The 2nd Amendment "Because" Clause
I have been waiting for the opportune time to write about my theory of the 2nd amendment, and since Vice President Cheney has accidentally shot his friend while hunting quail (not Dan Quayle), we know that the gun control Brady freaks will be out in full force extolling the dangers of scatter guns. I suppose now is as good a time as ever to float this.
Keep in mind that this is a theory based on my own observations and what knowledge I have of the subject. While it is no secret as to the intent of the Founders in regards to the right of the people to bear arms, as is evident in Federalist 28, written by Alexander Hamilton, some supporters of gun control will use the "Well Regulated Militia" rationalization. This rationalization for denying citizens their guns dictates that the Founders never intended for anyone but the militia to have the undeniable right to bear arms.
And here comes the place where my theory develops. A well-regulated militia is exactly why the Founders wrote the 2nd amendment. But not to preserve the militia, but rather the amendment was written to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from the regular army.
One has to consider the standpoint of the Founders when writing this. First of all, the law of the King was enforced by his military, oftentimes at the point of the bayonet. The Founders understood that taking the arms of the citizenry gives an unfair advantage to the government who controls the regular army. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to preserve certain rights considered inalienable that the government, given the right conditions, could alienate and bring the citizenry under the subjection of tyranny.
Consider the proximaty to the two adjacent amendments. The 1st amendment guarantees the right to speak out against the government, either verbally or in press, to practice religion freely with no establishment of a national religion, and to assemble peacefully for whatever the purpose. The 3rd amendment guarantees the right of the citizenry to turn aside troops asking for quarter in peace time, and even in time of war unless prescribed by law. If one considers the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, one can see a pattern that may have been experienced during pre-Revolution America by political dissidents against the crown of England.
A dissident would speak out against the King, or facilitate an unlawful assembly, whether religious or not. The local government would send the military to enforce the law of the Crown, ensuring the punishment of dissidents. Troops would storm homes through force, taking the possessions, livestock, and rations of the owners of the home. Home owners would be forced to allow for the quartering of the troops. Troops could seize documents and property without warrant. Trials were conducted with prejudice against the charged. Judges appointed by the King and accountable only to him would preside over the trial, and punishment sometimes was cruel and intolerable, not be-fitting of the crime, but meant to be examples to other dissidents. In a nutshell, you have the logic behind the first eight amendments.
And what would give these rights the teeth needed to fend off tyranical government? The 2nd amendment, if read within this context, would guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that the well-regulated militia, who is under the authority of the President, would not so easily run roughshod over the rank and file citizenry.
If one word were added to this 2nd amendment, the meaning would be clearer. Though I am not suggesting that the Founders should have written it differently, this one word may cut the legs from under the Brady freaks:
(Because) a well-regulated militia (is) necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Founders were not foolish and realized that given the opportunity, other nations would try to take advantage of the borders of the United States. Therefore, they realized the necessity of the a regular army and navy, and stated so within the original articles of the Constitution. It was not necessary to re-affirm the necessity of the regular army and navy in the Bill of Rights, but rather it was necessary to affirm the right of the people to protect themselves from danger, including the regular army.
We have fallen far away from the Tree of Liberty planted by our Founders. Madison, Hamilton, and others would no doubt shed bitter tears to know that some of their posterity would willingly concede the rights that they fought for, nor have the will to take arms to defend them as they did.
Keep in mind that this is a theory based on my own observations and what knowledge I have of the subject. While it is no secret as to the intent of the Founders in regards to the right of the people to bear arms, as is evident in Federalist 28, written by Alexander Hamilton, some supporters of gun control will use the "Well Regulated Militia" rationalization. This rationalization for denying citizens their guns dictates that the Founders never intended for anyone but the militia to have the undeniable right to bear arms.
And here comes the place where my theory develops. A well-regulated militia is exactly why the Founders wrote the 2nd amendment. But not to preserve the militia, but rather the amendment was written to preserve the right of the people to keep and bear arms to protect themselves from the regular army.
One has to consider the standpoint of the Founders when writing this. First of all, the law of the King was enforced by his military, oftentimes at the point of the bayonet. The Founders understood that taking the arms of the citizenry gives an unfair advantage to the government who controls the regular army. The whole purpose of the Bill of Rights was to preserve certain rights considered inalienable that the government, given the right conditions, could alienate and bring the citizenry under the subjection of tyranny.
Consider the proximaty to the two adjacent amendments. The 1st amendment guarantees the right to speak out against the government, either verbally or in press, to practice religion freely with no establishment of a national religion, and to assemble peacefully for whatever the purpose. The 3rd amendment guarantees the right of the citizenry to turn aside troops asking for quarter in peace time, and even in time of war unless prescribed by law. If one considers the order of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, one can see a pattern that may have been experienced during pre-Revolution America by political dissidents against the crown of England.
A dissident would speak out against the King, or facilitate an unlawful assembly, whether religious or not. The local government would send the military to enforce the law of the Crown, ensuring the punishment of dissidents. Troops would storm homes through force, taking the possessions, livestock, and rations of the owners of the home. Home owners would be forced to allow for the quartering of the troops. Troops could seize documents and property without warrant. Trials were conducted with prejudice against the charged. Judges appointed by the King and accountable only to him would preside over the trial, and punishment sometimes was cruel and intolerable, not be-fitting of the crime, but meant to be examples to other dissidents. In a nutshell, you have the logic behind the first eight amendments.
And what would give these rights the teeth needed to fend off tyranical government? The 2nd amendment, if read within this context, would guarantee the right of the people to keep and bear arms so that the well-regulated militia, who is under the authority of the President, would not so easily run roughshod over the rank and file citizenry.
If one word were added to this 2nd amendment, the meaning would be clearer. Though I am not suggesting that the Founders should have written it differently, this one word may cut the legs from under the Brady freaks:
(Because) a well-regulated militia (is) necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The Founders were not foolish and realized that given the opportunity, other nations would try to take advantage of the borders of the United States. Therefore, they realized the necessity of the a regular army and navy, and stated so within the original articles of the Constitution. It was not necessary to re-affirm the necessity of the regular army and navy in the Bill of Rights, but rather it was necessary to affirm the right of the people to protect themselves from danger, including the regular army.
We have fallen far away from the Tree of Liberty planted by our Founders. Madison, Hamilton, and others would no doubt shed bitter tears to know that some of their posterity would willingly concede the rights that they fought for, nor have the will to take arms to defend them as they did.
posted by Badbeans | 9:22 PM
1 Comments:
Found your sight at "Dawg on the Lawn." Hope you don't mind a new visitor but I've read and have been quite taken by the ease with which you present your ideas.
Plus, you're in my stompin' grounds. You graduated from Cherokee in '91. I graduated from South Cobb in '89 (Austell).
You have changed my mind about something. As I very recently stated on my site. I do not believe the word "militia" in the 2nd amendment means "national guard". I did however think it meant a group of men who stood ready to go to battle to protect themselves and community against the federal government should it become corrupt and tyrranical.
The missing word explination does sort of make it more understandable. I hadn't quite thought of it in that light. It certainly makes more sense that way.
Either way, we both believe that the 2nd amendment's intent was for the citizen to have protection against Madison's, Hamilton's and the others' greatest nightmare...a president commander in chief who decides to use the military to enforce his tyrannical ambitions.
I shall visit again.
Post a Comment
<< Home