From the Comments: Militias and the Second Amendment

Longtime reader (and blogger) Hank Moore has been on a roll lately. In response to a condescending (and fact-free) comment made by a Leftist concerning gun rights, Hank responds with this:

That is very interesting that you would bring up the militia. Were you sincere and knowledgeable on this matter you might know that THIS, the militia, more properly to keep the militia from becoming a rabble and to circumvent the need for a standing army, was the main point of the Second Amendment. Not gun ownership.

The right to own whatever you could legally acquire without causing harm to someone by way of that acquisition was (and is) already an inalienable right, protected not only by the Constitution’s very structure (negative law) but by the Ninth and in a sense Fourth and Tenth Amendments as well.

The Second Amendment threw in that much-hyped line about the right to bear arms precisely so people like you wouldn’t interpret “well-regulated militia” as anything other than what it was (FYI, it had absolutely nothing to do with “conquering the frontier”). That is, a group of local men banding together when the need arose to protect what’s theirs (including their guns). But that is exactly what you have done. Misinterpreted it. But not because the language of that particular Amendment is so unclear (although I do wonder if their is a language barrier between collectivists and people who like to mind their own business, and no I don’t refer here to that obnoxious limey Piers Morgan’s pretentious accent), but because as a whole, the document the Constitution has fallen into disuse. In the era of positive law and positive rights, why even have one?

The answer is so that you (the politician or the lobby or the activist) can appeal to people who know deep down that arbitrary power is morally reprehensible, and thus bitterly cling to some semblance of a social contract; but who still have stupid ignorant ideas (by this I mean gun-control) that they want to shove down everyone else’s throat. Oh, and our founders wouldn’t know what you meant by military style weapons. Do you mean the military-style weapons that they used to defeat the British and would have been mercilessly slaughtered without? Or do you mean today’s military-style weapons that only certain classes of benign uniformed government-employees are permitted to own under your reading of the Second Amendment?

Anybody out there care to answer Hank’s questions? Well done! Here is Hank’s blog one more time. Do check it out.

2 thoughts on “From the Comments: Militias and the Second Amendment

  1. I agree completely with Mr. Moore’s retort and would like to add the following.

    It is my view that the crux of the entire Second Amendment debate can be found in the Declaration of Independence [I think it a great mistake to not consider both in looking for answers to constitutional questions]:

    “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government [ED any government, not just that of King George], and to provide new Guards for their future security.–”

    How does a population exercise “their right, their duty to throw off such Government, and provide themselves with new Guards for their future security” when all they are allow to possess are single shot pistols and sling shots? How would those nations which recently took power from dictators have done so without effective and efficient weaponry to match the sincerity of their desire for self-determination? Isn’t it weaponry that is keeping the newly elected President of Egypt from instituting dictatorial measures?

    Then, of course there is the right to defend one’s family and private property from armed thugs. How is that done when the police are unavailable and those under threat are forced to meet the threat unarmed or armed only with a kitchen knife?

    If one looks at the Constitution as being built upon the principles defined in the Declaration of Independence, it is unquestionable that the founders intended no restriction of weapons both in number and type when the 2nd Amendment was included. In fact, I believe that the 2nd Amendment was included specifically to prevent government from disarming or limiting the possession of any type of arms to assure that the threat of tyranny was kept in check or at bay..

Please keep it civil

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s