If you favor gun control of any stripe, please read and attempt the following:
A well regulated Intelligentsia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.
Convince me, using only the text above,
- that this sentence does not guarantee an individual right, only a “collective” right; or
- that this sentence means that the only legitimate intelligentsia is the one controlled by government; or
- that this sentence allows the government to decide which books are safe and which are dangerous, and permits it to ban those it does not approve, and to dictate how all books under private ownership must be stored; or
- that this sentence permits the government to require the registration of all books and book owners.
Now there are a few rules here.
- You may not dismiss the authors of the sentence as being “dead white men” who “wore powdered wigs, so maybe they got a few other things wrong, too.” If you support gun control, then you subscribe to the belief that an object with no will can be good or evil, a decidedly odd thought. Address the text, not its authors.
- You may not bring up “wacko right-wing militia men” who support this and suggest that, because of them, it is bad. Hitler liked sugar, and so do you. Address the text, not its adherents.
- You may not dismiss it as “not applying to today,” unless you point out a clear term limit or expiration date within the text, or show another amendment that explicitly annulls this one. (Besides, you never know when what is useless today will be invaluable tomorrow.) Address the text, not your pipe dreams.
Hmm, am I being pissy? Probably. Anyway, it occurred to me to post this, and here it is.
UPDATE: Comments enabled. Silly me.
FURTHER UPDATE: Jeezum crow, never dreamed this one would get InstaLanched. Please note that all new commenters are moderated, and I’m mostly offline this week, so approval will be slow. No offense intended to anyone. If you’ve commented before, it will show immediately.
IMPORTANT UPDATE! Commenter Dave Cordea is absolutely correct, this idea is original to J. Neil Schulman, and I utterly forgot it. I must have read his piece in his book Stopping Power some eight or nine years ago. Here I am basking in plagiarized glory without even knowing it. :$ As pennance, Neil may direct me to write a post on a topic of his choosing, of up to 2,000 words, if he ever comes across this. Also, you all should read his first two books. Alongside Night is a roaring good time, and The Rainbow Cadenza gives serious, sobering thought to the phrase “make love, not war”. In fact, it should be translated into Chinese and published here in China, given demographic trends these days.
So this great, brilliant, original piece that everyone loved? Not mine. Sorry.
90 Comments
Let me preface by saying I’m not a proponent of gun control. That said, the argument in favor of gun control hinges on the “…well regulated militia…” clause, which control proponents interpret as being a condition for the right to keep and bear arms, rather than a reason for it. In that view, a well regulated militia is not necessary for defense in today’s world with our high tech volunteer military, therefore the condition requiring a right to keep and bear arms should no longer exist.
Fortunately for us, the current Justice Department interpretation as articulated by John Ashcroft in his letter to the NRA, is that the Second Amendment right is an individual right, not a collective right of states to maintain militias.
It’s odd that as the movement towards reduced gun control, as evidenced by Florida’s Right to Carry, and their new legislation allowing an individual to fight back with the use of deadly force when attacked, I find myself less inclined to go out and buy myself a gun. It seems to become less necessary.
Well then I guess we should mention from Article I, Section 8 the passage concerning Congress’ power in the same context -
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the ‘Intelligentsia’, 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 Office[ers], and the Authority of training the ‘Intelligentsia’ according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
A well regulated barbecue, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to grill and fry food, shall not be infringed.
I would replace ’security’ with ‘erudition’ in your example. Otherwise, good example.
What if you replace ‘Intelligentsia’ with ‘economy’ and ‘read books’ with ‘use property’
I think the parallel you draw is fair. In other words, I don’t see any ambiguity in the second amendment. Taken to the limit, however, that troubles me.
Can we restrict guns/ammo designed to sneak through detectors, or designed to penetrate police body armor. Is there any limit at all? 50 cal machine guns, bazookas, cluster bombs, nukes?
Either bearing arms is not to be infringed, or it can be limited. If it can be limited (as is freedom of speech) how do we go about that?
Brilliant twist! The only weakness is that ‘Intelligentsia’ doesn’t quite parallel ‘Militia’. ‘Militia’ implies people armed for the common good, under some kind of government control (but clearly not regular armed forces). Intelligentsia may once have implied people thinking for the common good, but I don’t think it does any more, given the dismal performance of the (un)intelligentsia in our universities.
I wasn’t aware that books killed people. Or that Intelligentsia were “well regulated” or were “necessary to the security of a free State”(big S). If there was a tradition of groups of learned individuals marching off and fighting debate wars in order to protect their homestate, then this hypothetical amendment might appear to approach relevency. The fact that banning books is prohibited under the 1st amendment by the requirement of a free press even eliminates that idea, however.
This is the False or Weak Analogy logical fallacy. Your example is only superficially similar to the 2nd amendment and provides no argument for (or against) the legality of gun control. Good arguments can be made in favor of a broad interpretation of the 2nd Amendment… this is not one of them.
1&2: “A well regulated Intelligentsia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” implies the Intelligentsia be regulated by the said State. Furthermore, because this is a legal document outlining what the state is responsible for regulating, the document itself implies that the said State should be regulating Intelligentsia.
3: Due to the fact that the said State is responsible for regulating Intelligentsia, which uses books it as a primary tool for the said State’s own protection, regulating this tool used to implement this protection only makes sense. You wouldn’t want your Intelligentsia using inadequate tools, so it’s important that the said State guarantee only the best books. The best and most thorough way to do this is to eliminate all the self-motivated profiteering book conglomerates trying to push substandard books on our children, the future of this great nation.
