In recent decades, the radical reactionary “right” has sought to politicize the Second Amendment, and to change to change the original meaning. With the help of the U.S. Supreme Court they’ been successful on the second part. With the help of the Republican Party, they’ve been successful on the first part. They’ve both been pushed by the National Rifle Association. If you want the “original intent, please consider the following.
Here is the text of Article VI of the Articles of Confederation [which preceded the Constitution]: “..every state shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.” [from Wills: “A Necessary Evil”]
So, what would a reasonable person deduce from this? It would appear we now know where the phrase “well regulated” militia came from. In plain language, at least some of the militia’s weaponry is kept in “public stores< indicating a communal use principle. The community is also maintaining tents and “camp equipage.”
Further “original intent” is supplied by the May, 1792 Militia Acts. May 2nd: An Act to provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the laws of the Union, and suppress insurrections…” May 8th: requiring every free able-bodied white male, 18-45, to be enrolled in the militia – and within 6 months, provide himself with a “good musket” and equipment. Section 3: militia arranged in divisions, brigades, etc; numbered.. “take rank”…officers and staff specified. Section 5: state and regimental colors provided. Section 7: “rules of discipline..to be observed by the Militia throughout the United States.” Section 9: wounded and disabled taken care of and provided for at public expense.
Now, most reasonable people would think that this sounds an awful lot like what states currently have. Is is called “The National Guard.” A collective, state-sponsored “militia” unit, “well regulated” and supplied by the citizens of each state. The Second Amendment was ratified on December 15, 1791. The 1792 “Militia Acts 5 months later. TOGETHER they clearly express what “the Second Amendment” means.
And – wouldn’t you know it, due to the January 6, 2021, Washington D.C. “insurrection” by various crazed and reactionary forces – the various governments are/have been sending to Washington and mobilizing in their own state capitals – the National Guard. Under the exact terms of the 1792 Militia Act, the Guard called out to “execute the laws of the Union, and to suppress insurrections…” A collective act to defend the American democracy from domestic terrorists [who like to call themselves “patriots” merely exercising their “rights.”}
In various parts of “A Necessary Evil,” Gary Wills hammers home the “original intent” of the Second Amendment, destroying the false “gun rights” arguments put forth by zealots claiming a literal interpretation that isn’t there. Chapter 20 is especially educating, it eviscerates false Second Amendment lies.
One popular attempt has been to go to Pennsylvania’s Founding era constitution. Section 43: “The inhabitants of this state shall have the liberty to fowl and hunt in seasonable times on the lands they hold, and on all other lands therein not enclosed; and in like manner to fish in boatable waters, and others not private property.: Wills: “This is not a gun-freedom act, but a restriction meant to protect private property.” Also – gun use is to occur in “seasonable times.”
Madison’s original Second Amendment draft: “THe right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service.”
If that were a “gun rights” proposal, then why worry about people with “religious scruples” rendering “military service?” If this were for individual use – that consideration would not exist. And, most important – and most obvious is “render military service.” “Military service is done collectively, not privately.
And – especially in light of January 6th – who would trust the “security of a free country” to, mostly politically-inspired irate white men, in an out-of-control mob who illegally occupied the U.S. Capitol in violation of numerous laws. Would a “lawful” protest, or a “well-regulated” militia do that? Would a lawful “militia” assault police and intentionally kill a policeman defending the Capitol?
And – note the Senate changed Madison’s original wording to what exists: “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.” Why change the order? Obviously, to the Senate, the first part was THE reason for the Second Amendment. Further, Wills states: “That last clause [religious exemption in Madison] equates “bear arms” and “military service.””
Former Republican appointed U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, Warren Berger was famously recorded as saying the NRA’s argument was a major fraud, repeating the word “fraud” a second time for emphasis. Fraud.
For 216 years, the official interpretation of the Second Amendment was that it was a collective right. This was reinforced by several Supreme Court decisions, the last in 1939. Then, the historically ignorant and ethically challenged Roberts Court, with a 5 “Justice” majority of Republican appointees decided to change the law. “Heller” created an interpretation never seriously considered – individual “gun rights.” Even here, the Court’s official explanation said the government regulation could occur, and that people didn’t have a “right” to own any weapon they might want.
So, here we are in January, 2021. No place in America is safe, except maybe inside the U. S. Supreme Court. A person can, and has been, shot everywhere. American gun deaths annually resemble small war totals. Armed militias are found in virtually every state. Armed men, mostly well-fed white men, are often visible in public- something that doesn’t occur in civilized nations. These armed men are quite often angry.
And, now on January 6th and following days, people exercising what they claim to be “Second Amendment rights” are confronting various governments about a falsely claimed “stolen election.” Many, including the Pentagon, are calling this an “insurrection.” Also. the word “sedition” has been applied – meaning sabotage of a nation.
The “Heller” decision didn’t “cause” January 6th. But – it didn’t prevent it either. For several years recently, we’ve seen increasing numbers of mostly large, well-fed white men appearing in public with, often, military style weapons. And – angry.
This leaves us with some basic questions. Can a nation call itself “civilized” if a common occurrence is well-armed, angry, men appearing in public with military grade weapons? Does a “protest” by “civilians” require they be armed to be taken seriously – or just to be feared? When the First Amendment said freedom of speech, and press, and petition, and assembly – would a reasonable person imply that such “civilians” had to be armed with military style weapons? Do we truly have “law and order” if some feel compelled to appear in public with military grade weapons [or any weapons]? Is one reason police fear for their lives the existence of millions of guns in America?
One irony in all this – during the “Wild West” of 1865-1900, the citizens of “western’ cow towns got tired of drunken cowboys shooting up their towns – so they instituted strict “gun control” laws. The price for entering such towns was the cowboys surrendered their guns to the local officials – and got them back when they left town. Our myth of the “Wild West” covers this up, and so does NRA-style propaganda.
All of this trouble and apprehension over Second Amendment lies.
With Justice For All 