REVELATIONS FROM THE SECOND AMENDMENT DEBATE
If someone took the engine out of an automobile and declared that the engine was a fully capable mode of transportation, most people would think he was delusional. There are many delusional people in America who have done just that when they claim the Second Amendment to the Constitution guarantees individuals the complete freedom to own, carry and use weapons without any federal government regulation. They extract a subordinate clause from the Second Amendment and claim that’s what the Amendment is about. Further, they claim the Second Amendment grants the right to everyone to possess weapons and prohibits regulation of that right. People have a right to drive a car, but with that right comes many prerequisites such as age, testing for driving ability, license and, in many states, insurance.
When English grammar rules are applied to the Second Amendment, the meaning is quite clear. According to English grammar rules, the first noun is the subject of a sentence except in the passive voice. The Second Amendment is not written in the passive voice. Thus the subject of the Second Amendment is not in dispute. The first noun is “militia.” Everything else defines or refers to militia. English is a neutral language. Syntax is crucial. In languages from Latin to Russian, noun endings identify their placement or case. English doesn’t. Word placement and order are critical to understanding the English language, as this debate demonstrates.
The Second Amendment begins: “A well-regulated militia. . . .” “Well-regulated” was inserted to make clear that everything in the Amendment would be subject to extensive laws and regulations. Yet, the “gun rights” proponents claim the sentence does just the opposite and guarantees no restriction on individual gun ownership or use.
The Constitution writers wanted a well-trained, well-disciplined army available in case of a national need.
However, the militia’s primary function was defined in the next phrase of the Second Amendment: “. . . being necessary to the security of a free state . . . .”
“. . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . .” is the last and least important part of the sentence. It’s a subordinate clause. It's subordinate to “A well-regulated militia."
Thus “people” defines the type of militia. The people in this case are state, citizen soldiers rather than professional, career federal troops.
Military coups always have been threats to a government. With 13 state militias subject to call when needed by the federal government--for certain specified reasons--it would be more difficult for a military leader to take control of the government as did military leaders from Julius Caesar or Muammar Khadafi. In Turkey, military coups are a time-honored tradition.
“Militia” is mentioned several times in the body of the Constitution. The Articles of Confederation, the federal law in effect when the Constitution was written, required consent of all 13 states to make a major change to the law. Thus the Constitution had to be written and compromised to satisfy all 13 states. Some states wanted further clarification of the role of the Militia before they would approve the new Constitution. They wanted to make clear that “militia” was a state function primarily, with a secondary purpose of serving the federal government under certain conditions for a specific amount of time. History has shown that their reservations were correct. The “militia” now is called “The National Guard” and primarily is under Federal jurisdiction. It also functions mostly as a force for intimidation and aggression.
The new and current Constitution detailed support for a federal standing navy. It did not do the same for an army. The first paragraph of Section 8 of Article 1 of the Constitution makes a general statement that Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes to provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States. Then it goes into greater detail stating that Congress has the power “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two years.” It continues: “To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.”
Consequently, the state militias were to be a temporary military force of trained and armed soldiers the federal government would have at its beck and call when any of the three specified conditions arose.
If our states demanded a strict interpretation of the Constitution, we wouldn’t have all the criminal military misadventures such as the Vietnam and Iraq Wars because, hopefully, the states would withdraw their militias when they discovered the war was fraudulent. At least, the states would be free bring home their militias after the two-year period. To save face and cover up their blunders, federal leaders tend to continue losing, costly wars for years beyond their reasonable length.
Our leaders of both parties demonstrated that they are not immune to Lord Acton’s admonition: “Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.”
Finally, the Constitution states: “[Congress shall] provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
States were intended to hold most of the power under a very loose confederation. The Constitution defines the political structure as a “Federal Republic.” The word “democracy” appears nowhere in the Constitution. Originally. the “United States” was plural. Now, in another twist of grammar rules, we say the “United States is,” not “the United States are.”
The number distortion parallels the creeping shift of power away from the states to the Federal Government. The “Militia” now is disguised as the “National Guard.” That shift in turn made armies more readily available to presidents to get into mischief, not to mention subvert the Constitution, violate human rights and commit international war crimes.
The intention of the Constitution is to decentralize the army as much as possible, incorporating checks and balances, and arrange for automatic dissolution of that army within two years by cutting off its funding.