4: Registration is just a simple non-intrusive way for the said State to guarantee only the best books for her citizens. Furthermore, it creates jobs and opportunities while doing so. Not just a job, but a noble job. It’s rare that anyone gets the opportunity not only to earn a great living, but to help his brothers and sisters in the meantime by shielding them from the self-motivated profiteering book conglomerates. I think this plan is not only great for our hard working Intelligentsia, but great for our hard working common man trying to earn an honest living providing for his family.
PS: If this sounds like a lot of BS, it is. If this DOES NOT sound like a lot of BS, it is. Please study the text to find all the BS so you can be better prepared in the future.
PSS: Wow, this almost made me throw up, but it was a fun exercise.
PSSS: Incase you still haven’t realized this, I’m against gun regulation.
This is a great, thought-provoking exercise, and it just may get through to some people who are hard to reach on this particular issue. But, though I agree with the larger point you are making, I want to quibble a bit with the following sentence: “If you support gun control, then you subscribe to the belief that an object with no will can be good or evil, a decidedly odd thought.”
This claim is neither fair nor necessarily true. You, as an opponent of gun control, do not have to believe that guns have any moral character, for good or ill, in order to conclude that government should not regulate their ownership. Neither do gun control supporters have to believe that guns are intrinsically evil in order to their ownership should be controlled. A person may rationally conclude that possession of an object with no moral nature of its own can make it easier or more difficult for a human being to commit good or evil acts, and therefore make those acts more or less likely.
For instance, we can certainly agree that money has no will of its own, and we can probably also gree that it has no intrinsic moral nature. But it’s hard to deny that possession of plenty of money makes it easier for a generous person to commit the good act of donating a large sum of money to a worthy charity, while a person with the same generous inclinations but an empty bank account will be less likely to make a donation of the same size. That poverty-stricken person will probably also find it more difficult to commit the immoral act of bribing an elected official, while the wealthier one, if so inclined, will find it easier to do so. Neither the bribery nor the charitable contribution has anything to do with the moral nature of money itself. Possession of money may affect the likelihood that certain people will behave in certain ways, but this does not mean that the money itself is good or bad. It’s the moral character of the money’s owners that matters.
Similarly, it’s not necessary for gun control supporters to ascribe evil character to guns themselves in order for them to form the opinion that possession of guns makes it easier for violently-inclined persons to commit violent acts. I am not debating here whether this belief is correct or incorrect, nor am I denying that some gun control supporters probably do believe that guns are immoral in and of themselves. (Some of them probably believe the same thing about money!) But it is irrational to generalize that all gun control supporters must hold this belief. The illogic of the claim weakens what is otherwise a very powerful argument.
By using ‘Books’ instead of ‘books’ the clear intent was for all schools to have unlimited supplies of what we now refer to as ’state-supplied propaganda-filled textbooks’. One can’t form an Intelligentsia without their proscribed tools after all. All other books not on the list of Books are just trees that haven’t been burnt yet.
Actually, there is already an Amendment covering books. It has been interpreted to allow the government to suppress publication of state secrets, incitements to violence, and other material deemed dangerous to the Republic. The definition of “dangerous” has changed over time.
But to your exercise:
My attention is first drawn to the word “regulated,” meaning “governed by rules.” Whose rules? Well, in a free, democratic society, citizens make the rules through their representatives in government. Thus, it would seem that the people, through the actions of their government, do have broad powers to regulate books.
Of course, the Intelligensia is not just “regulated,” it is “well regulated.” (Ought to be a hyphen in there, I should think.) “Well” is a value term, necessarily subjective. “Well” for whom? By what standard?
The standard is given in the very next phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free State.” Therefore, the people are limited. They may act, through their government, to regulate books — but only if those regulations advance the security of a free State.
Whether a given regulation advances or hinders security is, of course, open to much debate. However, by this language, it is permissible for the government to totally ban “How to Build a Nuclear bomb,” since such a book clearly can be extremely dangerous. It is also arguable that the Amendment permits regulations that restrict access to certain books by certain people — say, keeping pronography out of the hands of children, whose minds are not mature enough to handle it.
(It is worth noting that “infringed” means “to violate or go beyond the limits of the law.” Thus, a valid regulation — one which meets the security test — cannot, by definition, be an infrigement.)
Thus, I believe challenges 2, 3 and 4 are met: regulations to advance the security of the State must be made by the State; must of necessity include determinations of what is safe; and may include decisions on how safety is to be achieved. The only point I cannot refute is the first — the Amendment is pretty clear in stating that this right applies to citizens individually.
Thank you for an interesting Saturday-morning mental work out!
Beruang (former gun control advocate; currently cautiously pro-2nd Amendment)
I’ll bite.
Disclaimer: I am not a gun-phobic anti-second amendment control freak. I am merely engaging in an intellectual exercise here.
Constitutions are like poetry. Every word is included for a purpose. Every word must have meaning. If your proposed “amendment” did not have the introductory phrase, and merely stated “the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed,” its meaning would be clear. Other amendments state prohibitions in unequivocal language. See the first, seventh, eighth and eleventh amendments, for example. If this had been done here, the mantra
of the anti-sex feminists would be applicable here: “no means no.”
However, this is not the language before us.
We must assume that the framers intended for every word herein to have meaning. The two key phrases in the introductory clause are “well regulated” and “necessary to the security.” The question is, are these phrases explanatory, or qualifying? Is it included to explain the text, or is it meant to qualify or limit the text that follows?
No other amendment contains “explanatory” language. No other amendment contains the built-
in argument in favor of its inclusion in the Constitution. Even Amendment XVIII, the “noble experiment” of prohibition, contains no such campaigning and if there was ever an amendment that could have used it, that was the one. So it makes no sense that the introductory phrase is there merely to explain the necessity for including this freedom within the Bill of Rights.
