16 Jan

The 2nd Amendment’s “Militia”

                                       

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I know I’ve been talking a lot about guns, gun control, and the 2nd Amendment (2A) a lot lately. I can’t help it. Our basic rights, recognized and enshrined in our Constitution, are under attack and I feel compelled to respond.

I’ve been reading a lot from the Federalist Papers recently. I’ve also been reading the debates that took place during the adoption of that amendment so that I could understand what those 27 words mean. We hear a lot of static from all sides of the aisle. Some claim that the Founding Fathers could have never envisioned the type of weapons we have today. Others say that the 2A only applies to the military.

So, what is the truth? What is the “militia” of the Constitution referring to? I’m not going to present a grammatical argument to this issue, though one would suffice alone in coming to a realization of what “the militia” is. Instead, I’m going to talk about what our Founding Fathers intended through their own words.

Interestingly, I’ve never heard anyone quote the ACTUAL LAW in any argument about what constitutes the militia.

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, § 311

What I find funny is that the definition of “militia” contains the word “militia.” But, it does specifically say that even if you’re not in the military, you are a part of the militia.

But, that still doesn’t really answer the question as it relates to the 2A.

While we were fighting for our very existence, Samuel Adams wrote the following letter to James Warren (letters are how we communicated before text messages and Facebook).

Samuel-Adams

It is certainly of the last Consequence to a free Country that the Militia, which is its natural Strength, should be kept upon the most advantageous Footing. A standing Army, however necessary it may be at some times, is always dangerous to the Liberties of the People. The Militia is composd of free Citizens.

Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a Body distinct from the rest of the Citizens. They have their Arms always in their hands. Their Rules and their Discipline is severe. They soon become attachd to their officers and disposd to yield implicit Obedience to their Commands. Such a Power should be watchd with a jealous Eye.

I have a good Opinion of the principal officers of our Army. I esteem them as Patriots as well as Soldiers. But if this War continues, as it may for years yet to come, we know not who may succeed them. Men who have been long subject to military Laws and inured to military Customs and Habits, may lose the Spirit and Feeling of Citizens.

And even Citizens, having been used to admire the Heroism which the Commanders of their own Army have displayd, and to look up to them as their Saviors may be prevaild upon to surrender to them those Rights for the protection of which against Invaders they had employd and paid them.

We have seen too much of this Disposition among some of our Countrymen. The Militia is composd of free Citizens. There is therefore no Danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own Rights, or suffering others to invade them.

As a Soldier, I’m sure the irony of me publishing this isn’t lost. How can I support in such strong terms the words of a man who said that me and brothers and sisters in arms should be “watchd with a jealous Eye?” But, he does make a good point after he makes this statement; a point that I believe is just as applicable today.

As a Master Sergeant (and certified First Sergeant), I am in a position of influence commensurate to that rank and position. Soldiers are required to take an oath to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”

So, what if the President of the United States orders me to confiscate firearms because a law was passed that banned them and required confiscation? My oath is to both support the Constitution and to follow orders. The assumption here is such orders are legal and constitutional. It’s up to each and every Soldier to determine if those orders are constitutional or legal.

There are some troops who actually believe that the president is not a citizen and ineligible to hold the office so any orders from him are unconstitutional. Others have refused to deploy (under both Bush and Obama) because they thought or think that those wars were illegal, in spite of congress declaring them wars.

It comes down to what someone is willing to sacrifice to stand for their individual principles. I would never obey orders to seize guns from any Americans, law-abiding or not. That is a police authority and would violate Posse Comitatus. I would also not enforce or transmit orders to subordinates to do that. This would be an issue on which I would stand on principle.

From 1845-1849, Josiah Quincy, Jr. was the mayor of the City of Boston. He once made the following statement about standing armies that I find fascinating.

“No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defence of the state…. Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen.”

I highlighted the key statement in there that all troops in today’s military should pay attention to in deciding whether or not they should act on orders against Americans (NOTE: I do NOT believe that there are ANY plans by the government to use the military against Americans. There is no training being conducted; no plans being drafted; and frankly no reason to think this is even a possibility. I’m merely addressing questions posed to me and thoughts I’ve had recently that are my own.)

