| In the eighteenth century... the top-of-the-line civilian weapon, the Kentucky long rifle handmade by Pennsylvania craftsmen, differed considerably from a mass-produced British military musket
|
Posted on 12/09/2002 6:07:58 PM PST by FreedomCalls
You may not have been aware of this, kids, but words have magical powers. We're not talking about ordinary, run-of-the-mill words here like "please" and "thank you" and "[DELETED]," but extra-special words like "gun" and "semiautomatic" and "Second Amendment." Mention these words, and, like a bad Stephen King movie starring a St. Bernard, ordinarily civilized people start foaming at the mouth.
Take, for example, the recent decision by the Ninth Circuit Court of California to uphold that state's ban on "assault rifles," which (to simplify the matter beyond all recognition) are defined as semiautomatic weapons that hold more than 10 bullets per magazine. This means that if you pull the trigger on one of these guns and fire off one bullet, the gun will, for your killing convenience, put another bullet in the chamber for you, ready to fire—and then repeat the procedure until you run out of bullets! Modern technology truly is wonderful isn't it?
Apparently, not everyone thinks so. Much like those filthy hippies who think we should do filthy hippie things like recycling instead of just cutting down more trees, the California Ninth doesn't think we should be allowed to use modern conveniences like assault rifles. Once the judge handed down his decision, patriotic defenders of our right to own high-powered machines of destruction like assault rifles and SUVs and McDonald's coffee and Barbara Streisand albums began comparing him to the Nazis—and rightfully so, since the Nazis were noted for their enthusiasm in taking guns away from people and giving them to other people who used them to shoot Jews. We look forward to Jerry Bruckheimer's execution any day now.
"But without my assault weapons, how will I hunt those flak-jacket wearing deer?" asked a good American armed with the latest deer-destruction hardware and a 6-pack of Coors. "The Second Amendment gives the people the right to own weapons to protect themselves against the government!" e-mailed another patriot from the security of his Nevada bunker. "My loaded handgun that I kept hidden in the cookie jar killed my baby!" replied a distraught mother, whose dirty filthy long-haired hippie dead baby probably shot itself just to get her to change her mind about gun control. "Guns don't kill people, corporations do!" shouted another filthy hippie from a passing Volvo. "Get your hands off my MAC-10, you damn dirty apes!" mumbled Charlton Heston, wandering, disoriented, along Ventura Boulevard. You get the idea.
Obviously, we can't all be right about what the Second Amendment means. Let's try to solve the problem by going back to grade school and diagramming the sentence, "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." What the heck do all these big words mean?
The first part of the sentence is, "A well-regulated militia." Simple enough. This tells us that what we're discussing is a militia, or a part-time civilian military organization like the Marine Corps Reserve or the Knights of Columbus. Note the compound adjective "well-regulated." This implies that the militia is subject to the rule of law, that is, military discipline—some sort of structure of officers and enlisted men with penalties for disobeying orders, something that Billy Joe and his buddies shooting their AR-15s at woodchucks most certainly do not have, unless you count the influence of Captain Morgan.
The second part of the sentence is "being necessary to the security of a free state." This is what we grammar Nazis call a "subordinate clause." This particular subordinate clause sets up a conditional sort of situation, saying that what comes next depends on something having happened before: "Bobby, because he picked up his toys, was entitled to dessert." "Barbara, because she was a very naughty girl, received a thorough spanking." Even John Ashcroft can explain what the word "security" means, so the other important word for us to direct our attention to in our little subordinate clause is the word "state." A "state" is a territory and its occupants organized under a recognized government—that is, not Charlton Heston, not your Counterstrike clan, and not a bunch of guys in camouflage hiding out in a bunker with enough cases of Bud Light to last the Apocalypse. So, what we're clearly talking about is a militia set up to keep the state, that is, the government, safe.
The third part, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms," gets kind of complicated once you understand the history behind the thing. "Right," "people," and even "keep" and "bear" aren't that difficult words, and "arms" means "weapons," like "swords" and "knives" and "whack-a-mole mallets" and, of course, "guns." Of course, it's the "guns" part that makes this difficult.