It must mean something else. Many other amendments contain restricting language. For example, the fourth amendment is not a flat-out prohibition of searches and seizures. It merely requires that they must be supported by “probable cause.” If you have “probable cause,” an otherwise impermissible search and seizure transforms into a lawful and permissible one.
Thus, it can be argued that the prerequisite for the right to bear arms is that it is in the context of a well-regulated government-sponsored operation. Just as “probable cause” is a prerequisite to a search or seizure.
There must be balance. Just as with fourth amendment jurisprudence, where the right to be free of unreasonable search or seizure is limited by the right of the government to conduct a search on probable cause, there is a balance that must be struck in second amendment construction. Where do you properly strike that balance?
For example, there is no individual right to bear tactical nukes. Given the widespread rampant destruction that could be unleashed with nuclear warfare, it cannot legitimately be argued that these are “necessary to the security” of a free people who retain the right to slough off a
tyrannical government. What other restrictions are permissible within the context of the limiting language? Maybe barring recidivist, violent felons from possessing guns. Is that within the confines of permissible “regulation” and beyond that is “necessary” for the “security” of all? (Or, to get back to your book-based example, can we keep out of the hands of domestic commie terrorists like the Weather Underground books on Marx or bomb-building manuals and not run afoul of your proposed language?)
This is the argument, as I understand, for some “gun control” under the second amendment: that the introductory clause has to mean something. Where the gun-phobic anti-second amendment lefties like Chuck Schumer or Dianne Feinstein go off the tracks is that they argue (to the extent that they even think that the Constitution has any meaning separate and apart from mandating their particular policy positions of the moment) is that they will contend that the limiting language swallows the whole prohibition. That’s idiotic and indefensible: every word must
have meaning. You can’t legitimately read the limiting clause as rendering the rest of the text a dead letter.
Constitutions do not contain superfluous words. Each word is there with a purpose. The second amendment clearly does not offer a right that is absolute. Some limitations clearly are permitted within the context of this amendment. The only question is where the point of balance must lie.
The gun-seizers are absolutely wrong when they argue that they can pass any restrictions they choose. However, given that the framers knew how to craft a right so that it was absolute, and they elected not to do so in this case, there must be a recognition of some moderate limitations (like the ban on individual ownership of nukes).
Or, to get back to your book example, there may be defensible, reasonable limitations on the public’s right to buy books from Michael Moore or Al Franken.
The sound of crickets is deafening, isn’t it? Nicely played…
Isn’t it completely clear that allowing the common herd to own and read books is a bad idea? The jumped-up little peasants might get ideas above their station and challenge members of the manderinate like they have done to Dan Rather and Ward Churchill.
Books are bad enough, but the real problem are comuters and the internet. Ownership of computers should be strictly licensed and controlled. These machines should be alotted to only the most trustworthy and well-qualified of people. Only then will the bloggers be properly supressed and controlled….
You’re missing the point. The anti-gunners are politicians, not legal scholars.
They needed an interpretation of the 2A that lets them do what they want, so they came up with one.
They would view your attempt at getting the ‘real meaning’ of the 2A as incredibly simple minded.
Politics is about imposing your will; it’s not a quest for truth.
They have their interpretation, we have ours. Whichever side appoints the most judges wins.
Touché.
People should not have access to books period:
1. The Bible is a book.
2. SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE!!!!
3. Books should be banned.
Oddly, it isn’t getting far from that. cf. the Bushie’s selective regulation of public science.
But I love the point you’re making.
Although I think that this attempt to look at right to bear arms from a different perspective is novel and witty, it also is clearly a strawman: the parallel between “intelligentia” and “militia” does not bear close scrutiny, as a militia is a body that needs to work together as a unit, whereas an intelligentia does not.
Here are a couple of other examples of the same construction:
I try that again. Here’s one. Here’s another.
Seldom if ever do I comment on blogs but your “challenge” so clearly puts the 2nd amendment in true context of what the framers of our consitution meant. Intelligentsia never seems to operate on logic or common sense, only the view point that their “learned” view is right and any and everyone who would disagree with them is wrong or uneducated. Thanks for the post. It made my day.
It obviously means that some books must be regulated. Those books that the “well regulated Intelligentsia” need for their work should be regulated (along with the “Intelligentsia”).
I’ll take a stab.
Per Dictionary.com, Intelligentsia is defined as the intellectual elite of society. The word “elite” implies exclusion, and since the government subsidizes much of the education in this country, it is only natural that they would define who is elite. For this reason, this amendment applies only to those determined to be elite by the government.
This amendment says nothing about the manufacture, authoring or sale of books. So while you can own books, the creation of and distribution of literature is left entirely up to the government, per the commerce clause.
As far as registration goes, although it not mentioned in this piece, it is not expressly forbidden. As long as the registration is not so ornerous as to prevent the ownership of books by the elite, I see no problem with it.
Besides, this amendment was passed back when books were printed on hand presses and then lovingly bound in leather. Jefferson would be appalled by our modern machine presses that can spray books out indescriminately. It is also obvious to me that nothing in this document applies to modern electronic media, which is far too dangerous to trust to the populace.
Obviously, “well regulated” plainly refers to the direct control over the intelligensia by governmental authorities, and not the independent action of individual citizens (or citizens in groups unaffiliated with the State). So, this is not in any way a prohibition against government regulation, but a requirement to do so, despite the misguided ravings of “Originalists” who insist on maintaining the outmoded construct that the Constitution was intended to limit the powers of Government. (Oops, I might have violated #3 there, but obviously things were different on May 13th than they are today on May 14th. I’m sure your rules were intended to be “Living Rules,” not some dead collection of words on a computer screen.)