I base my decision on whether or not my actions would be legitimate or not based on whether such actions would protect individual liberty or not. I constantly urge all my elected representatives – from the sheriff to my local city council to my representatives and senators at the national level – not to vote on anything without first asking themselves if their vote will strengthen or weaken individual liberty and whether or not that vote will authorize government to further encroach upon my life.

I will always obey legal, moral, and ethical orders by anyone appointed over me. I will always disseminate such orders and ensure compliance of those within my authority to enforce.

Likewise, I will always disobey orders I feel are illegal, immoral, or unethical. Thankfully, as Samuel Adams noted and I agree with today, “I have a good Opinion of the principal officers of our Army. I esteem them as Patriots as well as Soldiers.” I don’t think that today’s military leaders have “[lost] the Spirit and Feeling of Citizens” so Americans won’t be “prevaild upon to surrender to them those Rights for the protection of which against Invaders they had employd and paid them” any time soon.

My allegiance will always be to America, first and foremost. THAT is why I’m a Soldier.

This entry was posted in 2nd Amendment, Constitution, Military and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Wednesday, January 16th, 2013 at 4:49 pm
| 1,860 views

37 Responses to The 2nd Amendment’s “Militia”

  1. Mark says: 1

    But there’s been a gradual substitute. The police state has become the proxy of the standing army.

    ReplyReply
  2. Skookum says: 2

    If you follow illegal orders, it will be your ass. The Nazis tried that defense at Nuremberg and they hanged beside the guys who gave the orders.

    This is an outstanding article CJ. The kind of material that would have the phonies in the courts and in congress trying to decide whether to scratch their butts or wind their watches. I suggest to our readers that you send this article to your friends.

    Remember, a tyrant cannot take over, unless he has a military that will obey him. If a tyrant finds enough pathetic weaklings in the military to follow illegal orders, the militia, to nip it in the bud. That is what the second is about, preventing the take over of our country by a power mad control freak.

    Does this president instill confidence in members of the opposition? Hell no, not unless they are feeding at the trough, and most of our Republicans are content to stand in the manure and feed at Obama’s trough of corruption right alongside of the Democrats.

    ReplyReply
  3. THE SOOTHSAYER says: 3

    ” SIC SEMPER TYRANNIS “

    ReplyReply
  4. Brian Rychetsky says: 4

    Well written Top!

    ReplyReply
  5. willford says: 5

    If you want to read some more of the debates for the 2ND , read the 2nd Amendment Primer from the NRA book store. It will tell you pleanty on what ALL our Forefathers thought of the 2ND. One I like the most is LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS have the RIGHT for self-defence(old text) of family, property, AND country. The debates go on to say EVERYONE shall be armed IF they want. IF they are Law-abiding males and property owners and so on.

    ReplyReply
  6. Nan G says: 6

    Good read, CJ.

    “I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”

    George Mason
    Co-author of the Second Amendment
    during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

    ReplyReply
  7. Smorgasbord says: 7

    Sorry for the long comment. I don’t like to read long comments, but sometimes I get started and can’t stop.

    There are some troops who actually believe that the president is not a citizen and ineligible to hold the office so any orders from him are unconstitutional.

    I have wondered about this since I heard about it the first time he ran for office. I call myself a neutralist because I need a lot of information about something new I have learned before I decide one way or the other. I knew it could be a political trick, so I wanted as much info as I could get about it. You won’t find anything about it from the propaganda media. I waited until different people who investigated the matter wrote about it. World Net Daily is about the only ones still investigating the issue. Others bowed to threats of their FCC license being cancelled. Here is what WND found out:

    OBAMA’S BIRTH CERTIFICATE IS A FAKE
    Look at it yourself, and anyone who has an OPEN mind about the issue, can tell that it was written on a word processor, not a typewriter. The spacing is wrong, and there are two fonts used. There are so many other issues with it that EVERY expert who examined it said it was a fake, and most even said it was a BAD fake. It even has a “Smily Face” in it.

