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The Second Amendment must be repealed.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

[Rockwell]

Joe, I completely agree with your historical analysis. And I personally think anyone who believes the 2nd ammendment was intended to give everyone the right to keep a rocket launcher in their car is a drooling idiot. But I just can't find the energy to give a rats patootie about guns anymore. It only serves to energize the right-wing nutcases and distracts from bigger fish to fry.

Personally, if the rednecks and tinfoil hatters all feel better with a loaded handgun in the house, fine. Let their kids blow their heads off while playing with daddies phalyic replacement. Because despite all the propaganda from the NRA, the biggest recipients of handgun bullets are not criminals but the owner's family and friends. As for city violence, any thug who wants a gun is going to get one.

I'm more interested in getting a Democratic president and congress so we get out of Iraq, fix Afghanistan, make corporations and the rich pay their fair share of taxes, re-regulate our robber-baron industries, re-establish our civil liberties. . . you get the picture.

[1will]

The Supreme Court decision does not give anyone the right to own a rocket launcher.

[ScroogeandMarleyLLC]

Boy, it must be great to ignore whole swathes of American history in order to justify an indefensible position. You didn't mention the taming of the West (oh, we know that libs weep over "Manifest Destiny", but a lot of these same libs like living in California, Colorado and anyplace west of the Missouri).

Face it: We were armed to beat off the Hostiles and outlaws, and thereby created a distinct tradition and love of firearms that is part of our national identity.

[Rockwell]

Boy it must be great to selectively pick and choose scraps of history to justify your current positions. Even sadder is that your scaps of history come from John Wayne movies and old TV Westerns. Most sherrifs in the old west didn't allow folks to parade around with side arms and folks kept rifles to hunt for food. When was the last time you had to shoot your dinner?

Yes, in lawless and isolated areas, frontier folks used their weapons to defend themselves from attack. They didn't have 911 or cops patrolling the streets to discourage crime.

The other argument the NRA likes to make is that armed citizens discourages the government from turning the military on them. So, your saturday night special is what's keeping an Abrams Tank from rumbling down your street?

And as far as "distinct tradition" goes for justification, slavery was a distinct tradition for 300 years. Not exactly a compelling justification to bring it back.

[jhNY]

And of course, you were there!

Guns are useful to persuade the gunless that your cause is just and/or that their land/resources/persons belong to you or are full of smoking holes. Want to know how well gun-as-diplomat works nowadays?

Look around. The economy's on fire, smoke billowing out in all directions, because with guns the US decided to pursue what it required without having to ask its present owners nicely, and now it costs 400% more to drive your car than it did when Bush stole office. The ever-looming threat of violence that the US has hung over the Middle East builds in uncertainty to any calculation of oil supply in future, and the surcharge resulting is paid for by everybody, even gun-lovers like your poor benighted self.

[Leifrakur]

Yesterday was a trifecta. The Supreme Court created a new Second Amendment, the stock market crashed, and oil prices hit an all-time high. Wonderful, if you happen to be a nihilist.

[Mabo]

Imagine what a government could do with a military and an unarmed public. Wow! The possibilities...

[Matango]

Militias are not called The National Guard, as militias were outside of the Federal Body. How hard is that to grasp?

[Michale32086]

While I am a bit rusty, I am pretty sure that National Guard units are also outside the Federal body. They are state "armies" that CAN be federalized. But they are State bodies.

Michale.....

[ScroogeandMarleyLLC]

Militias came into disrepute with the onset of the Civil War. Many of the early battles were fought by state and city militia units provided by North and South. Infact, the South basically fought the entire War with state militias (read: Army of Norther Virginia). Fashionable gents of every city started up militias with fancy uniforms and names, electing their own officers.

[astronerd]

The National Guard is armed by the Federal Government, trained by Federal players, and is subject at ANY MOMENT to Federal orders. It is true that they are housed as a state organization but, for all intents and purposes, they are Federal.