At the risk of stating the obvious, we no longer live in a society where the ordinary individual has a reason to carry around the latest military hardware. In the eighteenth century, the most sophisticated piece of personal armament was the Ferguson breech-loading flintlock, of which only about 200 were ever made. Most people had muzzle-loading smoothbore muskets. Though the top-of-the-line civilian weapon, the Kentucky long rifle handmade by Pennsylvania craftsmen, differed considerably from a mass-produced British military musket, the difference wasn't so great that one had a decided advantage over the other. It certainly wasn't as great as, say, the difference between a deer-hunting rifle and a shoulder-fired antitank rocket.
Plainly, things have changed considerably between the eighteenth century and the twenty-first. In those days, rather than a standing army, we had amateur militias (like the minutemen) that provided their own weapons—and, despite the fact the citizen-soldier was a much-vaunted ideal of the Roman Republic that was revived in the Renaissance by Machiavelli, the American militias got their asses kicked in set-piece battles until Von Steuben taught them disciplined drill. (Machiavelli's Florentine militia got its [butt] kicked by Spanish professionals, too.) Today, rather than having citizen-militias as we did in the early years of the Republic, we have a very modern and very professional military that makes the idea of amateur armed resistance ludicrous. Heck, if we relied on citizen militias today, Canada could take us over.
However, what the Second Amendment, a relic of the early Republic, undeniably says is that, because national security depends on a well-organized militia, people have the right to own weapons.
Funny how one little clause on a 200-year-old piece of paper can cause so much trouble. The thing is, the Constitution is just that: A 200-year-old piece of paper with words on it—words written by people, like the Bible or the script to the pilot episode of Family Ties. It's no more holy or infallible than the latest issue of Cosmopolitan or the Nicean Creed. The Founding Fathers weren't divinely inspired geniuses; they smelled bad in Philadelphia summers and [DELETED] just like everyone else did. Putting libertarian black-helicopter-conspiracy theories in their aristocratic, plantation-owning [DELETED] mouths, or assuming that they wanted the American people to have the capability of overthrowing the government that they had spent a long, hot summer putting together, borders on the ludicrous (especially considering how they quickly put down the first challenge to the Federal government, Shays' Rebellion in Massachusetts.) Therefore, defending gun ownership while wearing an NRA pin and a bracelet saying "WWJD" ("What Would Jefferson Do?") is worse than illogical; it's ignorant.
Since the Second Amendment is just words, all the constitutional scholars in the world sitting around trying to apply its antiquated terminology to our modern world is like a bunch of well-armed rabbis trying to interpret the precedent of God's smiting Onan for spilling his seed to modern techniques of in-vitro fertilization, or the Catholic Church disallowing birth control based on something Thomas Aquinas wrote. The Constitution ain't perfect, and it's had amendments repealed before—just look at Prohibition.
So what are we going to do?
It seems that we have two choices. We can either literally do what the Second Amendment says and establish Swiss-style well-regulated militias and allow the people who join them to have all the damn machine guns they want—and face military discipline if their weapons are misused—or amend the Constitution to either do away with the Second Amendment or make it more relevant to our modern world.
Obviously, we can't do away with guns in America. The first and most obvious reason is that since we poisoned all the wolves, there remain an awful lot of deer in the woodlands and on the highways of America that desperately need to die. Also, besides the fact that this ain't Merrie Olde England and people in rural areas actually have to defend themselves against things like bears and mountain lions and wild pigs and Marlon Brando, I also believe people have a right to defend themselves and their property from human predators, as well. (Unfortunately, they don't seem to have the right not to be sued afterwards.) Furthermore, many people, who are undoubtedly somewhat insane but who are entitled to their opinions, find shooting guns to be fun. (We, personally, hate loud noises and prefer the whisper of steel on a fencing strip.) In any case, there is no reason people shouldn't be able to own lever-action, small-magazine rifles, shotguns, and even (well-regulated, registered, and controlled) handguns.
But should the right to own them be in there with our right to free speech and the right of women to vote? Nuh-uh.
What we need is a sane and non-dogmatic way of looking at guns in America—and we need to recognize that owning a firearm may be, like driving a car, a privilege and a responsibility, but it is not, and should not be, a right.
