fire engine, fire house, equipment, and facilitates training. But there isn't a standing full time platoon (we say watch here) of firemen, the volunteers do it all. (Volunteers of a suitable age and level of fitness.) But there will be somebody within the local or town government or council responsible for organising and facilitating the "volunteer" fire department. Without the volunteers the fire house is just a building and the fire engine just a vehicle. But none of this stops the private citizen owning hoses, buckets, or fire extinguishers. Nor does it prevent the private citizen helping in an emergency. But in that emergency it will be the trained part time volunteer who carries the load.
DeleteThink about it in a military sense. Think of the various "real" state guards like the one in Texas. Or even better look at,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Home_Guard_(Norway)
A small trained core as a facilitator and a large part time/second job/volunteer/"hobby" main force. You are a Marine. You know better than I that in the first a untrained civilian with an AR (or any other rifle) would be just a target to a trained military. BUT what makes the 2A work is sheer weight of numbers when it comes to the internal political process. There is no way the US government could take on tens of millions of rifle owners. If I may use an extreme silly contrived example? Let say in the various less-than-pro-gun states the state governments decided to grab guns. And in response several hundred thousand riflemen descend on the states' capitals (and other key government centres) and remove their legislators from power. That is the 2A working against tyranny. Not talking about armed insurrection or fighting in the streets as such; more it is easier to negotiate if you have a gun (or several thousands of them.)
T