    I have asked liberals to look at the birth certificate and tell me if it was done on a word processor or a typewriter. Not one has answered me.
    http://www.wnd.com/2011/05/296881/

    OBAMA IS USING SOMEONE ELSE’S SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
    http://www.wnd.com/2011/09/344461/

    OBAMA IS LINKED TO 39 SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBERS
    http://www.wnd.com/2011/02/261033/

    OBAMA’S SELECTIVE SERVICE REGISTRATION CARD IS FAKE
    http://www.wnd.com/2012/03/sheriff-joe-wants-obamas-original-draft-card/

    Why hasn’t even ONE republican gone after our illegal president when there is plenty of proof he isn’t even a citizen of the USA? Ask yours and find out what they say. All of Idaho’s federal reps are republican, and they all say he is legal.

    This is another reason why I say there is no more republican or democratic party. There is only one party with two branches, and both branches feed off of the same roots. I knew the political parties had been infiltrated, I just wasn’t sure by what. Glenn Beck says it is the Muslim Brotherhood, and I tend to agree with him.

    OBAMA INFO IS VANISHING
    What is really scaring me is that many of the investigations resulted in documents vanishing; not just from one federal agency, but from several, including the National Archives. State records are also vanishing. Whoever or whatever is doing this, can go into different federal and state agencies and have the records about obama and his mother destroyed. That is scary!

    OBAMA DOESN’T DRIVE
    I heard or read that obama hasn’t driven in years. If this is true, could it be that it is because he doesn’t have a drivers license? Until recently, Illinois didn’t allow illegals to have drivers licenses. Does this mean he can now get one?

    I do NOT believe that there are ANY plans by the government to use the military against Americans.

    He wants to use civilians:
    http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=youtube%2c+obama%2c+civilian+security+force&view=detail&mid=AA01A547D22F58038D0BAA01A547D22F58038D0B&first=0&qpvt=youtube%2c+obama%2c+civilian+security+force

    He said this when he was running for the democratic nomination for president. Why would he want a civilian security force that is as strong as, and equally funded as the military, when he has the National Guard? Because each governor has to activate THEIR National Guard, then turn it over to the president. The liberal governor of Louisiana wouldn’t do this for George Bush before Hurricane Katrina hit, so he couldn’t do anything until she let him.

    START A MILITIA
    I sent a letter to my Idaho governor, and my state reps, suggesting they start a militia. I suggested that if they did, that about 90% of Idahoans would join it. This way it would be legal for them to own guns, and I’m guessing that about 90% of Idahoans are armed. One official wrote back and said he thought it was a good idea, and will introduce it in the next session.

    I suggest others ask their state reps to form a militia. No matter what laws obama gets passed, militias are allowed to have guns, and the way things are going, we might need them.

    STATES PASSING LAWS MAKING IT ILLEGAL TO ENFORCE ILLEGAL LAWS
    Some states are even passing laws making it illegal for any federal official to try to enforce any illegal federal law, and the federal official can be arrested for it. I like that idea too.

    ReplyReply
  8. Ditto says: 8

    From my studies of the writers of the Constitution, of the Federalist and Anti-federalist Papers, I read a slightly different stance on the declaration of the 2nd Amendment.

    A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

    The portion referencing the Militia, is a declarative that recognizes a logical fact that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It clearly does not declare that only those eligible to serve as the militia may keep and bear arms.

    The second portion however, does make it clear that the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the people and that that right may not be infringed. “The People,” (by virtue of the precedence set in the preamble to the Constitution,) refers to none other than each individual citizen of the United States. Therefore, “the militia” is not what is meant by “The People”, otherwise the Constitution and Bill Of Rights would would only recognize militia members as citizens. (See the Star Troopers films for a comparative of what that interpretation would mean). Since we accept that the Bill of Rights recognizes that those rights belong to the citizens of this nation (ie. “the People”) then the meaning of “the People” in the Second Amendment is the same as that meant in the rest of the document.

    “Shall not be infringed” has a simple, clear and specific meaning that can not be misunderstood, especially when you read the various writings of the Founding Fathers, in which they broker no such progressive, wishy-washy interpretation whatsoever. “Shall not be infringed” is precisely what they wrote and meant. Anyone tells you any different a liar. Were you to take the words “Shall not be infringed” and place them within any other Right enumerated in the Bill of Rights, every leftist jurist and lawyer in these United States would staunchly declare such a right would be absolute, and could not be watered down or abridged. When you consider all the reprehensible and disgusting “free speech” expressions that the far-left force upon the rest of us, (which we accept grudgingly, in the spirit of “free speech”,) we can understand full well how they would interpret “shall not be infringed” were that language in the First Amendment. Apply that logic to anything else in the Bill of Rights, and reinterpret it as a court would if it contained the words “Shall not be infringed.”

