Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment

“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.”

Whenever a gun grabber discusses Heller vs. DC, they’re quick to point out that the argument made focused on the second half of the amendment – “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”.

They somehow read the prefatory clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” as intending for only the National Guard to keep and bear arms.

Let’s unpack that argument a bit. First, it ignores conveniently the fact that the National Guard was not in existence when the Bill of Rights was ratified. The militia was understood to be the entirety of the adult male population, a understanding that was soon legally established via legislation.

Indeed, the second Militia Act of 1792 required each adult male to equip himself with a military grade weapon, ammunition and sundries.

Let’s also take a bit of a look at history, and the security of a free State. Recall that the Constitution gives the Congress the power to raise armies, and maintain a Navy. The Founding Fathers were deeply distrustful of a standing army. Why, you ask? Because their experience with a standing army was with that of the British Army and its regiments. And note I use the word regiment deliberately, as its etymology is linked to regis, or king. Literally regiments were in the service of the King. The British army in the colonies was not just a military force, it was the arm of oppression used by the crown to enforce its edicts upon our people. The Founding Fathers knew that any large standing army would have the potential to similarly become such an oppressor.

Our  current sad excuse for a President, and the odious Hillary Clinton have in recent days suggested that “common sense” gun regulation would be implementing Australia’s gun confiscation strategy.

I would remind them that the American Revolution literally started with an attempt at gun confiscation.

3 thoughts on “Gun Control and the 2nd Amendment”

  1. I’d like to take a moment to point out the founding fathers had another reason to fear standing armies: they were only about 140 years away from the English Civil War, at the end of which the New Model Army became the dictator* of England for a dozen years. For comparison today the equivalent would be 1875.

    Interesting side bar: at least one explanation for the title of the British (vice Royal) Army is that the Royal Navy and RAF are more vital to the island’s defense. An alternative explanation is that the Army was responsible for murdering King Charles, and even after the Restoration could never be considered Royal again.

    *Yes, Cromwell, but he used the Army oppressively, and it got worse after he died.

Comments are closed.