The Second Amendment: An Irrelevant Relic

The Second Amendment was written after a war in which a new nation without a standing army defeated the biggest standing army on the planet. To defend itself, the new country relied on citizens arming themselves in civilian militias.

Ever since Britain had permanently garrisoned troops in Massachusetts to put down the brewing rebellion in 1768, opposition to standing armies ran deep among Americans. The Revolution was nearly lost because the Continental Congress for years refused Washington's pleading for a standing army. Sam Adams, before he and his class of merchants had won, believed a permanent force was "forever dangerous to civil liberties."

"Soldiers are apt to consider themselves as a body distinct from the rest of the citizens," Adams said. "They have arms always in hand..." But, "the Militia is composed of free citizens. There is, therefore, no danger of their making use of their Power to the destruction of their own rights..." Adams amended his position as the war dragged on, realizing the necessity of a trained, disciplined force in extreme circumstances. But once the war was over, he returned to his earlier position, saying a standing army was no longer needed.

Because of this distrust of standing armies the new republic wrote into its Constitution the Second Amendment, ensuring that citizens, and not a permanent state military, would bear arms to protect the land.

The United States today has the largest standing armed forces ever assembled. The militias are now called the standing National Guard.

The rationale for the Second Amendment is completely lost in history. It has as much relevance and moral force today as Section 2 of Article 1 that permitted slavery.

The Second Amendment means nothing unless we disband the National Guard and America's armed forces.

It is a dangerous absurdity to think it can justify the sale and possession of handguns. The Framers would surely be amazed by Thursday's Supreme Court decision and would wonder what had become of their republic.

The Second Amendment must be repealed.

Joe Lauria's new book is "A Political Odyssey, The Rise of American Militarism and One Man's Fight to Stop It," written with former U.S. Senator Mike Gravel.

Comments

[woodpiggie]

I'm just back from a five week tour of Israel. I stayed in five major cities and visited numerous villages and sites of historical and Biblical importance.
Armed uniformed and non uniformed Israelis were ubiquitious. I saw teachers, men and women in both Orthodox and secular garb, and group leaders on school field trips with an M16 or .30 carbine slung over their sholders, and/or with holstered semi autos. I saw people openly carying in restraunts and other public places with zero reaction from the public. I can only assume that many other Israelis were carying conceiled. It became very obvious to me that ordinary citizens' "keeping and bearing" in Israel is common, and not feared or controversial. What I didn't experience in Israeli cities was fear of walking the streets, day or night. And on the evening newscasts I saw no reports of violent street crime in anyplace that I stayed. Are Jews just genetically less susceptible to crime- causing guns than other people, or ... do guns not cause crime? Do DC murder statistics and African genicidal episodes suggest a racial propensity for violent behavior, or does an unarmed (disarmed) populace invite trouble? Anyone want to disarm America and find out? YOUBETCHA! !

[djkrlsn]

I would say that guns don't cause crimes

[Bostonterrier97]

Mr Lauria,
Here are some facts for Mr. Lauria.
(a.) The first shots of the Revolutionary War were FIRED BECAUSE the British marched into Lexington, MA on 19 April, 1775 to conduct GUN CONFISCATION.
(b.) The term Militia was further defined by the Militia Act of 1792. It should be noted that under the current Militia Act, that there are 2 classes of Militia: Organized and Unorganized. People who are NOT members of the National Guard (technically NOT a militia because they are subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice and are actually on LOAN to the State Governments)..anyway..I digress..people who are neither members of the National Guard nor a Naval Militia are members of the UNORGANIZED militia.

During a Time of War: Organized Militias were to be placed under control of the Federal Government, Unorganized Militias were to be called up and placed under the command of the State Governments.

It was a an Organized Militia that fought the Brits at Lexington and Concord.
Members of Unorganized Militias (armed farmers) sniped at the British as they retreated back towards Boston.
It was the Dick Act of 1903 that created the National Guard.

Because we are all members of the Unorganized Militia: Civilian ownership of Semi-Automatic and Fully Automatic weapons are necessary as they are the only real weapons that are deemed suitable for military purposes.

Its a model that works well in Switzerland. It should work well here in America too.

[1will]

When a majority of Americans agree with you then you guys can repeal the 2nd Amendment.