    ReplyReply
  9. Enchanted says: 9

    our nation is being taken over by a coup, silent but deadly.

    ReplyReply
  10. bwax says: 10

    If the colonists would have had to use bow and arrows to defend themselves against the British, we would still be a British colony. Likewise, if the government forces have better weapons than the citizens, we will not be able to defend ourselves. World history proves that point.

    The truth of the matter is that it is not the guns that cause unstable individuals to go berserk, it the lack of respect for life in this country. Every since Roe vs. Wade there has been a slow (and I would say deliberate) decline into an amoral society. Not until we turn this around will there be less violence.

    Like Smorgasboard, I too believe this president is illegal. There is too much evidence that leads me to that conclusion. He can’t even keep his bio straight when he speechifies (witness his latest speech in HI about their deceased senator). And did anyone ever think it was too convenient for his maternal grandmother to die 2 days before that 2008 election? She was the last living person who could relate the truth about him.

    God help us!

    ReplyReply
  11. liberal1(objectivity) says: 11

    You still didn’t answer your initial question with any clarifying information—but instead veered 0ff into a hyper-conservative rant. You’re bound to get applause for this kind of article of a right-wing site—now try it out on an unfriendly site—a left-wing site.

    ReplyReply
  12. liberal1(objectivity) says: 12

    @Ditto:

    …recognizes a logical fact….

    Facts are neither logical nor illogical. ‘Logic’ describes the relationship between statements—some of which may be facts—but not an individual fact. Conservatives tend to use the term to lend credence to their declarations—as though calling something logical makes it true.

    ReplyReply
  13. Jim S says: 13

    I always thought that militia clause was merely explantory. It’s as if the first amendment said “A politically informed electorate, being necessary to a Free State, the the right of the people to publish and read shall not be infringed.” Then I’m sure we’d see the leftards arguing that comic books, porn, rock ‘n’ roll, and fiction in general weren’t protected because they didn’t “politically inform”….. in a pig’s eye. :-/

    ReplyReply
  14. Aqua says: 14

    @liberal1(objectivity):

    Facts are neither logical nor illogical. ‘Logic’ describes the relationship between statements—some of which may be facts—but not an individual fact.

    I’m sure she meant logical truth, which gets confused with logical fact all the time. Almost as much as your and you’re, then and than. Being the incredibly talented genius of logic that you are, I’m sure you know what a logical truth is.

    ReplyReply
  15. Budvarakbar says: 15

    @bwax: Yes and right after the SOB paid a “visit”

    ReplyReply
  16. johngalt says: 16

    @Jim S:

    It is, Jim. It is a declaration of WHY, not WHO. Every other right identified within the Bill of Rights is an individual right. Does it make sense that the 2nd, therefore, would change to a ‘collective’ right. No, but since when does a liberal/progressive statist concern themselves with facts and logic.

    ReplyReply
  17. Smorgasbord says: 17

    @Enchanted: #9
    I agree. Those doing it know not to turn the heat up too quickly on the pot.

    ReplyReply
  18. Petercat says: 18

    @Smorgasbord: #7
    “Why would he want a civilian security force that is as strong as, and equally funded as the military, when he has the National Guard?”
    Because, with so much of our military deployed overseas, Obama’s Civilian Defense Force would actually be more powerful than our military, here, where it would matter for his purpose.
    The closest he’s come so far is the TSA, with does not require an oath to uphold the Constitution prior to employment. Now, think about the apparent intelligence level of the TSA Enforcers that you’ve met or seen online… would these people be willing to “just follow orders”?
    Scary thought.

    ReplyReply
  19. Smorgasbord says: 19

    @Petercat: #18
    I’ve got you thinking along the same lines as I do. Hitler used his civilian security force to keep the other civilians in line. If you will go back in history, obama is following the past dictator rules to make a free country a non-free country.

