"If in the opinion of the People the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates." George Washington at his farewell address.
May I be so bold.
If we deconstruct the Second Amendment into story form, it becomes clear. The main character is the militia. What's a militia? A militia is a fighting force that is composed of citizens--people if you will--of a nation, state, or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation. What does the main character want to do? It wants to keep the state free and secure. How can the main character accomplish this dangerous and noble challenge? It has to be well-regulated--constrained, governed, inhibited, ruled, controlled, guided, administered--and it has to have guns, or arms. During the American revolutionary period, individuals, called Minutemen, comprised a well-regulated militia who volunteered to be ready for service at a minute's notice, which necessarily required them to keep their "muskets" at home. Today, they are known as the National Guard and they keep their weapons safely locked up in armories.
Considerable fuss has been made over the grammar, punctuation, semantics, and syntax of the Second Amendment, but I trust my story deconstruction is clear enough. If not, I refer you to Mark Moe's (another retired English teacher) A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights.
And then there's that "unorganized militia" thing.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and [. . .] under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
That an "unorganized militia" can be a "well-regulated" militia is a blatant contradiction given that "regulate" (from late Latin; 3rd to 6th century AD) means, among other things, "to bring order, method, or uniformity to" and is inarguably synonymous with "organized." Is an unorganized militia simply citizens packing guns willy-nilly? If so, doesn't that exclude them from the "right to bear arms," thereby restricting gun ownership to the National Guard and the Naval Militia? If not, what would be the purpose of an "unorganized militia" given that states have a national guard?
What about those private organizations that include paramilitary or similar groups who refer to themselves as militia, unorganized militia, and constitutional militia? According to historian Mark Pitcavage, "The militia movement is a right-wing movement that arose following controversial standoffs in the 1990s. It inherited paramilitary traditions of earlier groups, especially the conspiratorial, anti-government Posse Comitatus. The militia movement claims that militia groups are sanctioned by law but uncontrolled (antithesis of "well-regulated") by government; in fact, they are designed to oppose a tyrannical government. Adherents believe that behind the 'tyranny' is a left-wing, globalist conspiracy known as the New World Order. The movement's ideology has led some adherents to commit criminal acts, including stockpiling illegal weapons and explosives and plotting to destroy buildings or assassinate public officials, as well as lesser confrontations." Timothy McVeigh, an American terrorist who detonated a truck bomb in front of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City on April 19, 1995, killing 168 people and injuring over 600, was a member of The Patriot Movement, a militia group "centered on a belief that individual liberties are in jeopardy due to unconstitutional actions taken by elected government officials, appointed bureaucrats, and some special interest groups outside of government, to illegally accumulate power."
A cursory search of standoffs between militia groups and law enforcement will reveal that so-called militiamen abandoned defense of the radical groups they intended to protect or gave up peacefully when confronted by law enforcement, which suggests that militiamen are less interested in fighting for freedom than they are in playing Rambo on weekends for the sake of bravado. Those who step out of their fantasies run the risk of ending up like Timothy McVeigh, who was executed in 2001, or like his accomplice, Terry Nichols, who is serving consecutive 161 life sentences without possibility of parole. Join up if you like--but I suspect you have better things to do.
Americans now have the right to own guns NOT because of any provision in the Second Amendment but because some Supreme Court Justices claim to know the "intent" of the Framers of the Constitution. The meaning of the Second Amendment is not self-evident, which is why it gives rise to much debate. My guess is that the Framers intended for the Second Amendment to be enigmatic--or it wouldn't be--so that posterity could argue the merits of gun ownership in a way that would be judicious in their own time, in a way that would ensure "domestic tranquility." That the United States has the highest rate of gun related deaths per capita among developed countries (though it also has the highest rate of gun ownership) is a long way from judiciousness and tranquility. That, you cannot argue.
America, however, is young yet, still very much the "wild west" relative to Europe, and a work in progress. Civilization tends toward greater human flourishing, and I have no doubt that America will evolve out of its need for guns.
If we deconstruct the Second Amendment into story form, it becomes clear. The main character is the militia. What's a militia? A militia is a fighting force that is composed of citizens--people if you will--of a nation, state, or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation. What does the main character want to do? It wants to keep the state free and secure. How can the main character accomplish this dangerous and noble challenge? It has to be well-regulated--constrained, governed, inhibited, ruled, controlled, guided, administered--and it has to have guns, or arms. During the American revolutionary period, individuals, called Minutemen, comprised a well-regulated militia who volunteered to be ready for service at a minute's notice, which necessarily required them to keep their "muskets" at home. Today, they are known as the National Guard and they keep their weapons safely locked up in armories.
Considerable fuss has been made over the grammar, punctuation, semantics, and syntax of the Second Amendment, but I trust my story deconstruction is clear enough. If not, I refer you to Mark Moe's (another retired English teacher) A grammar lesson for gun nuts: Second Amendment does not guarantee gun rights.
And then there's that "unorganized militia" thing.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and [. . .] under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. The classes of the militia are (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."
