Historical insight

[unixronin]

"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 arguments about the meaning of the Second Amendment are near-continuous, even since DC v. Heller.  Possibly the three most oft-repeated arguments invoked to weaken it are attempts to narrowly define the meaning of "arms", attempts to argue that "the People" actually means "the States" when used in the Second Amendment, and arguments that the prefatory militia clause, rather than being explanatory, is rather a condition, and that it is no longer true.

To get a clearer insight on this last, we can shortcut much argument by simply considering the original draft form of the relevant passage in the Bill of Rights recommended by the Virginia Ratifying Convention, in June 1778:

"That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

It's pretty clear from reading this that the keep-and-bear clause stands on its own, and that rather than being a necessary condition for it, the militia clause is actually a benefit enabled by it.  The draft then goes on to explain why a citizen militia is felt to be superior, in time of peace, to a standing army, but recognizes that this is not always possible by amending the qualifier "as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit".  No such qualifier — indeed, no qualifier whatsoever — is amended to the keep-and-bear clause.

Any questions?

Comments

[jmkelly.livejournal.com]

I think private gun ownership has been both a deterrent and an incitement (as at the Branch Davidian compound), but I'm not going to argue which aspect has predominated; that's for historians. Certainly firing shots attracts attention, sometimes to good effect.

"Rather than" was maybe a poor choice of words -- I was tired. I think it's best to use the full panoply of means and tactics available to us, as the McMinn County veterans did. To my mind, "well-regulated militia" entails both arms and a commitment to the rule of law. I think we agree on that.

I'll add for free that non-violent action can also be powerful, as we've seen in India, the Southern US, South Africa, and the Philippines. Not all-powerful, but powerful.

"Rather than" came though my fingers because I fear that while we debate the Second Amendment, the First, Fourth and Fifth are being shredded. I think the loss of any right makes it harder to defend the remaining rights; our rights are gradually being eroded in ways no gun can address. I think we should pay some noisy attention to that.

I can't resist quoting Eleanor Roosevelt, whose opinion on the McMinn County fracas was published in the Daily Post-Athenian:

"We may deplore the use of force [by the McMinn County veterans] but we must also recognize the lesson which this incident points for us all. When the majority of the people know what they want, they will obtain it.

"Any local, state or national government, or any political machine, in order to live, must give the people assurance that they can express their will freely and that their votes will be counted."

[unixronin.livejournal.com]

The Waco incident, frankly, is another example of the government completely screwing things up, then blaming people who are no longer around to defend themselves after the fact. The local Sheriff said that the ATF/FBI people handling it were complete idiots, and that if they wanted to talk to Koresh about a technical weapons violation, all they needed to do was have him call Koresh, and Koresh would have come right into town to his office to deal with it. But ATF didn't want to do it the easy way; they wanted to Make An Example Of Somebody. They wanted a Big Front-Page Win For The Home Team. What they actually got was a rolling clusterfuck.

"Rather than" came though my fingers because I fear that while we debate the Second Amendment, the First, Fourth and Fifth are being shredded.

A viewpoint on which you won't hear a second of argument from me. It's just that the attempts to preserve the First, Fourth and Fifth (and Tenth) don't get as much press. "Designated free speech zones"? Give me a fucking break. What comes next, a Free Speech permit? $1000 application fee required 90 days in advance to allow for the background check?

Eleanor Roosevelt understood. It's a shame our present generation of legislators (a) have no integrity, and (b) appear to be unable to learn from the lessons of the past.

I do not want to see armed insurrection in the United States. But I think our government is too collectively stupid and greedy to stop before they push people into one.