    ReplyReply
  20. Redteam says: 20

    @Smorgasbord: ?

    Because each governor has to activate THEIR National Guard, then turn it over to the president. The liberal governor of Louisiana wouldn’t do this for George Bush before Hurricane Katrina hit, so he couldn’t do anything until she let him.

    Smorg, is that why? I thought it was because the Governor had to ‘officially’ request federal help before he was allowed to send in the help. Didn’t remember it being about National Guard.

    ReplyReply
  21. could it also include that all must be joining their STATES MILITIA,
    THAT MEAN COMPLICATION ON THESES TIMES, with so much foreigners
    who don’t have the will to stand for their NEW COUNTRY, BECAUSE THEY WANT TO TAKE ONLY
    WHAT SHE CAN GIVE THEM,
    I WONDER SOMETIMES OFTEN, WHY THE BEST OF THIS AMERICA ONLY ARE PUTTING THEIR LIVES
    ON THE PROTECTION OF THEIR AMERICA, WHILE THE OTHER DON’T GIVE A SHIT FOR THEIR ULTIMITE SACRIFICES,
    IF IT WAS AN ALL REQUISITE TO DO THEIR SHARE, AMERICA WOULD BE BETTER BALANCE AS FAR AS THE ONES WHO STAY BEHIND, BECOMING USELESS, GODLESS, FLAGLESS,
    AND WITHOUT A CLUE WHY IS AMERICA SO TOLERANT TO LET THEM SHARE THE FREEDOM,
    THEY TAKE IT FOR GRANTED, WITHOUT HAVING RAISE ONE FINGER TO HELP THEIR COUNTRY,
    WHY MUST THE AMERICANS RESPECT THEM FOR NOT HAVING GIVEN NOTHING TO THE BETTERNESS
    OF AMERICA, AND WHY SHOULD THEY BE ALLOWED TO VOTE

    ReplyReply
  22. Smorgasbord says: 22

    @Redteam: #20
    The president can’t activate the National Guard. I’m guessing it is a check and balance of power, so that the wrong president can’t use the National Guard for their own purposes.

    ReplyReply
  23. Redteam says: 23

    @Smorgasbord: Talking around the subject. During Katrina, the federal government could not send in ANY help until requested to do so by the state. The dumb ass governor did not request help for a long time. Bush got criticized for the Dimocrat DA Governor. Once requested, he could send in Federal help. National Guard, in either case, still had to be activated by the governor. The issue was not the National Guard, it was the governor not requesting aid.

    ReplyReply
  24. Smorgasbord says: 24

    @Redteam: #23
    I have mentioned this different times, but the propaganda media, the governor, and Mayor Nagin, still blamed Bush. obama is still blaming Bush. Bush must have been a very powerful president, if the great obama can’t fix what Bush messed up. He has had over four years to fix things.

    ReplyReply
  25. Hard Right says: 25

    Because the military has been infiltrated by the left and the mindless——guerilla if need be. Pray that it does not come to this. Ballot box and persusion first. Above all else.

    ReplyReply
  26. bwax
    hi, on your 10, that tell he is delusional, it could be
    because of the drug he has used and probably still do
    surely the need must come, you don’t get out of something that
    brought you so much pleasure, and it has been mention by a staff member once,

    ReplyReply
  27. FAITH7 says: 27

    Thanks CJ!! So Much!! – There is a site/Group called the OathKeepers…I have already sent them a donation…[another] Great Site otherwise I would not waste my time or money…just thought I’d throw that out there..

    ReplyReply
  28. another vet says: 28

    CJ- Another fine example of what the 2nd Amendment was for. No where is the word “hunting” mentioned when looking at what the framers said. A stark contrast to what the left states was the purpose as an excuse to ban certain types of firearms. When you look at how our government in general and this administration in particular has veered from its limited Constitutional powers, if it wasn’t for the 2nd Amendment this would probably be quite a different country right now.

    ReplyReply
  29. beltfed says: 29

    U.S. Marshalls, 45th Infantry and Local police confiscated legal firearms during Katrina. City was sued to return the weapons. President Bush tried to amend the Disaster Recovery Personal Protection Act of 2006 to outlaw such confiscation. the Amendment passed the House, but was defeated in the Senate. Confiscation has already happened in this great land.