It’s been said that “books don’t kill people, people kill people” but look at the havoc and destruction caused by books like “Mein Kampf”. We don’t even need to discuss the millions and millions of people throughout history who have been slaughtered in the name of one “holy” book or another. No, books are far too dangerous for the general public to possess, and it certainly was not the intent of the Founding Fathers to place such dangerous items in the hands of those who were not trained and authorized by the State to use them.
There is a clear distinction between so-called “assault books” like “The Bell Curve” or “Slander” and “sporting books” such as “Ball Four.” In the former case, these books clearly foster BadThink, where as sporting books, while still dangerous, can in some cases promote GoodThink, as long as proper regulation and training of the Serf, er, Citizen by the State is maintained.
Seriously, congratulations on putting the whole Second Amendment “controversy” into the proper context. I love it!
This is the most succint defense of gun rights I have ever read.
Good hypo; note there are also some quite non-hypothetical provisions that fit the same mold. Try the 1842 Rhode Island Constitution (the first one Rhode Island had, post-Revolution, oddly enough):
Or check out lots of other such provisions collected in The Commonplace Second Amendment (see especially the Appendix). Here’s one that’s unconnected to free speech but that also illustrates the matter, from the 1784 New Hampshire Constitution:
No comments yet.
Damn, sorry you didn’t like my comment. It is your blog, but this is also the last time I’ll read it. Your business.
Well, first of all I believe “gun control” means tight grouping, ha ha, so I’m on your side.
But to answer your question as devil’s advocate: where you go astray is in overlooking the key question of who “the people” are. You’re thinking “the people” is “all individual persons” and not at all “the government.” That’s not always or even mostly true. Criminal cases in most states are titled “The People of [name of state] v. Joe Bad-guy.” There’s a reason for this: the assumption, in a republic, is that the government acts in stead of the people. It’s a form of “executive committee” that exerts the will of “the people” for “ordinary” matters that don’t require the time and expense of a referendum or election.
Thus, the government *is* “the people,” at least between elections. You may not like that, but that’s what being a republic means. (If we lived in a democracy like Athens instead of a democratic republic like Rome your argument would carry greater force.)
From this point of view “the people” *do* keep and bear arms, because we have an army, National Guard, etc. Run by the government, to be sure, but, vide supra, in principle that means run by you. And, also in principle, if you meet basic safety, physical and moral minima, you are free to become part of those forces and keep and bear arms your own self, as a direct representative of “the people.”
The reason I suggest so many modern folk find this interpretation of the SA persuasive is because the SA text suggests the purpose of the weapons it mentions is not personal defense, i.e. against other citizens, but national defense, i.e. against external enemies (including renegade governments and rebels).
But many modern SA supporters openly declare the purpose of their arms to be personal and *not* national defense. That casts doubt on whether the SA applies to them.
On the other hand, it’s a lot harder PR to sell the more honest and solid case, which is that you keep and bear arms in case the government runs amok. Then you start to sound like a nut case in these yes-mommy days. Sadly this argument is much closer to what the Founders really meant. They really didn’t care much about the ability of people to defend themselves against criminals. They were worried about preserving the ability of people to oppose tyranny by force if necessary.
Read in this way, your analogous amendment (on books and intelligentsia) could easily be interpreted as allowing the government to strictly regulate private ownership and use of books. The only reason it wouldn’t be is because people think it’s silly and pointless to regulate books.
Which points to the overall problem with your argument: the analogy is weak. A book may be metaphorically a gun, but it isn’t *actually* a gun. Hence there is no compelling reason why we must not intepret a sentence differently when we change the noun from “gun” to “book.”
After all, the gay marriage crowd thinks we should interpret marriage tradition and law exactly the same way, whether we intepret the word “couple” to mean “man and woman” or “man and other man.”
And they are crazy and doomed to failure.
Put not your faith in arguments that turn on consistency, especially not grammatical consistency. People are not consistent. Life is not consistent. The best way to protect the right to keep and bear weapons is to persuade the majority that it’s a good idea.
Plenty of good arguments against gun control. No need to get into making up specious analogies and made even more so by all your qualifier questions meant to tie down the person answering with semantics.
To help you out, I am just going to briefly provide you with the difference (and the similarty) between speech and ‘arms’.
Speech is not lethal and that speech which IS (ie imminent incitement to violence or “fire’ in the crowded theater) isn’t covered by the first amendment and subject to being abridged. Why would the framers have thought guns were different than speech? And, if they didn’t, why didn’t they just write the first amendment your way?
Obviously because even in the days of powdered whigs guns were lethal where as most speech is not.
And even if I were to concede your analogy is apt (it isn’t btw) then it would still be plenty easy to regulate or pass laws against keep and reading books which create imminent incitement to violence. So why in the world would you think that your right to own a gun is entitled to greater protection than your right to speech? That is, IMHO, inapt!
D.
First, I want to disabuse people of the idea that anyone uses strictly the Constitution to interpret the Constitution. Many contemporary writings, judicial precident and other manner of reasoning are used for courts to tell us what their read on the documents that started this country are.
I can convince myself of the accuracy of gun control laws because of the allegorical parallels that can be shown in this example.
With this version of the BoR, Let’s say there exists a book with pictures of adults having sex with five year olds. Let’s also say there exists a book detailing the exact methods through which a sitting President should be assassinated. Let us also imagine a tome that portrays non-consensual, violent sex, being acted out by a consenting group of people.
