Well for good or ill this week I am going to tread and possibly even stomp upon sacred ground for many who read these thoughts of mine. For as we move on, in this look at our Bill of Rights (and selected additional Amendments), we arrive at Number Two; one of the most passionately, and often, debated of the Amendments adopted by the Founders. So forgive the extra two days of editing, before placing it before you.
I also want to preface this by saying that I am a gun owner, (which is what most people think the Second Amendment is talking about. Arms in the 18th Century also included swords and pikes). I have owned semi-automatic pistols, shotguns, rifles and even a bow once. I own knives and swords and other military paraphernalia that can be used as weapons or arms. So I personally benefit from the Second Amendment being interpreted the way it is by our government, but that interpretation is backed by only the tone of our society, not by the actual words of the Second Amendment.
Amendment II, United States Constitution
“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.”
To get a true understanding of what this Amendment means, we must first look at when it was written. We as a nation were not that long separated from the threat of war literally breaking out in the back yard. The War for American Independence officially came to an end on Sept. 3rd 1783 with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. Just over four years later, on Sept. 17th 1787, the Constitution was signed, with ratification coming the following July 21st and the Amendments following in September of 1789. So it is not surprising that war would still be fresh in the collective mind of America.
The Congressional Representatives, taking in account recommendations for a Bill of Rights from the several new states’ legislature during the ratification process, determined that the war weary citizenry were not in any mood to leave themselves defenseless to anyone who might decide to test the young nation’s security. After surviving the brutalities of the British Army and their allies the Hessians and some Native American tribes, no newly minted American was going to be too far from his musket for a very long time to come. Thus, it was sensible to allow the citizens to keep arms, but being politicians, they made the purpose of such a right, the maintenance of a “well regulated Militia.” For defense of the Nation.
It is important to note that at this time in post-war America, there was still no standing army to speak of. The first Congress had allocated an Army of 1,000 men, but that was all. While present day Marines, Soldiers and Sailors date their birth to Revolutionary times, they were not the military force we know of today. Most men were too busy carving out agrarian communities and private farms – combat veterans “turning swords into plough shears,” as they say. There were few cities to speak of and travel through rural areas was common. Most of the men do agree to be a part of local militias for the defense of their homes. Just as with today’s National Guard detachments, these militias were trained (well regulated) in defensive combat operations and were on call to take up arms should there be an attack on the safety of the community.
Unlike today’s National Guard detachments, there were no armories to store weapons and ammunition, so each man maintained his own weapon in his home, and thus the need for the next line of the Amendment, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” to be added. What the government was saying is that, ‘yes, this well trained reserve military detachment we have said you can have is there to protect your community, but, if we need them to defend the “State” (now known as the Nation) then we’re going to call them into service.” In other words, your armed men can keep the Indians out of the corn fields but remember they are only permitted to exist to defend the nation from attack.” Exactly as National Guard are managed today. That’s also why they are called the North Carolina, National Guard for example. They are U.S. Military units maintained by individual states. The Charleston South Carolina Militia in 1788 was the period equivalent of the South Carolina National Guard Detachment of 2012. This is who the founders ordered to be well trained.
Since these men came from within the community they lived in their homes and gathered within, or just outside the town to train, it was logical for them to maintain their arms at home, which included everything from swords to cannon depending on the community and what was left over from the war. If the Indians attack at 3 AM, you don’t want to go looking for the guy with the keys to the town armory. This logical, logistical provision gives us the most debated part of the sentence, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Well, first off, let’s be clear about what “people” meant at this time; free, white, men with the exception of a very few “free men of color,” emphasis on the word few. So, free, white, men were going to be the ones given permission by the federal government to keep their arms within their homes, providing they were trained for the purpose of protecting the Nation in a time of dire need. Today “people” fortunately has a broader meaning.
The amendment does not say that the purpose is for self-defense, or home defense, or hunting, or sport shooting or anything other than for the defense of the Nation against a common enemy. And that is where the real nut of the thing lives, with who they and we perceive as the enemy.
I will put aside completely as a given the right to shoot an intruder trying to get into your home for ill intent, I believe you have the right to protect your land from poaching or vandalism and that we all have the right to defend your person and you loved ones using anything you can from martial arts to guns to ball bats and throwing rocks. But what the government should have had the foresight for, is the arms-wielding population of Americans that will rise up against the common enemy of a government trying to claim too much control over a free people. It has happened in many different countries, empires, and kingdoms throughout time. A corrupt government can be toppled by even a semi-well regulated armed resistance – such as happened in the war the authors of the Second Amendment had just finished fighting.
Maybe that’s it right there, they were so determined to create a nation that would not be a pseudo-monarchy that they built into the laws of the land the very tool that could lead to the destruction of an American Government gone rogue with power; a citizenry with the right to be armed against a common enemy, even if it were their own government. Could some of these men really have possessed that level of foresight or paranoia about their descendants’ temptation to seize too much control? I would like to think so.
As I said at the beginning, I am glad the law interprets the Second Amendment the way it does instead of how it is written. I am also glad that the interpretation has been so long engrained into our collective American psyche. In the end it may be the only thing that saves us when the government says that the Second Amendment has been revoked and they start knocking down doors.
Well said.
ReplyDelete