FourNineFoxtrot
Member
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2007
- Messages
- 361
Like I said, there are militias, and there are militias.
The second amendment would seem to indicate that since there is a militia, and this militia consists of all able-bodied people, this being the primary defense (and now perhaps an auxiliary defense) of the nation, citizens have the enumerated right to own firearms.
Frankly, I could wish that the second amendment said "Defense of one's person being an inalienable and natural right of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Unfortunately, I didn't write it.
One thing to keep in mind is that the militia was not really intended to serve an active "watchdog" role in "preserving freedom". It would be more accurate to say that the enabling of a potential militia in the very constitution was supposed to provide for exigencies of national defense, so as to obviate the necessity for a standing army.
The idea being that if we relied on a militia, called up at need, rather than a standing army, then we could sidestep the inherent dangers of such an army. The founders were far more concerned with having a standing army than with what kind of weapon a man could own. Standing armies were (and are) very dangerous. Armies being what they are, a standing army is inherently susceptible to "Caesar Syndrome". Give them a popular leader and an unpopular government, they have historically been rather prone to enthroning their favorite general. It could well have happened with Washington, had he been a different sort of man. It could have happened with Patton, if we had a different sort of country. It kind of did happen in France with De Gaulle in '58, although the result was simply a differently constructed representative government.
Now that we have a standing army, the militia (unorganized) is relegated to the role of auxiliary defense.
As I said, I personally wouldn't mind seeing militias, especially local ones. That, however, doesn't make it any more likely. As far as the government is concerned, "The Militia" is something to be called up in support of the army in times of need, or more realistically, drafted. Any other kind of militia sounds suspiciously like "Revolutionary" to them. I don't dispute that there is a difference between "preserving freedom" and "revolution", I just doubt that our government is likely to see it that way. Freedom as we tend to mean it generally means freedom from the government. Since this kind of freedom comes at the expense of government power, government can hardly be expected to support it.
The second amendment would seem to indicate that since there is a militia, and this militia consists of all able-bodied people, this being the primary defense (and now perhaps an auxiliary defense) of the nation, citizens have the enumerated right to own firearms.
Frankly, I could wish that the second amendment said "Defense of one's person being an inalienable and natural right of a free people, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Unfortunately, I didn't write it.
One thing to keep in mind is that the militia was not really intended to serve an active "watchdog" role in "preserving freedom". It would be more accurate to say that the enabling of a potential militia in the very constitution was supposed to provide for exigencies of national defense, so as to obviate the necessity for a standing army.
The idea being that if we relied on a militia, called up at need, rather than a standing army, then we could sidestep the inherent dangers of such an army. The founders were far more concerned with having a standing army than with what kind of weapon a man could own. Standing armies were (and are) very dangerous. Armies being what they are, a standing army is inherently susceptible to "Caesar Syndrome". Give them a popular leader and an unpopular government, they have historically been rather prone to enthroning their favorite general. It could well have happened with Washington, had he been a different sort of man. It could have happened with Patton, if we had a different sort of country. It kind of did happen in France with De Gaulle in '58, although the result was simply a differently constructed representative government.
Now that we have a standing army, the militia (unorganized) is relegated to the role of auxiliary defense.
As I said, I personally wouldn't mind seeing militias, especially local ones. That, however, doesn't make it any more likely. As far as the government is concerned, "The Militia" is something to be called up in support of the army in times of need, or more realistically, drafted. Any other kind of militia sounds suspiciously like "Revolutionary" to them. I don't dispute that there is a difference between "preserving freedom" and "revolution", I just doubt that our government is likely to see it that way. Freedom as we tend to mean it generally means freedom from the government. Since this kind of freedom comes at the expense of government power, government can hardly be expected to support it.