In today’s society, the first two of these books are illegal, for two different reasons. The third is, if not illegal, controlled. Why are these laws like this? Because the first book appeals to the prurient interests, as well as promoting the execution of a crime. The second book is a crime in and of itself, it is a crime to threaten the life of a President.
The third book has been ruled by our moral code and judicial system to be one which should be regulated, limiting it’s use by only those old enough to not have their formative years affected by exposing them to this material, possibly making them more likely to commit the crime depicted.
Again, this example, with its two sub-examples, have an comparison to gun control.
Guns which have been determined to only have existence to aid in the rapid execution of multiple people, in this case, fully automatic weapons and many “assault rifles”, are heavily regulated. Why? For the same reason child porn is. The negatives of the sales of those weapons is easily counteracted by any comparative advantage they would have over slower firing weapons in legal usage (i.e. self-defence, hunting or target shooting)
In the case of the latter, the regular porn, it is analagous to some semi-automatic and single-fire weapons. They are still likely, in the wrong hands, to become instruments of crime. They likelihood is such that regulation to slow their matriculation into the hands of those most likely to be negatively affected by using them has been deemed by most of society and by the courts, as acceptable.
Put very simply, this constitutional amendment would not be phrased like this, because books do not guarantee security in the same way guns do, so this is a logically bereft argument. Books, in their proper usage and in the vast majority of improper usage, are not fatal.
Guns, in their proper usage, have a disturbing likelihood of injury and fatality. Despite the fact that it may be a small percentage, government SHOULD be regulating things that have ANY chance of fatality during proper usage. During improper usage, the percentages go up exponentially, and that is the root cause that guns are regulated and books aren’t.
I um, suck at spelling, whatever. The point is stil there.
Ian,
Far from being able to use these words to convince you that “so called” reasonable regulations are contained in this amendment, I would propose that the “living document” adherents would have elevated the right to own books to an unassailable level.
Just as “Congress shall make no law” in #1 has been interpreted as separation of church and state, “the right of the people” in this exercise would be interpreted in such a way that no person may ever be enjoined from reading. Regulations existing now that one may not read while operating a motor vehicle would be unconstitutional. Doctors would read while excising tumors, pilots while landing. After all, it’s a right that may not be infringed!
Of course, as it is the second in the order of ten, its importance cannot be questioned.
Intelligentsia, instead of the pejorative “militia” would be a de-facto priesthood in the context of the power of the elite ruling class.
The facts of the current embattled status of the 2nd amendment illustrate the malicious nature of power and those committed to keeping it.
Nice thought experiment, and thanks to my daughter for the link to you site.
I think the problem would easily be solved by requiring a two week waiting period before printed material is allowed to be published.
A brilliant application of simple logic. Unfortunately, the vast majority of the supporters of the more narrow interpretation of the 2nd ammendment have minds equally narrow which leave no room for such logic to take hold.
Brilliant ! I don’t know why no one thought of this before.
Now, I’m a rather pro-gun and pro-self defense person, but I might have something to add about “that this sentence allows the government to decide which books are safe and which are dangerous, and permits it to ban those it does not approve, and to dictate how all books under private ownership must be stored”
See, anti-gun people always take that line of thought and do the “you think people should be able to own atmoic bombs?!!” They often try to use that to shut down debate, as any attempt at a response is cut off with “you DO?!!” Obviously, though, it’s rather asinine to start with “people shouldn’t be allowed to own nuclear weapons” and extrapolate to “MA should be able to ban Glocks because they’re icky”.
The answer to this problem is that you have to decide whether or not a given weapon is the sort of “arm” envisioned by the founders. Keep in mind, though, that people at that time owned explosives, artillery, and private warships. I doubt the founders would have balked at conventional firearms, but ICBM’s are clearly in a different ballpark. It gives the anti-gun types a foot in the door, unfortunately.
Bravo! Well done.
I hope you realize that the first hoplophobe to read this will say that the obvious reason that this means a government-controlled intelligentsia is because the closest similar part of the Constitution, the First Amendment, just flatly says “Congress shall make no law”, without mentioning “regulation” or any justification at all.
You’re looking for type ‘A’ (anti-gun) folks, and I’m type ‘B’, but here goes:
The word ‘Intellegentsia’ referrs to the educationally elite, those posessed of advanced degrees in their fields. Therefore, no one posessed of less than a Masters degree should be allowed to keep a private library. Additionally implied is that philosophy majors are more qualified to posess books than, say, engineering majors, as they are more broadly educated.
To read a book is to carefully consider what is written therin, and not to skim hastily and miss the deeper, more complex points. To prevent the acquisition of unwarrented conclusions, acquisition of books should be limited to one a month, with a central storage location, let’s call it a “book of the month club”, where they can be securely kept.
Further, all persons wishing to read the books, should be registered, so as to prevent the books falling into the wrong hands. Upon presentation of a BOID card, the keeper of the archieve will register the reading of the book against the registered reader.
Of course there being no requirement, outside of government, for lengthy publications, magazines of more than 10 pages will be limited to use by authorized government employees, of the proper qualifications.
Books containing only pictures, and no words, being less dangerous, shall, nonetheless, be printed with brightly colored, and ,if possible, lurid covers, so as not to be mistaken for real books.
Flip books, being only for the purpose of transferring their information rapidly, from the hip, shall be banned completely.
Okay, here goes (though note that I’m not exactly a gun-control advocate): clearly your implication is correct as to points 1 and 2, i.e. the amendment does guarentee an individual right and d/n only apply to an intelligensia controlled by the government.
