Over these past several posts I’ve looked at most of the arguments that are raised by people opposed to gun regulation and ownership. I think that a critical examination of the facts leads to the conclusion that none of the most common reasons are supportable. What’s last is some variation of “I have a Constitutional right to own a gun. It’s the Second Amendment.” So let’s tackle that one.
“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 Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, cited above, has lately been quoted. A lot. Bubbas across the country have been saying things like “From my cold, dead hands,” (quoting NRA president and former Moses, Charlton Heston, who was paraphrasing someone else) pretty much without rest since Obama was elected, under the (ridiculous) contention that “the gubmint” was going to take their guns from them. Setting aside what that implies for another post, let’s take a look at the foundation of this belief that “Every By-God-‘Merican has the Constitutional Right to Own (and openly carry) A Gun.”
Once you get past the tortured syntax, I believe it’s clear (and most Constitutional scholars agree) that the intent of the Framers was to place a control on the authority and strength of a central (Federal) government, by authorizing each state to form its own militia. Recall that, prior to the Revolutionary War, each state was pretty much autonomous. The coalition that was formed to fight the British was one of necessity, rather than a desire to weld a nation together out of the individual states. I’m not saying that they did not intend to form a nation following a successful rebellion (it’s clear from the writings of Jefferson, Franklin and many others that in fact that was what they specifically intended); just that the final “look” of that nation hadn’t been decided upon. Many people feared a strong central government. Smaller states such as Rhode Island feared the power that wealthier states such as Virginia might wield, and so forth. A standing army, answerable not to the individual states but to the central government, was one thing that made the citizenry nervous. They had the experience of the British army being billeted in their cities prior to the war, which fed their anger at the Brits in the first place. There was not a lot support for a standing army. General Washington’s Continental Army was thus disbanded at the end of the Revolutionary War, with just a few soldiers kept on to guard the arsenal at West Point and to patrol the western reaches to deter uprisings of the native Americans. But remember that the Continental Army had originally been a collection of militias from each state (think of the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord fame); Washington managed to form a structured army out of these militias that was good enough to beat the British regulars and win the war.
A few years later the new government got a lesson in civics when it attempted to collect a tax on whiskey. The producers of the whiskey (settlers in the hinterlands), objected vociferously, leading to the government asking George Washington to come out of retirement and go get the tax money, while at the same time quieting the Western Front. Since his army had been disbanded at the end of the war, he rounded up several state militias and put down the Whiskey Rebellion, as it came to be known. It became even more clear that a standing army was a necessity for defending the borders in 1812, when we (unsuccessfully) invaded Canada and had our new capital burned by the annoyed British for our hubris. We eventually won that war too, but having a standing army started to look like a good idea.
Back to our states and their fear of a central government. They had built into the Constitution a check against having a central government become too strong, in the words of the Second Amendment allowing (mandating?) the formation of militia by each state. These militia would be made up of citizen soldiers who each had their own musket, who would answer the call to arms, after which they would return to their villages and farms as ordinary citizens. The key though, is that they would be controlled by the individual states, not the federal government. This would then provide a balance to the central army while at the same time providing a mechanism for defending the country when needed. What we today know as the National Guard grew out of these states’ militia.
The National Guard is thus the physical manifestation today of the intent of the Framers 240-odd years ago when writing the Second Amendment. Case law (including Supreme Court decisions) in the nearly two-and-a-half centuries since then, support the contention that the Second Amendment did NOT constitutionally guarantee the right of every citizen to own firearms.
So is Bubba wrong? Nope, but how we got to where we are today is another post.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer.
Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.
The right to bear arms
Over these past several posts I’ve looked at most of the arguments that are raised by people opposed to gun regulation and ownership. I think that a critical examination of the facts leads to the conclusion that none of the most common reasons are supportable. What’s last is some variation of “I have a Constitutional right to own a gun. It’s the Second Amendment.” So let’s tackle that one.
“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 Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, cited above, has lately been quoted. A lot. Bubbas across the country have been saying things like “From my cold, dead hands,” (quoting NRA president and former Moses, Charlton Heston, who was paraphrasing someone else) pretty much without rest since Obama was elected, under the (ridiculous) contention that “the gubmint” was going to take their guns from them. Setting aside what that implies for another post, let’s take a look at the foundation of this belief that “Every By-God-‘Merican has the Constitutional Right to Own (and openly carry) A Gun.”
Once you get past the tortured syntax, I believe it’s clear (and most Constitutional scholars agree) that the intent of the Framers was to place a control on the authority and strength of a central (Federal) government, by authorizing each state to form its own militia. Recall that, prior to the Revolutionary War, each state was pretty much autonomous. The coalition that was formed to fight the British was one of necessity, rather than a desire to weld a nation together out of the individual states. I’m not saying that they did not intend to form a nation following a successful rebellion (it’s clear from the writings of Jefferson, Franklin and many others that in fact that was what they specifically intended); just that the final “look” of that nation hadn’t been decided upon. Many people feared a strong central government. Smaller states such as Rhode Island feared the power that wealthier states such as Virginia might wield, and so forth. A standing army, answerable not to the individual states but to the central government, was one thing that made the citizenry nervous. They had the experience of the British army being billeted in their cities prior to the war, which fed their anger at the Brits in the first place. There was not a lot support for a standing army. General Washington’s Continental Army was thus disbanded at the end of the Revolutionary War, with just a few soldiers kept on to guard the arsenal at West Point and to patrol the western reaches to deter uprisings of the native Americans. But remember that the Continental Army had originally been a collection of militias from each state (think of the Minutemen of Lexington and Concord fame); Washington managed to form a structured army out of these militias that was good enough to beat the British regulars and win the war.
A few years later the new government got a lesson in civics when it attempted to collect a tax on whiskey. The producers of the whiskey (settlers in the hinterlands), objected vociferously, leading to the government asking George Washington to come out of retirement and go get the tax money, while at the same time quieting the Western Front. Since his army had been disbanded at the end of the war, he rounded up several state militias and put down the Whiskey Rebellion, as it came to be known. It became even more clear that a standing army was a necessity for defending the borders in 1812, when we (unsuccessfully) invaded Canada and had our new capital burned by the annoyed British for our hubris. We eventually won that war too, but having a standing army started to look like a good idea.
Back to our states and their fear of a central government. They had built into the Constitution a check against having a central government become too strong, in the words of the Second Amendment allowing (mandating?) the formation of militia by each state. These militia would be made up of citizen soldiers who each had their own musket, who would answer the call to arms, after which they would return to their villages and farms as ordinary citizens. The key though, is that they would be controlled by the individual states, not the federal government. This would then provide a balance to the central army while at the same time providing a mechanism for defending the country when needed. What we today know as the National Guard grew out of these states’ militia.
The National Guard is thus the physical manifestation today of the intent of the Framers 240-odd years ago when writing the Second Amendment. Case law (including Supreme Court decisions) in the nearly two-and-a-half centuries since then, support the contention that the Second Amendment did NOT constitutionally guarantee the right of every citizen to own firearms.
So is Bubba wrong? Nope, but how we got to where we are today is another post.
About BigBill
Stats: Married male boomer. Hobbies: Hiking, woodworking, reading, philosophy, good conversation.