The Second Amendment continues to be a hot button, divisive issue that becomes more contentious with each passing day. The fact that this issue has us so divided should be a clear indicator that something has gone awry and, more importantly, that something else is going on. Rest assured, this division isn’t homegrown; it’s been manufactured. But by whom? Well, go ask your local conspiracy theorist. It seems he's being proved right these days a lot more than he's been assumed wrong...but I digress. Let's get back to gun rights.
A quick look at the amendment should reveal something obvious that too often goes overlooked:
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.
Anybody without an axe to grind, who is also being intellectually honest, should notice there are two central aspects here: the militia and the people. Thus, a correct interpretation must include both aspects. So, what is this relationship and how does it impact America today?
What both sides of this issue fail to address when arguing with each other is that back in the late 1700s, all free men from age 18-45 were required to be members of the local or state militia. This requirement was codified into law with the Militia Act of 1792.
Here are a few excerpts of the law:
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia…
And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment...
Thus, there can be no doubt that the law required all free men to be enrolled in the militia from ages 18-45.
Now, let’s take a look at what the law required in terms of firearms:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided...
Did you see that? Every citizen shall provide himself with a weapon. The law repeats this requirement numerous times:
...and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid...
In 1792, it was required that every man from age 18-45 be enrolled in the militia and that every member of the militia provide his own firearm, not to mention his own ammo too!
And now it becomes very obvious what the Second Amendment is addressing. Had a law been passed back then that prohibited a free man from owning a weapon, he would not have been able to fulfill his obligations to mandatory militia service.
At this point, it is safe to say that those who view the Second Amendment as a constitutional right are actually in the right. Unfortunately, this is where things get confusing.
The nation no longer has a militia as defined in the Constitution (Article 1, Section 8). To be sure, there are many militias out there today, but these are not what we could call Constitutional militias. The Constitution states: “The Congress shall have power to…Provide for the calling forth of the militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasion.”
The point is, today’s local militias do not serve Congress; they serve themselves. Furthermore, Congress would never call them out should the need arise. In fact, today’s National Guard units have essentially assumed the functions of the colonial militias. This is the organization Congress would call to suppress insurrections and repel invasions, not the local militias.
But this brings us to another problem. Today’s National Guardsmen do not provide their own weapons; the federal government does. Furthermore, the officers in the guard are commissioned by the federal government, however, the U.S. Constitution directs that officers in the militia be appointed by the states.
Bottom line: The National Guard, while similar to the colonial militia, is not a militia. Yes, it does serve at Congress’ behest and, yes, it is under state control when not serving Congress. However, it is clearly not the same thing as defined by the Militia Act of 1792 and by the U.S. Constitution itself.
And this is where the Second Amendment problem resides. This is why we cannot, as a nation, agree. The issue is not about weapons and their ownership; the issue is that the militia has been replaced with a National Guard, and that the National Guard is nothing more than an extension of the U.S. military. Or to put it simply, the National Guard is not the militia. The militia has been terminated, which should raise some eyebrows and force us to ask questions.
Because it is now ASSUMED that we do not need those old type militias, the right for the people to bear arms is now open to interpretation. Remember, this amendment had everything to do with free men being able to own weapons so they could fulfill their obligations to mandatory militia service. But if the militia no longer exists (and if the Federal Government is issuing weapons to the National Guard), it becomes very difficult to maintain that gun ownership is a constitutional right.
What needs to be addressed is how and why the militia, as defined by the Constitution and the Militia Act of 1792, has been disbanded and replaced with a National Guard. If we don’t have a militia, then we don’t have need for a constitutional right to bear arms. The two go hand in hand.
Let's say there is no constitution.
Can you decide, that I may not have a weapon to defend myself? Where did you get the authority?
Can I or anybody decide that you must not have a weapon to defend yourself from tyranny, be it a thief, a murderer, a rapist or government etc.? And if we can do that where did we get the authority?
And if you, nor I, nor anybody else has no right to say that another human being can not, or must not have the means of protecting against tyranny where does government get the "right" then?
I believe no one can take the means of protection against tyranny from anybody else. Constitution or laws don't change that i.m.h.o. :)
Peace
You may not believe that anyone can prevent you from protecting yourself against tyranny, but reality suggests otherwise. I do not know where you live, but I am relatively certain that wherever it is, there are laws, and men in blue uniforms to enforce those laws, that prevent you from adequately defending yourself from tyranny. You claim they don't have this authority to deny you the things you require; they, however, would disagree.
People get authority from wherever they please. The criminal gives himself authority to do as he pleases, whether you recognize his authority or not.
You might argue that the criminal does not have the authority (or the right) to rob you; he, however, would disagree.
The point I was making was that the Constitutionality of gun ownership is an irrelevant argument since militias, as specified in the Constitution, do not exist anymore. And since militias don't exist anymore, the Constitutionality of owning a gun is no longer a "protected right."
But like you....this is just my opinion.
The criminal might argue that I do not have the authority to defend myself, (because it's the law here) but I however disagree, and it's doesn't matter if it's a criminal from the street or a criminal with a badge and a costume.
I know I would be shot by the criminals in blue costumes in the policestate the netherlands If I ever decided to defend myself against their mafia practices, but that says nothing about the legitimacy of some scribles on paper.
Thank you for your reply, I understand that reality is very different, but nothing will ever change in the head of the victims if 'you' never speak up and wake up the faithful believer of the god called government or some other criminal that people decided to worship.
It's not just the "god" called government the people have created. Don't forget about the "god" called religion and the "god" called entertainment. Things are not looking good.
Indeed things are not looking good. I agree. But I (and maybe we) have to keep saying things to the people even if it feels sometimes all is lost.