With respect to 3, however, we have to assume that the first dependent clause means something, even if it’s not clear what. For help with the interpretation of the phrase “well-regulated” I would turn to the original meaning of phrase as reflected in the ratification debates. Not having this, however, I would speculate that, for lack of a better idea, the “well-regulated” part subjects the individual right to regulations narrowly tailored to allow the protection of the intellectual liberty guarenteed by the clause. Accordingly, books containing conspiracies to commit crimes, and books that magically but overwhelmingly threaten to interfere with the rights of others to pursue learning in their own books (really, really, really dangerous books), may be legitimately regulated, subject to the principle that a well-read citizen-intelligensia is the principle we are defending. I admit, however, that this is a hard one, and that were it not for the “regulation” clause no such regulation would be possible.
As for registration, that’s easy: the amendment does not on its face prohibit registration. So long as the power to register can be found somewhere else in the Constitution — say, regulating interstate commerce in books — then, from a textualist point of view at least (which is presumably your point in this whole endevor), there’s no problem at all.
The same applies to the First Amendment, re: religion mixed with government.
I support the 2nd Amendment, but it’s the 1st that is its foundation; and the foundation of the others - particularly #’s 9 & 10.
What a well done exercise. Thanks.
The statement “A well regulated Intelligentsia, being necessary to the security of a free State” supplies a conditional for the conclusion. Since Intelligentsia are not currently necessary to the security of a free state (rather, said security is far more dependent upon large numbers of well-armed hicks), then there is no current restriction on the government against infringing upon the right to keep or read books. As such, the government may do as it pleases regarding the distribution of books, which includes all of the above listed objectives of this thought experiment.
This isn’t strictly to the topic, and probably breaks one of your rules, but somebody’s got to start the comments:
For me the issue is not what the text says, but why it’s even there. Why do so many Americans believe they have a right to bear arms? Why was that amendment included in the constitution? I can understand gun ownership as a well regulated privilege, but not any kind of right.
But then again, I’m not American.
Why a right to guns? Simply, as protection against the government that the Constitution was creating. There’s not much point of creating a limited government if you can’t defend yourself against it.
Think of censoring guns as censoring books. As Henry Steele Commager said, “The fact is that censorship always defeats its own purpose, for it creates, in the end, the kind of society that is incapable of exercising real discretion.”
And the same is true with guns. The steady rise of banning guns has led to a steady decrease in the exercise of discretion regarding guns. Children properly exposed to guns, as to books, learn discretion.
Chris,
Although this is hard to put a positive light on, the Second Amendment exists so that the citizens of the United States have a last-resort measure to maintain liberty and freedom by means of overthrowing an oppressive government. This requires little additional explanation, and it is something I desperately hope does not need to happen in this country. However, as past history shows, nearly all forms of government eventually decay…I hope that the US is able to resist this decay.
Having private ownership of firearms being a “well regulated privilige” would imply that the government has the authority to regulate, prohibit, or otherwise infringe upon the ability of citizens to acquire firearms. This would defeat the entire purpose of the Second Amendment, as an oppressively-minded government would simply regulate firearms out of existance prior to making additional restrictive steps.
In addition to the security of a “free state” (i.e. a non-oppressive government), it has the added benefit of being able to defend the borders from external aggressors.
Visualize, if you will, the US Armed Forces being widely deployed in distant regions (as they presently are). Imagine an enemy decided to attack this country, knowing the bulk of our forces were elsewhere. In that case, it’s likely that there will be substantial amounts of non-military individuals (men not eligible for military service, women, old and young people, etc.). By having access to private firearms, they would be able to resist the invading force; they may not be able to actually repel them, but at least resist them until reinforcements can arrive.
While both situations may be dismissed as fantasy, there is historical precedent for both.
The key to this, as evidenced by many of the comments and most anti-gun arguments attacking the Second Amendment, is the meaning of the phrase “well regulated.”
Those in modern times, having been blessed with Roosevelt’s legacy of all-encompassing government, assign a meaning of direct government involvement, supervison and manipulation to “well regulated.” I believe these people unconsciously subscribe to the leftist notion of the Constitution as a “Living Document”.
Quite the opposite is true. The Constitution was constructed in the late 18th century, using definitions and phrasing in common use at that time. “Well regulated”, in that context, means “orderly” and “functioning in accordance with an established procedure.” Given that the authors were so careful in their phrasing throughout the document to ensure the government it created was sufficiently constrained so as to maintain the individual citizens as sovereign authority, it is not credible to espouse that government is empowered to exercise any “regulatory”authority under the amendment’s language.
Which leads to the options available to those whose personal beliefs lie in conflict with the language:
1) Move to a place not governed by the language of the U.S. Constitution.
2) Change, through the Constitution’s own procedures, the content of the amendment to something more in line with your beliefs.
3) Pursue, through judicial activism, a change in the interpretation of the amendment’s language.
And therein lies the foundation of the current Congressional struggle over judge appointments, with the Second Amendment as fulcrum.
Even if the “militia” clause were not there the anti’s would find some language somewhere to justify the controlling of guns. Just ask Justice Breyer, who went offshore to dig up reasons why executing teens is unconstitutional.
I don’t know why so many people think “well regulated” means “controlled by the government”. I believe, as others have roundabout stated, that it means “practiced and proficient.” Secondly, who makes up a militia or an intelligentsia? In either case, as applied in these statements, anyone who wants to defend the Constitution from external or internal threat to take our liberties away from us, and can do so either with words, or if necessary one day with guns. The reason the proposition is so hard to argue against is that it is true and farthermore needed right now, so that we will never need any sort of militia. As far as the four determinations:1) Only through individual study can one become aware enough to be a true part of the intelligentsia. Then there is no barrier to slowly joining, and this is accomplished by doing the sort of thing we are doing now; diseminating the turth held within your educated wit and wisdom to the world. As for 2 through 4, please note the above rejection that regulated meant government controled.
