I was reading JKugler's entry today and it reminded me of a deep problem we have with the second amendment. It isn't being followed. When most people read that statement they naturally assume that I am talking about excessive regulation of gun ownership. In point of fact, we allow too many people to own guns. The problem is that the second amendment really wasn't about gun ownership at all. It was about the problem with standing armies. I am a lover of our constitution. I even have it on my IPhone. Here is the text of the second amendment word for word.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary for the defense of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
A lot of people read comments from some of the framers and assume they wanted the second amendment to be about gun ownership. I believe the framers did want individuals to own guns, but that was not their primary concern. We must remember that they were fresh from a civil war with England. They were protesting the high taxes (high being a relative term) that were levied in large part because England kept a large standing army in the colonies. In fact, Thomas Jefferson wrote a letter to James Madison telling him he would instruct the Virginia delegation to vote against the constitution if it did not have a Bill of Rights with this amendment.
The framers were concerned with a standing army for a number of reasons. Let's remember that the third amendment also addressed the issue of troops being housed by regular citizens. While I think the framers were concerned with a military coup being easier with a standing army (something that hasn't occurred), they were more concerned with the excessive cost and frequent wars that would occur with a standing army. The framers studied their history like we do today. They saw that Louis XIV in France nearly bankrupted his country and caused a violent revolution when he kept a standing army of more than a million troops (Versailles also had something to do with that.) They did not want their young country to be dealt the same fate.
Fast-forward a couple of hundred years and we see that we are violating the spirit of the 2nd amendment. We have a standing army and that has afforded us the opportunity to get involved in numerous international conflicts we have no business getting involved in. The framers didn't want to see Americans fighting over in Asia. They wanted to be able to recall an army if the need arised, but they wanted their citizens to protect themselves on the frontier from Indian attacks or other sudden attacks. Those needs are obsolete. The worst a Native American is going to do is hit consecutive five card 21s in blackjack. Whether we are safer or not is debatable, but what isn't debatable is how much this is costing us. We have congress critters debating over a paltry 80 or 100 billion a year to keep America health while spending five or six times that much fighting wars thousands of miles away.
Truth be told, I am not interested in taking people's guns away. I think we should have sensible gun control, but if the second amendment is about a standing army and not gun ownership, then there is no federal authority to control said ownership. It becomes a state matter which it has largely become anyway. To me, the right makes far too much about that issue anyway. Very few Democrats want to take away people's recreational use of guns. We do want to take away Uzis, but that seems only logical. What we do want to see is a sensible defense budget (you know, defense, like keeping people from attacking you). Otherwise, I propose that we change Robert Gates title to "Secretary of Offense."
actually all my conservative family and friends have selective amnesia about the brady law, why it was legislated and most importantly WHO signed it into law.
Scott, you're welcome too. Just give 'em my screename at the checkpoint.
Dude, you got that address in Hockley, right? :-)
But compulsory gov't service flies in the face of individual freedom. However, non-compulsory military service by able-bodied local citizenry pretty much describes the National Guard, wouldn't you think?
Thanks for stopping by Truthseeking. I never challenged the individual's right to own a gun, but just the source of that right (whether from the state or federal government). This is the main problem I have with the pro-gun folks. I never advocated taking away anyone's gun or limiting the recreational use of that gun. I only want sensible regulations on background checks for felons/mentally ill and a reasonable limit on firepower. As far as I know, no major Democrat has ever advocated taking people's guns away.
Militia:
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.
Yes, I own two guns. Yes I have a CHL to carry. I am informed, and trained on proper use.
However, I've even allowed myself to be distracted by the debate over individual gun ownership. The issue I originally brought up was the issue of a long-standing army which everyone can agree that the framers did not want. The colonists saw two evils from the standing army
1) It costs more money to clothe, feed, train, and house the standing army.
2) A standing army eventually finds some way to amuse itself.
Look at the history of the last half of the twentieth century and it seems as if we couldn't go more than a couple of years without involving ourselves (or letting the UN involve us) in some sort of conflict. Idle hands are the devil's workshop you know.
I'm remembering a line from "Spies like Us" where the two evil generals had used Dan Akroyd and Chevy Chase to help launch a Russian missle at the US to test star wars. When it backfired, the evil general said:
"The (something) corporation would find that the continuing stockpiling of weapons was self-defeating. A weapon unused is a useless weapon."
Pentagon weasel, "By your actions today sir, you are threatening the human race."
Evil general: "To preserve the American way of life, I am willing to take that risk."
jk and Scott: I am a big fan of yours. I love reading your articles and posts. But this is all a moot point now. Everybody on the right already HAS an arsenal. ALL the crooks have several guns. Anybody who wants one can walk into a gun store, or gun show, or pawn shop in about 35 states and walk out with one even if they are crazy or a felon. I could pesonally ACQUIRE an arsenal of 10-15 hand guns, 8-10 assault rifles, a couple of machine guns and probably an RPG laucher between now and Friday and go to Wal-Mart to buy ammo. It really doesn't matter WHAT te constitution says or means or meant to say. We HAVE a WELL ARMED populace and should we ever have to fight a foreign or alien army, in the streets to defend our homes and country........my advice, go to Hockley, Settlers Plantation, Bonham Drive, third house past the fire hydrant. Big siren over the garage. This guy and most of his neighbors in Hockley could hold off any invasion for several weeks ON THEIR OWN. I think one guy even has a tank in his garage. Shhhhhhh. That's a secret.