Many of our Founding Fathers went home to work on their State Constitutions after finishing The Constitution. When reading these State Constitutions it is easy to see that personal defense was on the minds of the Framers in regard to gun ownership. It was as relevent to them in their time as it is to us today. If our Founding Fathers did not believe in private gun ownership for defense there would be no 2nd Amendment and no state guarantees of gun ownership.
Below is a link to the State Constitutions guarantees to arms. It's a bit lengthy and the quotes from the different state constitutions are halfway down the page. I'll leave it to you to find the original states and make up your minds about the intent of our Founding Fathers.

http://www.guncite.com/journals/dowcons.html

BTW, the homepage is a great resource. http://www.guncite.com

[CCW4ME2]

To better understand the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution it is helpful to consider how almost every reasonable person would interpret this amendment if it did not involve something which is considered controversial or politically incorrect by some and idolized by others. Arms in the possession of ordinary citizens meet both criteria. Let's, for the sake of argument, suppose that the Second Amendment dealt with books, not arms or weapons, and read like this: "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the maintenance of a free State, the right of the people to own and read books, shall not be infringed." Does anyone really believe that liberals would claim that only people who were eligible to vote should be allowed to buy and read books? Or that a person should have to have voted in the last election before the government would permit him or her to buy a book? Would the importation of books be banned if they did not meet an "educational purpose" test? Would some States limit citizens to buying "one book a month"? Would inflammatory "assault books" be banned in California?

[WorkingClass]

You have a very impressive bio Joe. Maybe you will get a chance to do a story on the need of the working poor in urban America to defend themselves from the armed criminals in their midst. Never mind the constitution or the NRA. I suppose you would advocate disarming said criminals. Maybe that would be a good starting point. Take a close and careful look at what is currently being done. Talk to lots of cops about their efforts to confiscate illegal guns. You might rent an apartment in a neighborhood where everyone has a gun but you. Well you get the idea. Keep up the good work Joe.

[Leifrakur]

Our constitution's OLD second amendment was an "irrelevant relic," and the NEW one is an invitation to Boot Hill.

[libertron]

Read the Second 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."

The first part is a pretext, and the last part is the statement.

Let's say the X Amendment said this: "Apples being necessary to make apple pie, the right of the people to plant apple trees shall not be infringed."

Nothing about that says that you must make pie in order to plant the tree. You may have many other uses for apples like eating them raw or feeding them to your horses, but a sparsley worded document like the Constitution doesn't need to give every detail.

[Chillinout]

If you read Jefferson's Federalist Papers, I think you will understand that the 2nd Amendment was also to allow the citizens of the country to rise up and overthrow our government when it got too corrupt.

The 2nd Amendment keeps that option open.

[Leifrakur]

Jefferson did not author any of the Federalist Papers. He didn't consider himself a federalist. He referred to the Second Amendment as "the substitution of militia for a standing army."

[Sundialsvc4]

Lifrakur's comment is correct, and important.

What the Founders feared most was a standing army ... an "army of occupation" in which the government militarily-occupied its own homeland. Their notion was to instead create a hornet's nest of well-armed hornets that no one would invade. Airplanes and cruise-missiles had not been invented.

Their fear of "an army of occupation" was correct. The thugs who have usurped our Government are building more than 60 military bases in order to "occupy" what they already consider to be their Conquests. History, in that regard, has affirmed itself once again.

The weakness in their system turns out to be their over-reliance upon "checks and balances," and to fail to consider that a politician really could have a lifetime of power.

"Ike" Eisenhower saw it coming. As a five(!)-star General -and- President, he was in a position to know. We didn't listen. "The strategists strategized," "the plunderers took," and we do not yet know whether the outcome will merely be the ruin of two or three generations in a hell of poverty and "sharply-reduced lifespan" (I say it delicately...), or the doom of the Republic itself.

There's this wild-card called "the Internet." Today we're playing with it... "yoo-tube" and "face-book" and sites like this which are "the same old spew but with comments." Nevertheless, it IS a wild-card...

[visigoth]

Suppose we take the writers point as correct, does he want private citizens that are members of the National Guard taking their mortars home with them, maybe their LAW (what civilians call bazookas) tubes and SAWs(a type of machine gun). Since .50 cal sniper rifles are arms, bring them to the barbeque too. The National Guard has sidearms, guess they are coming home too. Yes this seems absurd, but take your argument to its logical conclusion. The writer either didn't know or chooses to overlook that the militia was "called up" and they brought their "arms" with them. The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the people have a right to have an armoury keep the arms they bear, it says the they have the right to keep and bear arms. Keeping is not hard to define and Bearing is not hard to define.

Also, the writer willfully chooses to overlook the national history regarding gun ownership. When the framers wrote and subsequently ratified the 2nd Amendment, there was private gun ownership , including the rarewoefully inaccurate handgun. America's history is an unbroken continuum of private gun ownership.

These Chicken Little arguments from anti-gun and pro-gun advocates create a lot of heat and no light. Private unfettered gun ownership is not a panacea or key to a civilized society. Banning guns by type or caliber will not result in a civilized society. Using brains and not polemical rhetoric may make our society more peaceful and definably more civilized.