    ReplyReply
  30. Mr. Irons says: 30

    @liberal1(objectivity):

    You were never one to pay attention to the answers or facts given to you, for one who rails against rants how about you stop yours and read a bit of real history and face the facts that the very things your “Liberalism” expresses is the same things that were found in Germany in 1930′s and 1940′s.

    ReplyReply
  31. beltfed
    that was bad of the US MARSHALLS 45TH INFANTRY AND LOCAL POLICE TO ABUSE THE CITIZENS
    WHO GAVE THEM THAT ORDER?
    WAS IT THE BLACK MAYOR THERE AT THE TIME?
    IT COULD HAVE BEEN BECAUSE OF THE BLACK LOOTERS?
    HE WANTED TO PROTECT THOSE?
    IF SO THAT WAS RACIST OF HIM

    ReplyReply
  32. Pingback: “A Lot Of The Constitution Is Bulls**t “ « YouViewed/Editorial

  33. daniel says: 32

    @Ditto:

    Then what would be the point of mentioning a “well regulated militia” at all, specifically using the term “regulated” (regardless of the intended usage: discipline, training, organizing…) ? If it has no bearing on the interpretation of the amendment, and “the people” means every single individual, then no rules what-so-ever could be imposed on the possession of arms.
    I personally believe such an interpretation is destined to cause incidents that will eventually result in the removal of the rights of bear arms. Accepting the full context of the amendment would be wiser from my point of view.

    ReplyReply
  34. Ditto says: 33

    @daniel:

    Then what would be the point of mentioning a “well regulated militia” at all

    I dispute your assessment. The Constitution states: (Article. I. : Section. 8.) “(The Congress shall have Power To) To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;” And: (Amendment II) “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

    The militia declaration in the Second Amendment is not an extraneous one. You must understand the vast differences between the two concepts (“Armies” and “Militias”) at the time , to know what the founders meant. I suggest you read the Federalist and Anti-federalist papers, the writings of and the relevant constitutional congress documents. Armies refers to armed forces formed by and under the control of the federal government. A citizens Militia is formed by and to be regulated by state and local governments. The founders clearly understood the difference, and this is why they included the need for militias.

    … If it has no bearing on the interpretation of the amendment, and “the people” means every single individual, then no rules what-so-ever could be imposed on the possession of arms.

    I personally believe such an interpretation is destined to cause incidents that will eventually result in the removal of the rights of bear arms. Accepting the full context of the amendment would be wiser from my point of view.

    That is nonsense, more typical of the paranoia put forth by the gun control crowd. A few rare scattered “incidents” by criminals should never be the basis to infringe on the Constitutional rights of everyone else:

    “Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” -Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

    ReplyReply
  35. CJ says: 34

    @daniel: When the Second Amendment was written, “well regulated” meant “well practiced.” At the time, it was considered impractical for citizens to become well practiced with firearms, unless they had recourse to firearms in their daily civilian lives. Readers of American military history understand references to “regulars” and “irregulars,” the former being practiced and regularly assembled militias (in some ways similar to our National Guard or Army), and the latter referring to less-practiced, ad hoc assemblies of combatants. “Well regulated” did not refer to the presence of regulations governing their activities.

    Further, we should understand that the Second Amendment does not confer a right to bear arms; that right is pre-existent. The Second Amendment forbids government from abridging that right. This is a subtle but very important difference.

    With respect to protecting our children: In other areas where we intend to create a “weapon-free zone” (courts, airports), we have locked doors, metal detectors and multiple armed guards. Any “weapon-free zone” that lacks these is little more than an imaginary bubble where predators may be assured of the lack of armed resistance. It is no coincidence that the most notorious mass killings (including the one in Norway) occur in such imaginary bubbles of protection. A less costly option is to allow responsible adults to be legally armed on campus.

    To paraphrase Benjamin Franklin: Those who think they can trade away essential freedoms in order to gain a bit of additional security neither deserve, nor will long possess, either.

    ReplyReply
  36. Pingback: The Militia, Our Real and Natural Strength | Daily Pundit

  37. Pingback: What Exactly Did the Bill of Rights Say Regarding Gun Ownership?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>