That an "unorganized militia" can be a "well-regulated" militia is a blatant contradiction given that "regulate" (from late Latin; 3rd to 6th century AD) means, among other things, "to bring order, method, or uniformity to" and is inarguably synonymous with "organized." Is an unorganized militia simply citizens packing guns willy-nilly? If so, doesn't that exclude them from the "right to bear arms," thereby restricting gun ownership to the National Guard and the Naval Militia? If not, what would be the purpose of an "unorganized militia" given that states have a national guard?
Is there any need for an "unorganized militia" in the 21st century? It's highly unlikely and imprudent to believe that a foreign conventional force could successfully invade the US, and I rather doubt civilian gun wielders could thwart a nuclear attack (Picture a guy/gal with a Glock firing away at an incoming ICBM), not to mention the US has the best military in the world fully capable of defending America (Civilian gun wielders would just be in the way). As you will no doubt remember, the Japanese tried invading America in 1942 when the US military was more or less fledgling and we all know how that ended. That was seventy-two years ago! No one's tried it since.
True, terrorism is always a threat, but terrorism--as we have seen--is typically carried out in stealth and with explosive devices. Thwarting such attacks is the bailiwick of the clandestine intelligence community and they have apparently done a fair job given the paucity of terrorist attacks since 9/11. Gun-toting citizens do not possess sophisticated intelligence gathering capability, and even if they did, they do not have the mobility to intercept terrorists before they have struck.
That pretty much ascribes an unorganized militia's mission to one of self-defense or the defense of neighbors or bystanders, but given that in 2015 there were 20,885 gun injuries and 10,293 non-suicidal gun deaths suggests that the "unorganized" militia is powerless against criminal elements who naturally use the element of surprise as an "organizational" method. In other words, in matters of self-defense or the defense of fellow citizens, one would have to be at the ready--wide awake, loaded gun drawn, patrolling neighborhoods, highways, and byways 24/7 (the domain of law enforcement)--which would also put family, friends, neighbors, and bystanders at risk of accidental shooting. It happens often, we know, and, unfortunately, to your own children. "While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception and doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot." Better to invest in a security system, pack pepper spray, and get a noisy dog.
For those of you who will echo that "guns save lives" as per the NRA and The National Rifleman, I refer you to http://content.time.com/.../article/0,9171,152446,00.html.
True, terrorism is always a threat, but terrorism--as we have seen--is typically carried out in stealth and with explosive devices. Thwarting such attacks is the bailiwick of the clandestine intelligence community and they have apparently done a fair job given the paucity of terrorist attacks since 9/11. Gun-toting citizens do not possess sophisticated intelligence gathering capability, and even if they did, they do not have the mobility to intercept terrorists before they have struck.
That pretty much ascribes an unorganized militia's mission to one of self-defense or the defense of neighbors or bystanders, but given that in 2015 there were 20,885 gun injuries and 10,293 non-suicidal gun deaths suggests that the "unorganized" militia is powerless against criminal elements who naturally use the element of surprise as an "organizational" method. In other words, in matters of self-defense or the defense of fellow citizens, one would have to be at the ready--wide awake, loaded gun drawn, patrolling neighborhoods, highways, and byways 24/7 (the domain of law enforcement)--which would also put family, friends, neighbors, and bystanders at risk of accidental shooting. It happens often, we know, and, unfortunately, to your own children. "While defensive gun use may occasionally occur successfully, it is rare and very much the exception and doesn't change the fact that actually owning and using a firearm hugely increases the risk of being shot." Better to invest in a security system, pack pepper spray, and get a noisy dog.
For those of you who will echo that "guns save lives" as per the NRA and The National Rifleman, I refer you to http://content.time.com/.../article/0,9171,152446,00.html.
A cursory search of standoffs between militia groups and law enforcement will reveal that so-called militiamen abandoned defense of the radical groups they intended to protect or gave up peacefully when confronted by law enforcement, which suggests that militiamen are less interested in fighting for freedom than they are in playing Rambo on weekends for the sake of bravado. Those who step out of their fantasies run the risk of ending up like Timothy McVeigh, who was executed in 2001, or like his accomplice, Terry Nichols, who is serving consecutive 161 life sentences without possibility of parole. Join up if you like--but I suspect you have better things to do.
Americans now have the right to own guns NOT because of any provision in the Second Amendment but because some Supreme Court Justices claim to know the "intent" of the Framers of the Constitution. The meaning of the Second Amendment is not self-evident, which is why it gives rise to much debate. My guess is that the Framers intended for the Second Amendment to be enigmatic--or it wouldn't be--so that posterity could argue the merits of gun ownership in a way that would be judicious in their own time, in a way that would ensure "domestic tranquility." That the United States has the highest rate of gun related deaths per capita among developed countries (though it also has the highest rate of gun ownership) is a long way from judiciousness and tranquility. That, you cannot argue.
America, however, is young yet, still very much the "wild west" relative to Europe, and a work in progress. Civilization tends toward greater human flourishing, and I have no doubt that America will evolve out of its need for guns.
