[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
Bang / Guns Title: Opinion: What America’s gun fanatics won’t tell you The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia. What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government. And there’s a reason absolutely no gun extremist will ever direct you to that 1788 essay because it blows their baloney into a million pieces. A “well-regulated militia” didn’t mean guys who read Soldier of Fortune magazine running around in the woods with AK-47s and warpaint on their faces. It basically meant what today we call the National Guard. It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government. The one big difference between this militia and a professional army? It shouldn’t be made up of full-time professional soldiers, said the Founding Fathers. Such soldiers could be used against the people as King George had used his mercenary Redcoats. Instead, the American republic should make up its military force from part-time volunteers drawn from regular citizens. Such men would be less likely to turn on the population. And the creation of this “well-regulated militia,” aka the National Guard, would help safeguard the freedom of the new republic because it would make the creation of a professional, mercenary army “unnecessary,” wrote Hamilton. “This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it,” he wrote. That was the point. And that was why they wanted to make sure it couldn’t be disarmed by the federal government: So a future “tyrant” couldn’t disarm the National Guard, and then use a mercenary army to impose martial law. The Founding Fathers didn’t call the republic’s new force an “army” because that term more than two centuries ago called to mind the British army, foreign mercenaries, tyrants and kings. So they said “militia” instead. But they meant a real body. Hamilton was scathing about the idea that the “militia” could just mean every Bob, Billy and Benjamin with his musket. Such amateurs would stand no chance in modern warfare against professionals, he wrote. And requiring every citizen to become a professional would be ridiculous, he said. It would be “a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss,” he wrote. Taking people away from their work in order to train them “would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country.” The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It’s not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into the saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government. Today we have a professional army, anyway. Military matters have become so complex that no part-time soldiers could do it all. So you could argue that makes the Second Amendment null and void, like the parts in the Constitution about slaves and Indians being counted as “three-fifths” of a person in the Census. But even if you still want to defend the Second Amendment, it should apply only to those who volunteer to join the “select corps” of their National Guard, undergo rigorous training to attain “proficiency in military functions” and perform the “operations of an army,” serve as ordered under the ultimate command of the president and be subject to military discipline. So if you’re running around waving your AK-47 under the Second Amendment, and you haven’t shown up yet at your local National Guard headquarters, you’re not a “patriot.” You’re a deserter. Arends discusses: "Federalist No. 29" as though he is locked-jawed about the only consideration for the creation of the BILL OF RIGHTS. Arends is wrong, of course. The BILL OF RIGHTS was a requirement by the anti-federalists; so his reference is only meaningful when you consider a totally lame exploitation of America's education system. 'Well regulated' at the tyme of the BILL OF RIGHTS writing meant that amoung the states that all federal law was equal of and towards the states. There was nothing more to the intent of the phrase until today's liberal, authoritarian facists that profess TOTAL federal government control stole the idea as meaning lots of unnecessary federal bureaucracy, as though we are to be ruled by a king. I often laff at those that argue that BILL OF RIGHTS is for federal government. That is far from the truth. The BILL OF RIGHTS was an EXCLUSION from federal government and was for and about state authority. Arends has his head up his ass but you knew that already. Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
#2. To: buckeroo (#0)
Federalist No. 29, and all of the Federalist Papers, are nothing but newspaper editorials from their time. They have exactly the legal force as editorials in the New York Times. Newspaper editorials, such as the Federalist Papers, are written by political partisans to public their point of view and try to persuade people. They are not legal documents. They are not "legislative history". They are newspaper editorials, and that's all they ever were. It doesn't matter that together they are book length. It doesn't matter that as a people we revere the Founders. None of that elevates their political opinions in newspaper editorials of the time to the level of law. (This cuts all ways.) The Federalist Papers give us a good idea of what some men of the leading men of the time thought. And yet, soon we had a Constitution, and we DIDN'T then proceed to restrict guns as Hamilton would have wished.
Ever read the anti-federalist papers? If you did, you would know the foundation of the Bill of Rights. The BILL OF RIGHTS had nothing to do with the federalist papers which supported a strong central government. The anti-federalist papers (typically by "brutus") created the BILL OF RIGHTS to ensure immunity from federal government tyranny.
There are no replies to Comment # 9. End Trace Mode for Comment # 9.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|