[Leifrakur]

The U.S. Supreme Court has said that the National Guard is the modern militia, citing the Constitution in doing so, and the Fifth Circuit has cited the Supreme Court as authority to make a similar pronouncement:

“The National Guard is the modern Militia reserved to the States by Art. I. 8, cl. 15, 16, of the Constitution.” ( U.S. Supreme Court, Maryland v. United States, 1965)

“We begin our consideration of this appeal with full recognition that the national guard is the militia, in modern-day form, that is reserved to the states by Art I, 8, cls. 15, 16 of the Constitution. Maryland v. United States, 381 U.S. 41, 46 (1965).” (Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals, James H. Lipscomb v. Federal Labor Relations Authority (2003) )

[breakfast]

Militias did not exist as standing forces. They came into being when called. If the citizens are disarmed, militias can not be called. We have the right to keep and bear arms so that we can protect ourselves, and that includes protection from the government and the increasingly militarized "civilian" police forces. Our founders were, after all, revolutionaries.

I am guessing that sometime in the foreseeable future, as our government becomes more overtly fascist, Americans in many part of the country will decide that our current government is no longer sufficiently serving the interests of the people and will find it necessary to resist forcibly in a rebellion. As the rights of citizens are increasingly ignored, this idea will gain traction, especially as our country collapses into third world status.

Arms will be needed for that.

[Leifrakur]

When the Second Amendment was written in 1789, most young American males were required by state militia laws to be enrolled in a militia company and to muster periodically for training. Militiamen were generally expected by law to provide their own arms and accoutrements, but the militia laws were not well enforced. Patrick Henry pointed out in debate in 1788 that Virginia didn't have one-fourth of the arms needed to defend itself:

"We have not one fourth of the arms that would be sufficient to defend ourselves. The power of arming the militia, and the means of purchasing arms, are taken from the states by the paramount powers of Congress. If Congress will not arm them, they will not be armed at all." (Patrick Henry at the Virginia conventi0on on the ratification of the Constitution, June 9, 1788)

James Madison's answer to Henry was this: "I cannot conceive that this Constitution, by giving the general government the power of arming the militia, takes it away from the state governments. The power is concurrent, and not exclusive." (June 14, 1788)

[Sundialsvc4]

And guess what, the National Guard is not here: it has been gone to Iraq for about six years now.

Nevertheless... a gun is a tool, nothing more and nothing less. A Supreme Court "decision" to the effect that "the second amendment actually exists" is a tasty headline but really nothing substantial.

A gun is a tool such that, when you point it at something and pull the trigger, it propels a small metal object through that something at very high speed, thereby destroying it ... whether that thing is a bad guy, a doorknob, your child, your spouse or your foot.

Yes, you are entitled to have one. That's been the law for more than 200 years now. But you must "make of it what you will." Bad guy, doorknob, child, spouse, or foot: the choice is up to you, and whatever you see in movies or in "reality (sic...)" cop-shows isn't real.

[Michale32086]

"And guess what, the National Guard is not here: it has been gone to Iraq for about six years now."

As I said, this commentary really isn't the place for THAT discussion..

As to the rest...

"A gun is a tool, no different from a baseball bat, or a meat cleaver, or ... an alligator!"
-Homer Simpson

:D

Michale.....

[RickO]

The 2nd Amendment, as Scalia himself said, gives one the right to self defense. That makes sense until you consider what happens to you if you actually shoot somebody. In some states, you can legally shoot someone on your property or in your house, but in many places, if you pull the trigger, you might go to prison. You can also be sued by your "victim's" family in civil court. In Florida, if you even pull a gun on someone off your property, it's a mandatory 10 years, fire it, it's 25, kill someone, it's life. The self-defense argument is extremely restricted and while you may come out alive, you have a a big problem.

[Michale32086]

There is an old saying among cops...

"It is better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6."

Michale.....

[jvarga]

I guess the other guy doesn't get a vote in the matter :P

[Sundialsvc4]

As they say, "drag the body inside."

But... a gun does not have an "Undo" switch. There is no "escape key." If that bad-guy was actually your next door neighbor, Rambo, you got big-trouble.

[JulieSA]

"In Florida, if you even pull a gun on someone off your property, it's a mandatory 10 years, fire it, it's 25, kill someone, it's life."

