Is the Second Amendment for Just the Militia?

American Thinker.com ^ | April 5, 2018 | William Sullivan

[Kaslin]

Let's begin with the simplest of observations.  Our United States Constitution serves two distinct purposes. 

The first is to explicitly enumerate the powers and procedures of our nation's central government, which was defined as the three distinct bodies (which, by the way, two thirds of the high school students currently lecturing us about the Second Amendment cannot name) – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with levels of authority descending in that precise order.

The second is to explicitly enumerate the limitations of that central government's power, which is the sole reason why our Bill of Rights exists.  The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1791 without the addition of these first ten amendments.  Therefore, our Constitution would not exist without the limitations to our central government's authority described therein.

Some miss this simplest of understandings. 

Take Brett Arends, who, in 2016 after the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, committed to a different argument at Market Watch.  He argues that the Second Amendment does not describe a "limitation" of the federal government's authority, as is commonly understood of each of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights.  Rather:

The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It's not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into a saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government.

His argument as to the veracity of this statement is among the more laughable things you'll ever read. He cites Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, cherry-picking choice phrases from the essay, filling in the gaps with his own thoughts. For example, Arend writes:

[TexasTransplant]

It is just the Second most Important Clause in our Contract with government. (little g, always a little g)
The Clauses in the Contract “Are In Order”

[wita]

I don’t believe you will find such heresy within the Constitution of the United States of America. The right of the people shall not be infringed, and since convicted felons have shown themselves to be lawless, why would anyone consider them when addressing who can be armed.

The Second Amendment is clear, and Felons don’t need a second amendment, they will be armed regardless, which is precisely why we the people should never be disarmed for any reason, especially any reason based on broad specifics such as crazy, mental health, convicted felon, domestic abuse, can’t take care of oneself, aged, infirm, all such are distractions that really should not even be addressed, as they lead to movements to disarm the public as reasonable or even necessary.

Considering individual rights of “we the people”, once you have disarmed any group, or individual, you then become responsible for their personal protection, as you have taken away their ability to protect themselves. So now all crazy people and convicted felons become wards of the State. That isn’t exactly what you had in mind was it?

[wita]

The convicted felon argument is specious at best. No one needs to be disarmed by the State. Once that starts, you have lost the narrative, and it becomes almost easy to use words like reasonable, and common sense, to disarm the public or take away certain weapons. It starts with canons, and ends with Saturday night specials. The left is ingrained with the false reasoning, it becomes doubly difficult when those who think they are right, become part of the left’s propaganda ministry.

[21twelve]

And obviously what you are describing is becoming true. Need help taking care of yourself (can’t handle the social security paper work?) - can’t buy a gun. Crazy (many combat veterans have some type of PTSD)? Can’t buy a gun.

A bit off topic - but my daughter was watching some goofy “comedy” - the Santa Clarita Diet or something, where the wife turned into something and requires a diet of human flesh. She knows it is wrong, but needs to eat. So she only kills “bad” people. Right now she is working her way through some guys that proclaim to be NAZI’s (they have a softball team!). I asked my daughter “I suppose they won’t write in Communists as the next set of “bad guy” victims?”

And as the left has already proclaimed Conservatives as NAZI’s, I guess we are fair game too - whether it be having our guns taken away, or served up to zombies.

[trebb]

The 2nd acknowledges a pre-existing natural right and gives a specific reason why that right should not be infringed...I’d wager that a reading of all the Amendments might show that they acknowledge what the Founders considered God-given rights of a Free people and set limits on the government’s ability to take those rights away from that Free People.

[USCG SimTech]

Well, yes but ALL able bodied male citizens between 17 and 62 ARE automatically in the militia according to US Code regulation as a requirement of US citizenship. The US Code was later changed to include all females having served in the armed forces (organized militia).

[PapaBear3625]

and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up;

Why did they consider "standing armies" dangerous? Because the major role of the standing army was to enforce the will of the government upon the people.

In modern times, armed "law enforcement" are the standing army, by another name.

[drpix]

Thanks for a very informative article. Here's a line from it that nails the point I was trying to make:

"Without formal legal authorization, Americans began to form independent militia, outside the traditional chain of command of the royal governors."

Today's gun grabbers make the 2nd Amendment "militia" argument to limit gun ownership to persons the government enlists in government militia. This would exclude from 2nd Amendment rights the very type of armed citizens that, either as "independent militia" or individual patriots, fought and won the American revolution to became our founding fathers and give us the Bill of Rights.

It is laughable to argue that the American Revolution was fought for the gun rights of loyal members of the British colonial militia!

[FLT-bird]

The militia was every able bodied man in the state. It was very much intended to recognize an individual right. The right of self defense had long been considered sacrosanct in English Common Law.

[Egon]

Sorry Egon but it was Madison who authored Federalist 46.

I stand corrected.

[Georgia Girl 2]

Yes, every person in the US 17 and older is automatically a member of the militia. And expected to be able to show up with a gun.

[Sivad]

Thanks, Egon. Still, the point remains that people
get caught up in the terms and commas of the 2A and
what the Fed #29 means. Men settled disputes with
dueling pistols and we’re supposed to believe today
that firearm ownership was meant to be limited to
militias?

Seems to me that this modern effort to repeal the 2A
is an admittance that it means what we have always
claimed, a private citizen right. Thanks, again

PS: Federalist #46 should be required reading.

[Little Ray]

“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason

[wita]

The left has that NAZI thing all screwed up as well. They were the National Socialist Party, which pretty much made them fully left on the political scale.