Late addendum: Leaving aside, for the moment, the fact that Waco shows you what happens if you try to "resist" the government, guns aren't the problem so far as the crime rate goes. Thats more a social and economic, and even a geographical, issue. And calling us liberal pinko tree huggers ain't gonna help with anything.
Would this include words like "WE, THE PEOPLE...," or "the people" referred to in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments?
-PJ
I would also point out that the adoption of a Bill of Rights was a condition of ratification of our Constitution. The repeal of one of these first ten ammendments would make the entire Constitution null and void and all laws enacted under said Constitution. If there is no law then we have rule by the strongest. Such a situation is the worst possible situation for anyone who can not claim to be among the strongest of the strong. Those who do not respect the Second Ammendment do not know what kind of world they are asking for. Without an armed citizenry the blood will flow in the streets like a great river such is the way the history of the world works.
Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown
Huh? Assuming that they wanted the American people to have the capability of overthrowing a government like that they had themselves overthrown just 11 short years earlier. The most powerful empire on earth. The one country with the biggest Navy, the biggest Army, and the most money. Yes, they very much would have put such a provision in their Constitution.
The arguments during the debates discussed the potentials regarding standing armies and an armed populace. Even a fraction of the estimated 80 million gun owners in the U.S. fields an army that is greater than the military. Even with the serious leverage with military technology, these still aren't good odds.
I can cite a few examples from history that give the benefits of an armed population--Yugoslavia is one. Sure, the Nazis took over fairly quickly, but then committed a serious number of resources ( I think at one point it was 30 or 31 divisions of troops ) to maintain order of a sort. In the U.S., such a scenario becomes even worse when the people speak the same language--you can't pick out the partisans from the bootlickers. In this case, you have a war of attrition, which doesn't look good for the fewer numbers, especially if, as mentioned in the previous paragraph, military assets were used that destroyed the infrastructure.
The intent behind the 2nd, from reading the history, is that the citizens should be armed as well as the typical infantry soldier ( during the Revolutionary War, there were private cannon and armed sloops ).
The author of the article is partly right when talking about the Swiss system. The militia was supposed to undergo regular training. Justice Story was concerned, because the practice of training the militias ( well regulated, for those who think it means subjected to registration and confiscation ) was falling off, that people would forget the reason for the right, and would eventually be in danger of losing it.
As far as the author is concerned, I say 'Molon Labe'.
Places where the Second Amendment has been effectively suspended:
- New York City
- Washington DC
- Los Angeles CA
Places that lead the nation in homicides:
- New York City
- Washington DC
- Los Angeles CA
Coincidence, I'm sure.
Careful...I have heard a couple liberals using this ruse now...When you make such a statement, the immediately retort with, then why the need for so much power..It's all a word game and feelings with them anyway...
Actually although I disagree with the author passionately, at least he aproaches the issue honestly and admits that the solution for the gun grabbers is to change the constitution. Most liberals are nowhere near as honest and simply reinterpret what is pretty plain English to suit their agenda.
This guy is so ludicrous it's impossible to know where to start. Talk about taking things out of context and manufacturing stories!
It wasn't the US army that intimidated Hitler in his idea to invade the USA from Mexico, it was the fact that the populace was armed!
Take that, Mr. Mondschein!
| In the eighteenth century... the top-of-the-line civilian weapon, the Kentucky long rifle handmade by Pennsylvania craftsmen, differed considerably from a mass-produced British military musket
|
Wrong on both counts. A militia is a body of citizens who organize themselves into a defense force.
In the era this was written, well-regulated was not about rules that had to be followed -- There were "regulars" that were full-time soldiers. What set them apart was their EQUIPPING with standardized, uniform (regular) weaponry.
This passage very clearly says: Since citizen soldiers need standardized equipping, the right of arms shall not be infringed.
Whoever wrote the article is an imbecile.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
It is doubtful that there was such a thing as a "mass-produced British military musket" in the eighteenth century. In 1798, the U.S. government awarded a contract to one Eli Whitney to produce 10,000 muskets. It took ten years to fulfill that contract. That is the first known instance of "mass production" of anything. Whitney's claim that he could make these muskets of out standardized, interchangeable parts was considered highly dubious at the time.