That's false. In Florida you are allowed to shoot anyone who attacks you, even away from your property.

[JulieSA]

"The Florida "Castle Doctrine" law basically does three things:

One: It establishes, in law, the presumption that a criminal who forcibly enters or intrudes into your home or occupied vehicle is there to cause death or great bodily harm, therefore a person may use any manner of force, including deadly force, against that person.

Two: It removes the "duty to retreat" if you are attacked in any place you have a right to be. You no longer have to turn your back on a criminal and try to run when attacked. Instead, you may stand your ground and fight back, meeting force with force, including deadly force, if you reasonably believe it is necessary to prevent death or great bodily harm to yourself or others. [This is an American right repeatedly recognized in Supreme Court gun cases.]

Three: It provides that persons using force authorized by law shall not be prosecuted for using such force."

It also prohibits criminals and their families from suing victims for injuring or killing the criminals who have attacked them.

[woodpiggie]

Fenty,Daley,Bloomberg, et.al. have good cause to worry about the effects of losing their draconian gun bans. Violent crime will decline in their respective cities, reflecting the ability of citizens to defend themselves, just as in most states, cities and towns where 2nd ammendment rights have been upheld and/or restored over the past couple of decades. What then will these lying demagogic social engineers tell the families of murder victims who might have had a chance to defend their lives? What about lethal home invasions, rapes and muggings that wouldn't have happened and are now relatively rare occurances where street thugs have some fear of an armed response? What will they do to evade responsibility, and hide their bloody hands? Every deceptive trick and manuver they can pull on an electorate so ignorant as to follow a self serving shakedown artist (ie.Rev Jesse Jackboot). These polititions would rather see you on the ground, outlined in chalk, than than to yield a modicum of control over your physical safety.
They need to be held to political, if not legal account NOW!

[Michale32086]

The ONLY way that "standing armies" would make the 2nd Amendment superfluous is if we had massive troops in our cities and heavily armed platoons of soldiers on every street corner..

I am sure that NO ONE is advocating that...

Michale.....

[Michale32086]

Your point is well written but fatally flawed.

The "standing armies" that we have serve a certain purpose. The US Armed Forces are designed to serve US Interests abroad. (Whether they do or not is grist for another debate. It would be rude to get into that here.) The standing armies of the National Guard are designed to

A> Augment the regular US Armed Forces
B>Assist in repelling foreign invaders
C>Assist communities in times of natural disasters

The arming of citizenry in the here and now serves a COMPLETELY different purpose. One of self defense. Self defense is an inherent property to life, liberty and the pursuit of happyness{sic}.. Now, it may be argued that self defense of the individual was not on the mind of the framers of the US Constitution. My response to that would be two-fold. First, we cannot know for certain this is true. Second, even if it were true, many Constitutional Amendments have morphed or been added to keep the US Constitution up to date with the times. Surely no one is advocating that we should rigidly obey the US Constitution as it was written, no??

So, to claim that standing armies means that the 2nd Amendment is no longer needed is flat out wrong. The Declaration Of Independence gives all Americans the inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. The Second Amendment of the US Constitution gives the American citizen the ability to protect that right.

Michale.....

[jhNY]

There is no provision in the US constitution for a standing federal army. In fact there are several phrases in it which seek to restrict the possibility of same. That's why the second amendment was written-- to address the defense of the nation, however quaint the reasoning might seem today. And yet, we've got a huge federal army.

It's like the 4th amendment. Your home is your castle wherein you have right to privacy and a freedom from unreasonable searches, unless the cops want in.

[lyrahussein]

Thank you Joe. I agree entirely, but did not know the the real history. I concur that this second amendment should be repealed, but I fear that this will never happen. It is frightening that so many in this country feel the need to keep a handgun for protection of their life and home. I feel the SCUTUS decision will only lead to increased violence in this country.

[Matango]

"I feel the SCUTUS decision will only lead to increased violence in this country."
Based on what evidence? Every state who allows LEGAL gun ownership saw a drop in crime, not a rise.