Thom Hartmann, author and commentator who has researched this subject widely, concluded that the primary intention of the Second Amendment was not to protect the people from the government, but to protect the Republic from military coups and insurrections. So far, that has worked well. The secession attempt by the Southern States failed when the militias of the Northern states were united to put down an insurrection by 11 Southern states.
Eleven states with nine million people armed with rifles, cannons and war ships were not able to break away from the Union or force it to accept its states’ rights demands. The National Rifle Association with five million members and no cannons or war ships, is not likely to be any more successful at asserting with guns its version of American values or rights or its interpretation of the Constitution.
The only coup-like attempt in U.S. history was thwarted. In 1933, several businessmen, many of whom admired Adolph Hitler, were alarmed when Franklin Roosevelt became president. They considered assassinating the new president and/or conducting a coup to take over the government. They estimated they could topple the government with about 15,000 trained soldiers to be selected from World War I veterans. The Remington gun manufacturer, one of the conspirators, would provide the weapons. A major problem was how to entice the veterans to participate. The conspirators turned to Smedley Butler, a very popular Marine Corp. general, as the most likely to appeal to potential participants. General Butler already had reservations about the intentions of large corporations since he had led troops in Central and South America, Asia and Europe carrying out questionable corporation objectives.
General Butler exposed the plot. Even though Democrats controlled both branches of Congress and the presidency, they did not punish the subversive conspirators.
So if the Second Amendment is about militias, what is the jurisdiction for weapons possessed by individuals? That would be the Tenth Amendment. It states: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Once again, the Bill of Rights” [the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution], are attempting to clarify the limited role of the Federal Government vis-a-vis the states. Since “arms” have changed radically since the Constitution was implemented in 1789, that language no longer is appropriate. I conclude that a Constitutional Amendment is needed before the Federal Government can ban weapon ownership. However, that authority could fall under the “provide for the general Welfare” clause. The question must be addressed: “Do guns make people more or less safe?” In the meantime, the states have that power according to the Constitution.
When Morton Grove, Il. banned hand guns and the Supreme Court upheld that decision, that conformed to the strict interpretation of the Constitution. If Texas passed a “concealed carry” law, that also would be Constitutional in the strict sense. This was a contentious issue after the Civil War. The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 set guidelines for law enforcement jurisdiction in cases of state and Federal conflict.
A common argument made by gun owners is that “Guns don’t kill, people do.” That’s true in most cases. There have been incidents where animals discharged weapons killing or wounding someone. Guns sometimes fall into the hands of youngsters who don’t understand what a gun is or its potential dangers. The question is: are most people mature, intelligent, ethical and responsible enough to have possession of weapons built primarily to kill easily? Self defense situations often are not black and white. Intervention in disputes usually are even less clear. The recent case in Florida regarding George Zimmerman who shot and killed an unarmed black teenager named Trayvon Martin is an example. Zimmerman mistakenly concluded that the young man was a threat to him. Prejudices too often trump good judgement. Life or death powers should not be in the hands of those with impaired judgement. A gun in the hands of the average American is like a hand grenade in the hands of an infant.
Most people, including members of Congress, have difficulty understanding this nation’s laws and values. They can’t always distinguish right from wrong. When their government concealed torture, a hideous international crime, by renaming it “enhanced interrogation,” most Americans were unable to identify the practice as a horrific, primitive crime against humanity. In the Iraq Wars, perceived personal threats elevated emotions to dominate logic, and over 90% of Americans believed tiny Iraq actually was a threat to their lives. Words often evoke emotions that overpower and are disproportionate to reality. Those duped by a simple definition change or alarm lack moral maturity and should not have access to guns and their life-or-death powers. Those who fell for the blatantly fictitious justifications for invading Iraq in Gulf Wars I or II, are not qualified to hold life-and-death powers.
When the U.S. invades another nation, as it does frequently, claiming deadly force is the only option, anyone who supports that reasoning probably should not have access to deadly weapons. Invading other nations is not one of the three Constitutional justifications for forming a national army.
Children up to the age of 26, have morally undeveloped brains. Morals for them are imitations of adults, religious guidelines or parental and adult discipline. If they are surrounded by role models such as the U.S. Government they will lack a credible ethical framework and role models. It can’t be considered an unspeakable aberration if they go on a murder spree just as their government has done numerous times in recent history--most likely with the support of their parents and religions.
Yes, people kill people. The U.S. is a world leader in murders. Only that handful of Americans who are not duped by “the sky is falling” alarms are morally mature enough to possess firearms.