[Leifrakur]

"The 2nd Amendment doesn't say the people have a right to have an armoury keep the arms they bear, it says the they have the right to keep and bear arms. Keeping is not hard to define and Bearing is not hard to define."

Yes, my dictionary (Webster's New International Dictionary of the English Language, Unabridged, 1945) has only one definition for "bear arms": "bear arms. To serve as a soldier."

[Bobrobert]

If you plant a bean you get a bean plant.

If the Commander and Chief of the National Guard is the President of the United States then the National Guard is not a militia.

Remember to vote all.

:-)

PS ***4110 killed in Iraq war, 30,333 wounded in Iraq war***

[visigoth]

10. The Montgomery Amendment to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1987

provides that a governor cannot withhold consent with regard to active duty outside the United States because of any objection to the location, purpose, type, or schedule of such duty. This law was challenged and upheld by the Supreme Court of the United States in 1990 in Perpich v. Department of Defense.[6])

11. John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 H.R. 5122

Federal law was changed so that the Governor of a state is no longer the sole commander in chief of the National Guard during emergencies within the state. The President of the United States will now be able to take control of a state's National Guard units without the governor's consent.[7] In a letter to Congress all 50 governors opposed the increase in power of the president over the National Guard. (repealed in 2008)[8]

If you note the National Guard Mobilization Act of 1933, the National Guard was made a component of the Regular or Federal Army, at that point, by any interpretation, it ceased to be a militia, State or otherwise. Add this to the Total Force Policy of 1973 and the John Warner Defense Authorization Act of 2007 and it is abundantly clear that the National Guard is a FEDERAL force and as such NOT a militia, or at least not a militia as thought of by the framers.

[Michale32086]

I applaud your research and concede the point...

Michale.....

[visigoth]

6. The National Defense Act Amendments of 1920

This act established that the chief of the Militia Bureau (later the National Guard Bureau) would be a National Guard officer, that National Guard officers would be assigned to the general staff and that the divisions, as used by the Guard in World War I, would be reorganized.

7. The National Guard Mobilization Act, 1933

Made the National Guard a component of the Army.

8. The National Defense Act of 1947

Section 207 (f) established the Air National Guard, under the National Guard Bureau.

9. The Total Force Policy, 1973

Requires all active and reserve military organizations be treated as a single integrated force; reinforced the original intent of the founding fathers (a small standing army complemented by citizen-soldiers.)[5][Neutrality disputed " See talk page]

[visigoth]

3. Title 18, U.S. Code, Section 1385: The Posse Comitatus Act of June 18, 1878

Congress' suspension of southern states' right to organize a militia resulted in Posse Comitatus, a limiting of any person's use of the U.S. Army and U.S. Air Force in domestic law enforcement. The U.S. Navy and the U.S. Coast Guard, and the National Guard, when NOT in Federal Service, are specifically not limited by this act. The States revise the military codes - 1881 to 1892

4. The Militia Act of 1903

Affirmed the National Guard as the primary organized reserve force.

5. The National Defense Act, 1916

This act abandoned the idea of an expandable Regular Army and firmly established the traditional concept of the citizens' army as the keystone of the United States defense forces. It established the concept of merging the National Guard, the Army Reserve, and the Regular Army into the Army of the United States in time of war. The act further expanded the National Guard's role, and guaranteed the State militias' status as the Army's primary reserve force. The law mandated use of the term "National Guard" for that force, and the President was given authority, in case of war or national emergency, to mobilize the National Guard for the duration of the emergency. The number of yearly drills increased from 24 to 48 and annual training from five to 15 days. Drill pay was authorized for the first time.

[visigoth]

The argument in this blog that the National Guard is the militia as envisioned by the framers is belied by the legislative and legal history of the militias and the Guard, to wit;

The United States Congress has enacted various laws which control the National Guard

1. The Militia Act of 1792

Providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia, and providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia. For the 111 years that the Militia Act of 1792 remained in effect, it defined the position of the militia in relation to the federal government. The War of 1812 tested this uniquely American defense establishment. To fight the War of 1812, the republic formed a small regular military and trained it to protect the frontiers and coastlines. Although it performed poorly in the offensive against Canada, the small force of regulars backed by a well-armed militia, accomplished its defensive mission well. Generals like Andrew Jackson proved, just as they had in the Revolution, that regulars and militia could be effective when employed as a team.

2. The Militia Act of 1862

Providing for the service of persons of African Descent in the Militia, and the Emancipation of Slaves owned by Confederates.

[Rocket80]

Are you seriously proposing that had this case been decided the other way, in say, 1805, that Washington, Jefferson, Adams and the like would have simply handed over their firearms to the government? You must be joking - if anything they'd use them against the government one more time and start another revolution!