Conffederate
Confederate

April 20, 2007

Temporary Safety

It never ceases to amaze me how little self-avowed liberals are so purposefully ignorant about their own Constitution:

Our famous Constitution, about which many of us are generally so proud, enshrines -- along with the right to freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly -- the right to own guns. That's an apples and oranges list if there ever was one.

Not all of us are so proud and triumphant about the gun-guarantee clause. The right to free speech, press, religion and assembly and so on seem to be working well, but the gun part, not so much.

The dolt who wrote this, Tom Plate, is not surprisingly the former editor of the Los Angeles Times.

He is hardly alone.

Another journalist, Walter Shapiro of Salon stated the following earlier this week:

Fifteen unambiguous words are all that would be required to quell the American-as-apple-pie cycle of gun violence that has now tearfully enshrined Virginia Tech in the record book of mass murder. Here are the 15 words that would deliver a mortal wound to our bang-bang culture of death: "The second article of amendment to the Constitution of the United States is hereby repealed."

[snip]

Looking at the Bill of Rights with more than two centuries' hindsight, it is simply irrational that firearms have a protected position on par with freedom of speech and religion. Were Americans -- liberal or conservative -- writing a Constitution completely from scratch today, they probably would agree that something akin to "freedom to drive" was more far important than the "right to bear arms." The rights of state militias (which many liberal legal theorists argue is the essence of the Second Amendment) are as much a throwback to an 18th century mind-set as restrictions on quartering soldiers in private homes during peacetime (the little-remembered Third Amendment).

Alexander Hamilton, were he still alive today, may have chosen to respond to these craven abdications of responsibility by reiterating the following:

To model our political system upon speculations of lasting tranquility, is to calculate on the weaker springs of the human character.

What Hamilton means, and both to Plate and Shaprio are too dim, too pampered, and yes, too cowardly to let cross their minds, is the fact that no system of government is perfect, including our own Republic. It is the very nature of government to attempt to consolidate power, usurping for itself the rights and powers afforded to other branches and levels of governments on some occasions, and always, always from the people themselves.

It is because of the creeping pervasiveness and the promised tyranny of government (the same tyranny liberals constantly accuse the Executive of trying to implement on every other issue facing this nation, but noticeably fall silent on here) that arms must always be held by the people, for the people, as Noah Webster observed in "An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution."

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.

The Second Amendment was never about hunting, or sportsmanship. The Second Amendment was, and still is, the singular Amendment guaranteeing all others. To dismantle the Second, as John Adams noted in "A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States,":

...is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government.

As goes the Second Amendment, so does the United States of America itself. Without a "well regulated militia"--"regulated" meaning practiced and competent with arms, the "militia" recognized as all people of military age and capability--the United States falls.

Noted Patrick Henry:

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.

The Second Amendment of the Constitution was never about self defense from criminals. To the Founders, that right was inherent, provided by the Creator above. The purpose of the Second Amendment was to enshrine in this nation the capability to take this nation back by force from a corrupt government, overthrowing it if necessary.

So wrote Supreme Court Associate Justice Joseph Story in "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States":

The next amendment is: '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 importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers...

The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid.

It is no accident that Justice Story chose to use the word "palladium" to describe the critical importance of the Second Amendment, which is defined as:

  1. A safeguard, especially one viewed as a guarantee of the integrity of social institutions: the Bill of Rights, palladium of American civil liberties.
  2. A sacred object that was believed to have the power to preserve a city or state possessing it.

The Second Amendment is our palladium, that sacred object that preserves our Republic as a nation of men instead of a nation of laws slaved to tyrants.

Story accurately pegs Plate, Shapiro, and others that do not wish to be yoked with the responsibility of protecting themselves, or their nation. It is a burden too heavy for them to carry, a responsibility they wish to be rid of. To a man, their ilk ignores the lessons history would teach, and call for the power and responsibility to be handed to the very state that would ensnare them.

They are sheep: fearful, bleating, unwilling to deal with the weighted cost of freedom. They would trade all their freedoms for the temporary illusion of safety.

I think we know how the Founder might have responded to that sentiment.

Posted by Confederate Yankee at April 20, 2007 12:49 PM
Comments

Thanks, Bob, for this great piece, and doing all that research. I think I would have liked Patrick Henry.

I would just like to add that gun grabbers are always claiming that this militia clause means that guns were to be locked up in an armory.

When you encounter this argument, ask the person what a Minute Man was. A Minute Man was a citizen who could transform himself into a soldier in a minute's time by taking his military capable musket from its rack in his home, and stepping out his front door to joing his similarly armed neighbors marching down the road.

Also, since the citizens of the new country did NOT give up their guns to the government to be locked up in armories, ask WHY the new citizens immediately started, and continued to VIOLATE the very Constitution they had just finished ratifying -- if locked up guns in government hands is what the 2nd means?

It is no accident that the First Amendment with its several rights rests upon the Second which contains just one right.

Posted by: Bill Smith at April 20, 2007 01:21 PM

Discussions about the second amendment seem unusual in that they always go back directly to the language of the original document, rather than to the case law and interpretations that have arisen since then.

