Give our new Discussions area a try!
There are no stupid questions…just stupid people who ask them.
— eolan59, Non Sequitur comic letters
Posted on 2020-Aug-07 at 15:26:22 by Phil
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
— First Amendment to the US Constitution
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.
— Second Amendment to the US Constitution
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.
— Third Amendment to the US Constitution
The Second and Third Amendments were originally intended as adjuncts to the First Amendment. This one (the First) was the cornerstone of the whole Bill of Rights, and the framers gave thought to how the Federal government might effectively sidestep the First, without actually having to go through the unpopular step of repealing it.
To dispose of the Third Amendment first, it states that soldiers were not to be quartered in civilian homes in peacetime. Most of a national army’s soldiers in those days would have been foreign mercenaries, such as the Hessians that the young country had so recently had such unpleasant experiences with. Imagine trying to hold a freewheeling political discussion around the dinner table with Fritz und Wilhelm, down at the end of the table, glowering at you. You just know they're going to report you to the authorities. Thus, it was made harder to plant spies among the populace to ensure compliance with the official line.
The other Amendment (Second) is trickier. The thought was that the Federal government would simply use the Army (again, mostly foreigners) to suppress the desire for unbridled Freedom of Speech, whenever it inconvenienced those in power (in other words, always). Unlike American citizens in the Army, foreign mercenaries could always be counted on to put down any civilian uprisings, protests, or disturbances, as they had no skin in the game. Rather than banning foreign mercenaries (probably a good idea in itself, but the need for competent soldiers overrode such concerns), the framers decided to ensure that each State had a strong militia. Note that this is, as the Amendment itself states, a well-founded and properly regulated militia. It’s what today we would call the National Guard. Angry white guys wearing red caps, with an assault rifle in one hand and a beer in the other, are not what they had in mind. That’s an armed mob, not a militia.
In those days, a militia member (Guardsman) would not draw their on-duty weaponry from an armory. They would supply their own muskets and related gear, the same ones they would use for hunting and self defense. The militia members owned their own weapons, in other words, so it was considered important that they could not be disarmed. Note that the Second Amendment does not explicitly limit which level(s) of government may not infringe upon this right to own (“bear”) arms. It does not explicitly limit this to the Federal government, but implies that it also applies to State and lower levels. See the Ninth and Tenth Amendments and the distribution of powers. Perhaps the fear was that a State, county, or city might act on the behest of the Federal government to disarm its militias. Anyway, the courts have tended to side with the prohibition on any level of government unreasonably restricting gun rights. The main concern appears to have been the Federal government trying to suppress Free Speech via the Army, so whether the omission of specification of which levels of government was an oversight, or they really thought that it was a good idea for a State or city to not have the power to ban arms, is an open question.
It probably helped that State militias would be mostly volunteer citizens, and ready to fight for their rights. In those days, the US was envisioned as more of a confederation of powerful semi-autonomous states, with a relatively weak central government, than what we have today, with a powerful central (Federal) government. The State militias could act as a powerful balance to the Federal Army if anyone tried to take away citizen rights. Being as the Federal Army would be rather small, State militias could also be useful as an adjunct to the Federal Army in defending against an invasion.
So, the original intent of the Second and Third Amendments was to safeguard the First Amendment, preserving freedom of speech (important in a democracy). Can one argue that state Militias are no longer necessary for that specific purpose (a counterweight to the Federal Army)? Being that the Federal Army is almost entirely made up of U.S. citizens (and would-be citizens), in a way that armies of 250 years ago were not, could they be used to suppress individual rights in a general manner? One would hope not, but stranger things have happened. Certainly, state Militias are still useful adjuncts to the Federal Army, particularly in major wars and both natural and man-made disasters, but it is questionable what kind of fight a state Militia could put up against the Federal Army. They would probably not fare much better than self-proclaimed “militias” of angry white men, if it came down to an all-out fight.
Any sane observer would state that private American citizens are vastly over-armed. The arsenals they own go far beyond the legitimate needs of hunting (whether for food or for sport) or self-defense against criminals. Gun supporters state that they are needed to prevent citizen rights from being trampled, but the fact is that they are the ones doing the trampling. Forget for the moment about public massacres; observe heavily armed men threatening governors and other public officials who are simply doing their jobs. These guys proudly proclaim that they would be in the front line defending our rights, but they wouldn’t last long against an Army (or National Guard) unit ordered to clean them out.
Clearly, the Second Amendment has outlived its intended purpose (to protect the existence of proper state militias) and is obsolete. No one in their right mind is calling for abolition of private gun ownership for legitimate purposes (hunting and self defense), just to limit it to reasonable weaponry suited for such purposes, and not useful for mass murder. If no court is going to exercise common sense in such matters, perhaps it’s time to repeal the Second Amendment.