I don’t consider myself to be part of the intelligentsia. I just got of my frist college bachelor’s degree. And I’m amazed at what some people have done with there blog.
Point 1: It seems to me that most respondents missed the point of the exercise (as I understand it). It isn’t about the “intelligentsia” vs. “militia” question, it’s about the rest of the population.
Point 2: It’s not about “regulation” of the special class, it’s about the language itself, and how it can be interpreted logically and legally. Or at least interpreted honestly.
And by (deliberately or unconsciously) avoiding those two points, most who have responded in favor of what I term “reasonable” regulation have illustrated an lack of understanding of the problem. Though “OCTracker” has cut to the heart of the problem in modern times.
When I get a chance, I’ll post more on this at my blog. Contrary to several posters here, this is no straw-man argument.
Excellent job, Ian!
Jake said: “If there was a tradition of groups of learned individuals marching off and fighting debate wars in order to protect their homestate, then this hypothetical amendment might appear to approach relevency.”
There is. They’re called politicians. Seems pretty relevant to me when you look at it that way.
Funny– I don’t see any credit given to J. Neil Schulman for originating this concept.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/ 2amd_grammar.htm
He interviewed grammatical expert Roy Copperud:
[Schulman:] “As a ’scientific control’ on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,
“A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’
“My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,
“(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment’s sentence?; and
“(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict ‘the right of the people to keep and read Books’ only to ‘a well-educated electorate’ — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?”
Several responders said that speech or books are not lethal, that this is not a good comparison. Apparently, they aren’t keeping up with current events. Newsweek published a story last week that guards at Guantanamo Bay flushed a Koran down the toilet. Ensuing riots in Afghanistan killed at least 16 people. Muslims all over the world are demanding that the guards be turned over to them or are declaring holy war on the U.S. Now Newsweek is backing away from the story. This challenge does have relevance.
Oh?
Let’s see…..(in the sense it was used vis a vis guns),….
Mien Kampf never killed anyone?
The Communist Manifesto never killed anyone?
The Chronicles of the Learned Elders of Zion never killed anyone?
Mao’s Little Red Book?
The Koran?
The Bible?
Books have killed far more people than guns, because they have been around for centuries, if not millennia, more than guns.
Books are also used to impel people to use guns in evil ways, and are therefore an even more basically evil thing than guns are. (Ref Mien Kampf, Comm. Manifest, etc….)
Just like guns, books are used by people for good and evil, and can be turned to whatever purpose the wielder wishes.
The intent and content of the creator of the book or gun, means nothing.
If anything, there is more argument for book control than there is for gun control.
Please note: I do not advocate either be controlled, they should both be freely available to anyone, with no pre-emptive requirements.
Tom
Could it be that the term “well regulated” in the 2nd Amendment meant “well supplied”? That is “A well supplied militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
See Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary (copyright 1980) under ‘regulation’ #3. a. : “the process of redistributing material (as in an embryo) to restore a damaged or lost part independent of new tissue growth.”
See also under “regular”, synonyms …shared meaning element: “being of the sort or kind that is accepted as usual, ordinary…”
If this latter meaning was the original intent, then the 2nd Amendment should be understood as “A militia, as it is usually or customarily constituted, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and to bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In other words, the people, the citizenry, must have the right to keep and to bear arms so that what is normally considered to be a militia may exist to defend a free State.
Paul:
I don’t find it disturbing at all that proper usage such as self-defense, apprehension of criminals, or neutralizing enemy combatants has a likelihood of injury or fatality. If you aren’t referring to such usage, then what — sport shooting? hunting? In that case doesn’t the term “proper usage” connote the unlikelihood of injury or fatality? If you don’t think so, please provide a single instance where someone has been unintentionally injured or killed by a person who handled the gun properly.
Thank you, Mr. Hamet, for your update. You are an honest man.
With respect,
David Codrea
Dear Mr. Hamet,
Diogenes searched all over the ancient world for an honest man with a lantern and failed to find one. Apparently David Codea’s lantern has higher candlepower!
Two thousand words on a topic of my choice, huh? That’s an irresistible offer. You can find my email address linked on my website at http://www.jneilschulman.com. If you email me, I’ll give you the link to my Secret Stash hidden webpage and you can download my latest novel, Escape from Heaven in Adobe PDF — and I sure could use the review!
By the way, if you know anyone in China who actually wants to translate and publish The Rainbow Cadenza, I agree — it would be a big hit there.
Thanks,
J. Neil Schulman
–
“Sometimes even a Savior needs a savior.”
See Escape from Heaven at http://www.escapefromheaven.com
Preview the graphic novel at http://www.dujpepperman.com/jesulu/escapemovie/graphic/
Duj Pepperman Enterprises: http://www.dujpepperman.com
Pulpless.Com Book Catalog: http://www.pulpless.com
The World According to J. Neil Schulman: http://www.jneilschulman.com
Julius Schulman: Life With a Violin: http://www.juliusschulman.com
Million Dollar Violin: http://www.milliondollarviolin.com
I MET GOD: http://www.IMETGOD.com
In the Eighteenth Century, ‘well regulated’ had the meaning of ‘working well’ or ‘well maintained’, or ‘well built’…think of the Regulator Clock pattern. It did not mean ‘well controlled’.
