Second Amendment - Topic 3

 2nd Amendment, Militias - Topic 3

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.

In my post April 11, 2021 I listed what I saw as areas of discussion and controversy regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Topic 3 is today's subject, the meaning of the word "Militia."

Was the use of the term "Militia" in reference to (1) the need some day to fight off a foreign attack (keeping the War of Independence in mind); (2) the right of each of the (United) states to do the same against each other; or (3) the need for state(s) to rebel against Federal government?

(1) One of the backbones of America and one of its greatest points of pride is how disparate people banded together to free themselves from British oppression. Despite the superior British experience, they lost as we all know and America was born. That was almost 250 years ago. Since then The United States of America has shown her strength to the world by uniting those very peoples whenever needed especially to go to other countries and fight with allies against common enemies. The notion of having to fight off an intruder on a moments notice with self-armed militias is not realistic today.

In fact if America were to have another internal or civil war there is a very good chance other great nations like China or Russia would take advantage while she is down to attack if they were ever going to do so. "United We Stand, Divided We Fall" is a fact of history.

Since that War of Independence the need for the ultimate armed forces has become even more important but not using whatever you have in your basement, garage, or pickup truck. Therefore it seems at least to me that state militias to defend America are an obsolete notion. Maintaining superior national armed forces is surely the best defense.

(2) and (3) If the "Militia" was to permit one state to wage actual war with another or to overthrow a central government (with a weaker militia?) then again I say in today's world America would be doomed. This could have happened on January 6, 2021. Thank God Federal and loyal state forces ("militias" if you prefer) fended off an internal attack - and that is exactly what it was.

Therefore any use of militias in any of the scenarios mentioned above would likely spell doom for the country. Is this why the amendment was created? I hardly think so.

One more observation: where in The Constitution does it say or was it ever intended that if one group or another in the world's model democracy disliked the result of an election or what any politician stood for, the unhappy party should grab some "arms" and proceed to hang or shoot those politicians? Is THAT what the amendment was for? Once again - NOT!

So ironically, this leaves the most popular argument in favor of Americans owning guns - personal protection. When your read the amendment (See 1st paragraph, above) personal protection is not even mentioned nor can I see how it is implied.

It is difficult to come up with a good analogy. Perhaps this is like forming a group of volunteer firefighters for a remote area. If they are granted the right to use a flashing light and a siren on their private vehicle it would be for the occasional need to rush to very rare fires. It would never be intended to get to your regular job on time if you were late. This would be like using firearms for personal use, not that of being a member of a militia.

#thebrewsterblock

Second Amendment - Topic 2

 

 2nd Amendment, Federal or State - Topic 2

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.

In my post April 11, 2021 I listed what I saw as areas of discussion and controversy regarding the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Topic 2 is today's subject, the nature and purpose of the arms themselves.

In dictionaries I consulted arms and weapons reference each other. They appear to be synonyms. Both can include objects or devices used to fight, harm, overpower or even kill another being or living thing. In that sense even other species possess weapons. Weapons evolved over time from natural sticks and stones to those shaped or rendered to be more effective. We have all heard of arrows, knives, slingshots, spears, swords, lances, clubs, and even other tools like axes and pitchforks being used in both defensive and offensive manners. Humans alone have continually perfected our weapons and the means to mass-produce them. We are discussing human weapons today.

During the times of the second amendment common weapons were single shot flintlocks, muskets and cannons. In battle there were also swords, knives, and spears. Nobody could have possibly anticipated modern weaponry including tanks, machine guns, automatic pistols and assault weapons capable of tearing a body to pieces in mere seconds.

In any calm rational setting, it seems to most outside America and many inside, that these kinds of weapons were never intended for personal protection of family and property. For purposes of international war and defending ones country - with arms and militias, the opposite is true.

Many argue that the second amendment does not list arms that you can't possess or things you can not do with them - therefore anything goes. I do not subscribe to this. It is not stated that five year old kids can't bear arms and shoot their friends but similar things have happened. Also not prohibited is the ownership of an intercontinental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead parked in your drive - ditto for an F18 or other fighter jet.

I am being pedantic because the authors of the 2nd Amendment assumed a certain degree of common sense on the part of governments and citizens. To many of us that appears to have been a false assumption. If anything in the previous paragraph seems to be "obvious", then where do you draw the line between what the authors intended and what not?

In the American system of government the courts are the final decision makers but on major issues associated with this topic they have opted out.

One tactic which I suggest is to approach the USE of arms covered by the amendment. As stated above this is also not defined so no rights would be infringed upon. Some laws address this such as robbing a bank using a weapon especially when people are injured or killed. Surely this can be expanded for other personal use of firearms. Associated with this would be prohibiting criminals who have been found guilty of previous crimes using weapons and those with known mental disabilities (to be defined). Would the authors of the amendment have objected?

How can anyone say it is OK for someone who knocks on a door for directions or who enters a house by mistake to be shot dead? In some states all the owner has to do is say they felt threatened or that they felt that their space was invaded. I don't have the answer but many people are elected and paid big bucks to come up with such answers or compromises. There is one of the biggest problems. Gun owners don't want to compromise.

Once again this will be discussed further in my final post on the Second Amendment. Please feel free to leave comments.

#thebrewsterblock

Second Amendment - Topic 1

 2nd Amendment, Federal or State - Topic 1

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.

In my last post April 11, 2021 I listed what I saw as areas of discussion and controversy regarding the Second Amendment to U.S. The Constitution. Topic 1 is today's subject

.

Does this amendment target the individual states, the Feds, or the citizen?

The purpose of this amendment and why it was proposed is open to interpretation. No-one is living who was around when it was written. It is perhaps deliberately vague - somewhat like The Bible or any religious book. 

One predominant thought is that it was intended to allow citizens of individual states to fight a tyrannical Federal government. Does "militia" mean only groups such as armies and national guards have the right to bear the arms or does each individual have this right either for personal protection or to form their own "militias?"

Another issue is whether the original intent was to prevent the Feds from banning or granting the right to bear arms. Many think it was to permit only the States to grant or restrict this right.

Looking at other countries it seems to make sense that the most powerful army should be a national one if it is the country that needs defending. National governments will generally have the most funding, international contacts, and be most aware of world events. In fact many other countries do not have provincial or state militias, just police forces to enforce municipal, state, and federal laws.

The notion of having a standing army complete with weapons at home might have had merit long ago but with today's communications and satellites it is hard to imagine a surprise attack on the USA. Having guns at home as a national defense strategy to counter such an attack is a stretch.

The idea of entrenching the right to form discreet militias precisely to overthrow their own national government seems contrary to any notion of a nation. That's like giving cigarettes to people but asking them not to light them. Similarly if the idea was that one state might want to go to war with another, what kind of nation is that?

Having the right to personal protection with a gun has some merit given the American gun culture mentioned in the first article. However protection as in your person and family does not justify weapons of war at home or on the streets.

I will return to these topics in my final post where some suggestions will be offered and solicited. This was just some food for thought.

The next in this series will address types of weaponry.

#thebrewsterblock