Pages

Monday, February 11, 2013

Two Reasons

...why civilian ownership of military-style firearms is an absolute necessity:
By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' the 'security' of the nation, and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy. Although it is extremely unlikely that the fears of governmental tyranny which gave rise to the Second Amendment will ever be a major danger to our nation, the Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships, in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important.

John F. Kennedy, 1960
This is where the phrase "well regulated militia" comes into play. In military parlance, "regulated" refers to efforts to make an army of men more "regular":

...being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates to a party of conflict, and
...having a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance, and
...carrying arms openly, and
...conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

In other words, part of being a "regular" force means that person is trained, equipped, and commanded according to standardized procedures. When "well regulated" is paired together with "militia", or all able-bodied men between 17 and 45, it seems clear that the intent of the Founders is that civilians are supposed to have military style "assault" weapons, so as to better be able to integrate seamlessly into the regular, standing army when called upon.

This is likely hard to do if civilians are not permitted to possess or bear "assault" weapons in the first place. The notion that scary black guns are reserved for military / law enforcement only pretty much flies in the face of a straightforward reading of the Constitution. Rather than banning black rifles, we should be issuing them.

The second reason why civilian firearms ownership is key is not because of opposition to tyranny--a concept that understandably gets liberalists all riled up, seeing how Leviathan is their middle name and tyranny is their game--but because civilian firearms ownership precludes the "need" for a strong muscular state in the first place. It also keeps the people secure in the gaps between the State and the private citizen...or when the State either cannot be for budgetary reasons, or declines to be for reasons of personal convenience. Remember, the police have no duty to protect/serve, and a standing army of professional LEOs costs money to organize, train, equip, and field. Money that municipalities, states, and the FedGov increasingly does not have.

4 comments:

Christina said...

This is likely hard to do if civilians are not permitted to possess or bear "assault" weapons in the first place. The notion that scary black guns are reserved for military / law enforcement only pretty much flies in the face of a straightforward reading of the Constitution. Rather than banning black rifles, we should be issuing them.

This would feel to imply that a draft would be more constitutional than a standing army. But then, I suppose its purpose is the volunteering of trained individuals in times of war rather than a standing army...

I wonder if we ran things without a standing army, how easy it would be to conflate the two?

newrebeluniv said...

it hardly matters. The constitutional arguments are unarguable. Thus the other side ignores the constitution and they expect to get away with it. And, after Obamacare, who could blame them? No matter how egregious, the courts will back them. if congress is to cowardly to bring in the acts that 75% of the country do not want, we can just do it from the executive branch. There won't be any impeachments.

And since the conservatives are such a law-abiding group, there won't even be any shooting at police when they come to take your guns. They will probably remind the police that they intend to vote for more pay raises for "first responders" because they are all so wonderful.

ray said...

Rather than banning black rifles, we should be issuing them.


lol

to whom tho EW? thats always the question, as the tyranny of my neighbor is perhaps only slightly better than that of my Fempire

in 1957 when (largely) sane, employed, Godfearing, householding men were the norm in Amaryka, passin' out the uzis would have made lotsa sense

but now? i look around, i dont see anybody i'd rely on for "stable government," know what i mean?

all these people care about is celebrities, and their new toys

tho i suppose the argument could be made that anything -- even goofy military cadres -- would be better than rule by y'alls wives and dotters!

cheers

Elusive Wapiti said...

"after Obamacare, who could blame them?"

Well they certainly have precedent. Medicare and nationalized compulsory public schooling and all that.

"They will probably remind the police that they intend to vote for more pay raises for "first responders" because they are all so wonderful."

The interesting thing to note here is that it tends to be the "public safety" divisions that are the first on the chopping block by city managers...the strategy apparently being that the sheep will bleat at being left so exposed that they'll refuse to have the police/fire depts cut. And the city budget remains the same.

Frankly, given what's going on in the Southland right now, I'm becoming more sure in my considered opinion that volunteers can do as good or better a job with more accountability and less expense than the unionized professionals.