Posted on 2020-Sep-17 at 10:34:44 by Phil
Some good additional commentary from Letters to the Editor for a Mike Luckovich editorial comic on the Second Amendment:
[in reply to an earlier claim that “the first clause of the Second
Amendment isn’t operable, it’s just tune-up words to prepare you for
the real amendment, which starts with “The right of the
people…”] I do understand that there are some extremist gun nuts
who do believe that the first clause is inoperable; it is called
cherry-picking. No clause is inoperable. It is not a “tune
up”; it is the statement of the reason for the second clause.
— DD Wiz
The framers of the Constitution were MUCH more adept in proper use of
language. They put the phrase “A well regulated militia” in the
primary position to show that the rest of the amendment was limited, something
beyond the understanding of far too many of today’s chest pounding, gun
waving problem children of all ages.
So many of them cannot understand that “rights” entail “responsibilities”.
Given the laws they had controlling guns and in fact MANDATING persons to be
in the militia in many cities and MANDATING those persons to show up for drills,
be accountable for their presence and MANDATING they maintain a firearm of
specified type, bought at their own expense and maintained at their own expense,
and MANDATING they present that firearm for inspection on request and MANDATING
fines or jail time for noncompliance — they obviously believed they had
the right to pass laws regarding personal behavior with firearms. And they did.
To a right winger, the above is somehow “proof” they didn’t “control” firearms.
The constitution wasn’t written to cover assault rifles.
Jefferson’s idea of well armed would have been a gun that a very well
trained soldier could [reload] and fire about 4 times a minute. That gives you
and whatever you are firing at 15 seconds to decide [if] another bullet is
appropriate to the situation.
— Diane Lee
Posted on 2022-May-26 at 21:31:00 by Phil
All right… with the latest weekly major school shooting now in the books, it’s time to cut bait or fish. The nazi party, a wholly-owned subsidiary of the National Rifle Association, continues to offer “thoughts and prayers” and to block any gun control. The courts are nazi-controlled and are willing to listen to any argument that the Second Amendment protects the right to unlimited gun ownership. God, Guns, and Country — gotta love it!
What can be done? Even if progressives controlled Congress and the Presidency, the courts will still block any reform. The only sure-fire way is to repeal the Second via a Constitutional Amendment, and gun nuts and other nazis will fight that tooth and nail. I can’t see it being approved by enough states to pass — there just aren’t enough blue states to carry the day. There remains one way to do it: assassinate every politician and every judge who blocks meaningful gun control, until by sheer weight of numbers the progressives can carry the day. Of course, that won’t happen either, as progressives are loath to kill (although it would be delightfully ironic to see anti-gun control nutjobs being taken out by the very weapons they so adore). Besides, the gun nuts may well kill a progressive politician or judge for every pro-gun one snuffed out. Is all-out civil war worth the cost? I suspect that the winning side would be the one starting with the most guns and ammo, and you can guess which one that is. Don’t count on the military being on the side of the good guys (progressives), as most enlisted ranks and junior officers have shown themselves strongly pro-gun. The same goes for all levels of law enforcement. In short, it would be a massively lopsided battle.
So what’s wrong with “reasonable” gun control? There are firearms which are reasonable and customary for hunting and for personal protection. Anything with a high rate of fire (certainly automatics, and possibly even semi-automatics) and holding more than five or six rounds at a time is good only for killing lots of other people. In other words, a weapon of war; an assault rifle (or equivalent). Why do private persons need such things? Do they really think they’re going to take on the Army and Marines and overthrow a tyrannical government? Yeah, dream on, “patriots”.
Beyond limiting types of weaponry, what else is reasonable? How about a waiting period so that a thorough background check can be completed, both for past criminal activity and mental health red flags? And that includes private sales, gun shows, and other transfers. How about a minimum age of 25 or 30 to buy a gun? Older people are often more mature than an 18 year old. How about a limit on the number of guns, magazines/clips, and such, to reduce the chance of such an arsenal being used for a mass shooting? How about the death penalty for attempting to evade such controls, or the mere possession of a firearm during a crime? The possibilities are endless. The will to do so is not.
All content © copyright 2005 – 2022
by Catskill Technology Services, LLC.
All rights reserved.
Note that Third Party software (whether Open Source or proprietary) on this site remains under the copyright and license of its owners. Catskill Technology Services, LLC does not claim copyright over such software.
This page is https://www.catskilltech.com/the-true-story-of-the-second-amendment.html
Search Quotations database.
Last updated Thu, 26 May 2022 at 9:31 PM