In this spirit, then, if the ideas of the "well-regulated militia" and the right of gun ownership are so closely linked, could it not be argued that universal enrollment in the militia is implied, just as some suggest that universal gun ownership is implied?

Could we not look at the second amendment as saying that everyone needs to be on active reserve in the military? As Uncle Ben says in Spider-Man, "With great power comes great responsibility."

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 20, 2007 03:04 PM

Doc, we are. What do you think your Selective Service Card is?

Posted by: Confederate Yankee at April 20, 2007 03:07 PM

Beyond even a constitutional argument lies the nature of rights. Do we have "natural" or, as stated in the Declaration of Independence, "unalienable" Rights or do our rights flow from the government.
It is doubtful any one would support the latter proposition. Thus, it is fair to say we have "unalienable Rights", including rights to "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness"
If one has an "unalienable" right to Life, i would posit that you have also the right to protect that right, with force if necessary.
If i was to make an argument that private ownership of firearms was not constitutional, i would rely on the 2nd Amendment and that portion of the Constitution that permits Congress to
"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
My argument would be that Congress has the authority to arm the militia and thus the right to store such arms in a central armory or even decide on the kinds of arms, if any, the milita were to use.
This argument has problems, notably that the Constitution was amended to include the Second Amendment and that suggests that whatever Congress felt about their power to arm militias, the arms were to remain in the possession of the citizens.

Posted by: Rich at April 20, 2007 04:25 PM

could it not be argued that universal enrollment in the militia is implied

Not implied at all. Explicit. Take a look at 10 USC 311 and how federal law defines "militia".

Kinda shoots down the national guard rationalizations eh?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 20, 2007 06:45 PM

What people have to realize is that not a single person in Virginia was killed by a gun. They were killed by a madman.

Every, single safeguard for the students failed. The killer was known to be a dangerous psycho. Yet no one did anything about it. The background checks to purchase the guns proved to be a joke like everyone knows, the kids could not protect themselves, the cops were totally ineffective at all times, only threatening the innocent and exposing them to danger from friendly fire.

Now people want more regulation. For those of you who feel you do not need a gun, come down to Shreveport with me on a Saturday night and we will walk some of the local streets together. Of cocurse I will be armed.

Posted by: David Caskey at April 20, 2007 07:13 PM

My argument would be that Congress has the authority to arm the militia

"Shall" and "may" are quite different terms. Which one do you advocate?

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 20, 2007 09:13 PM

Confederate Yankee, I would concede that you're right on many accounts about the Second Amendment, and that during the 18th century, such a right did ensure the citizens' "capability to take [the US] back by force from a corrupt government, overthrowing it if necessary."

However, the United States Military, if at some point turned against its own citizens, would hardly find challenges while possessing infantry fighting vehicles, Apache helicopters, biological weapons, or nuclear weapons. The US military (currently operating on $419.3 Bil.) would overwhelm such a militia, easily. This was not the case back when the Second Amendment was being considered. How does this play within your argument and does this pose an interesting question to not only the topic stated but to the dangers of an overwhelming military budget more generally?

Posted by: Joel at April 21, 2007 03:34 AM

would hardly find challenges

Other than power outages, logistics shortages, etc. Irate truckers and infrastructure operators can cause a lot of problems.

Life is tough when those food deliveries get hijacked by the resistance, the trucks "breakdown", etc.

Rather amazing the British were ever defeated in the revolution. They had all the modern technology of the day, well trained troops, etc.

But wait - they couldn't have been defeated according to you.

Posted by: Purple Avenger at April 21, 2007 03:32 PM

Let's assume for the sake of discussion that guns are here to stay.

Why the hell are so many people being shot to death in the U.S.? How do we solve the problem? Firearms training? It seems like that would only teach a potential shooter how to kill more efficiently. In the same way, bartender training wouldn't teach someone to drink responsibly; it would only teach them to prepare better-tasting booze.

Assuming the widespread distribution of weapons, the problem seems insoluble. Insights from all sides would be appreciated. This whole thing is bumming me out.

Posted by: Doc Washboard at April 21, 2007 06:55 PM

So CS, you're saying we need guns for a future insurgency?

Just kidding. I know what you're saying. This argument is very intriguing.

Posted by: dmarek at April 21, 2007 08:03 PM

Doc, the first thing you need to do is look at WHO those "so many people being shot to death in the U.S." really are. The Brady Campaign is not the place to look at that. For example, they make a huge deal about how many "children" are supposedly shot to death in the US. Their definition of child ends at age 20, 2 years past the US government's.

Then when you start looking inside those numbers, you find that the majority are between 15 and 20 year old gang-bangers. These are not the ones who will bother getting a CHL, mostly because their records would prevent them from legally buying a gun in the first place.

What we are talking about is training and arming the law-abiding to resist the criminals who will have guns anyway. A fine example is the state of Florida, which implemented shall-issue permitting. 2 years later, exactly one of those new permit holders had been arrested for a crime involving a gun.

Posted by: SDN at April 22, 2007 07:54 PM