And I think that's one interpretation, not the ground truth.
The point is that if they ultimately intended the right to be about individual gun ownership they would never have included the part about the well regulated militia. The bill of rights represents the most presient fears they experienced as colonists. Clearly, having their guns taken away was not one of those fears. A large standing army was. As I stated in my blog, I do believe strongly in the 9th and 10th amendment. Just because gun ownership wasn't explicitly addressed individually does not mean they did not intend for people to have the right to have them. It simply means it was not one of their eight most pressing rights to be addressed, so they tossed it back to the states. Interestingly in that case, the NRA could challenge the Brady Bill and other federal statutes on 9th and 10th amendment grounds. I am not anti-gun, but am simply pointing out that fro
an intent perspective, the second amendment is much more about standing armies than individual gun ownership.
The Second Amendment was not "all about" standing armies. It has its roots in English common law, the colonial constitutions, and colonial pre-Revolutionary writings which explicitly state the right of self-defense.
The fact that there is a debate to this day over how the Founders incorporated the distinct, but related issues of self-defense, standing armies, and militias into a single sentence suggests that it's not as simple as you make it out to be, Scott.
To be perfectly fair, I was talking about standing armies and out of control defense spending. I've learned to accept that most Americans will never know what the second amendment was all about even though it is explicitly stated in the amendment itself. I've also learned to accept guns being readily available even though I will never allow one in my house. I just want some common sense. Let's do background checks before you can buy anything at a gun show. Let's make sure automatic weapons aren't sold to the general public. Can we do that?
The Second Amendment is divided in prefatory and operative clauses. The prefatory clause tells us why the Amendment was created, but it is not exclusive. The operative clause tells us what the Amendment does, which is declare the right of citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Heller ruling by the Supreme Court upholds this interpretation.
If anyone out there disagrees with me......just go to ONE gun show at the GRB Convention Center. JUST ONE.
The entire American revolutionary army did not have this many guns in the whole country. Need a .50 cal machine gun. No problem. Need a grenade launcher, over by the nachos. This, just one gun show. We've got 'em every couple of weeks.
conservatives don't have the memory of elephants after all, selectively blocking out the the attempted assassination of reagan and the brady shooting which led to the brady laws. the NRA is out of control. homeland security before obama (under bush) assessed and identified the potential threat posed not by any traditional radical group, but by ex-military and law enforcement! my dad was recently diagnosed with dementia so i'm taking over his business. he's had an ebay store for over ten years since we closed down his last retail location, and his commerce has always been comics, movie memorabilia and vintage vinyls. my son whose disabled wants to take over the music and i wanted to wrap up the other stuff. imagine my surprise to learn his ONLY active postings since 2007 were selling "do it yourself" booklets about how to "clean" & maintain guns. the books really show how to convert rifles and semi-auto weapons, and the gun "collectors" have some pretty interesting email names. i asked him how he got into this, and he said he was consigning vintage western stuff to a local "cowboy" store where antique guns were sold. a gun "enthusiast" bought some stuff, then asked my dad if he wanted to make some money selling the books for $15 plus shipping and ordering for $10 each, shipped free. my dad's rating is 100%, he's an old guy, someone who'd never be suspected of doing anything shady, and apparently the perfect sleeper cell. the manuals are printed "in house" and shipped 100 at a time, no money up front, settle up via paypal after selling 6 boxes. it reminds me of the multi-level marketing schemes of the late 70's to mid 80's like amway. sales went through the roof during the last election but after the holocaust museum shooting plummeted. right now the books are selling about a hundred per week, although i called the gentlemen up and explained to him my dad was "going out of business" and would no longer be able to front his product after oct. nothing against the 1st, 2nd, or any other amendment but my dad was thoroughly indoctrinated about obama's intention to "take away" guns, complete with a cheat sheet to study and spew rhetoric. combine the dementia with the madness of fox news and my dad has become convinced about obama's secret army, death panels, birther crap and enough "obama = stalin, hitler, etc that he lives in state between fear, panic and anxiety. i'm working with doctors to get this under control, but wonder about the thousands who are getting these manuals and other "field guides" to survival. society obviously reflects this collective dementia, what else could explain citizens feeling it necessary to carry and display semi-automatic weapons where the president speaks at events? take your gun to church day? carry on crowded metro buses and rail? 2nd amendment yes. but photo's like the one displayed by jreynolds gunblog at the chron, depicting a yard sign pointing to the house next door saying "my neighbor" is not protecting himself with a gun? will moderates and sensible conservatives take a step away from this mentality, or will i be standing next to armed tea party zealots on at the racetrack?
There will not be any effective gun control in this country for at least 100 years, if then. And, when and if any gun control is attempted, it will be ineffective due the VAST numbers of guns already out there.
This genie is out of the bottle and CAN NOT be put back.