In this context the meaning of the 2A would be that ‘as a well equipped militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the rights of citizens to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed.’ As the militia is made of citizens, this would require that the citizens must have access to military grade weapons…as they did back then. I believe that nearly all, if not all, states have militia statutes on the books.
I can see gun-grabbers having a stroke over that one, but I believe that this was the intent of the founders. A citizenry armed with modern weapons is essential to the security of a free state.
In the context of this exercise, ‘An Intelligentsia who can read well, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.
Sorta looks like books are necessary for the people to have so they can become Intelligentsia, don’t it. Just like guns are nessessary for the people so they can become Militia if necessary.
“A well regulated Intelligentsia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.”
Since I read books, I wholehartedly believe that your statement is pertaining to BOTH the group and individual. The “Intelligentsia” you refer to can be construed as anyone that can read as well as gain some kind of insight from what they have read. The “People” can also be construed as those individuals that comprise the body of the Intelligentsia.
If you are trying to start an arguement on gun control, then here is MY two cents worth …
The Second Amendment, to me at least, does indicate that a well regulated Militia are to be the only ones to have guns. If you aren’t part of the militia, then there should be limitations as to the type of weapon you should be able to own. I am sure that there is somebody out ther that will argue this next point … I know of NO ONE that hunts with a hand gun. The hand gun is only used, in my experience, for killing humans. So, yes, the population should have access to rifles and shotguns, but under no circumstance should a hand gun be sold to a non-militia member of the US population.
Conversely, Militias, to my understanding, can be defined as the male population between the ages of 18 and 65 are part of the militia of the state or region they reside in. Don’t go and get off in a huff ladies, you have just as much right to belong to a militia as the men do.
The militias that have sprouted up in some of the more sparsely populated states are nothing more than gun clubs that enjoy sporting arms and pretending to be “soldiers.” Without the “well regulated” aspects of the government being set upon them like a oxen yolk, these militias need to be disbanded or taken into the fold of the National Guard and governed by their rules and regulations.
Short sentences != Stupidity; …just a thought.
The problem is always context - frame of reference. Let’s begin:
The Reason:
The Bill of Rights was created because rights needed to be guaranteed. Guaranteed! Not implied. Britain implied, we fought them to the death. Kerry implied to both sides….Americans have always and will always need guarantees. I’m getting off track. I can understand the argument against gun control…or any form of control. Why? Because
control = guarantee–; (guarantee minus minus)
The Voice of Reason:
I am guaranteed by paying taxes that police officers with guns, mace, tazers, and training will come to my aid should I need it. For those living in the sticks, maybe that guarantee doesn’t exist. I am guaranteed that I am not going to die from the bite of a rabid dog…should it happen disregard this post. However, for some out in the sticks who do not know how to get to a hospital but do know how to fire a gun….that guarantee doesn’t exist. I am guaranteed that people are paid to bring justice to those that commit violent crimes. They are also fairly sophisticated at it…just watch the Discovery channel.
The Fine Line: (with excessive rambling)
I have to agree with retrofuturistic (May 15, 12:08 am): The framers set this one up to both exist and be qualifying, but not explanatory. So the key is what I started with - Frame of Reference. I must confess that in today’s society I ‘believe’ that more control != bad thing; Unfortunately we don’t enable systems of control until there is tradegy. Airport security is a joke until 9/11. Metal detectors in schools are scarce until columbine. It’s why we still pollute so much. That incredibly ficticious film “The Day After Tomorrow” hasn’t happened yet. But I do like the title. Our society acts the day after tomorrow. Hindsight is always 20/20…everyone’s a monday morning quarterback yadayada. Gun control exists to prevent gun related violence….it’s not a bad thing. However, we also need to be guaranteed the right to defend ourselves. And to some (out in the sticks) owning a gun is the only way we feel guaranteed. It’s why we debate.
The End. != is C++ for Not Equal To;
This post has an afterlife: It’s folly to make an argument against a system of control and then create rules for debate. Therefore, I’m breaking bullet number 4 now. The book of genesis was written by people living in babylonian captivity. They needed above all else a sense of identity in order to survive. I do not believe in Adam or Eve. I do believe all humanity can identify with them however. Form your own conclusions, but at least acknowledge there may or may not be a context with which to embrace something. Some things have no interpretation…they are truth and they exist regardless of our reasoning. The second ammendment needs to both exist and be taken in context.
Darrell:
Your ignorance is showing. 1) A LOT of people hunt with handguns, and 2) if “The hand gun is only used, in my experience, for killing humans”, then as the saying goes, all of mine are defective.
As to the question “The Second Amendment, to me at least, does indicate that a well regulated Militia are to be the only ones to have guns,” please read my rather long follow-on post on this topic, because you’re quite wrong.
Tom Pestak:
Where to I begin? “I am guaranteed by paying taxes that police officers with guns, mace, tazers, and training will come to my aid should I need it.”
No, you are not. Read both parts.
“Airport security is a joke until 9/11.”
It’s still a joke.
“And to some (out in the sticks) owning a gun is the only way we feel guaranteed.”
It’s not just “out in the sticks.”
“The second ammendment(sic) needs to both exist and be taken in context.”
No, it needs to be read as a clause in a legal contract. (See the link in the previous comment.)
I’ll take up the challenge. Given that knowledge can be much more dangerous than guns, it is not difficult. The proposal is really a more restrictive version of the 1st Ammendment and there are well-established limits on free speech.
For the second bullet point (that this sentence means that the only legitimate intelligentsia is the one controlled by government):
The answer to that is weapons research. Atomic bombs, biological warfare - this information is actively being sought by people who would harm us. I cannt see any reason to publish “Nukes for Dummies”.
The same is true for the third bullet point (That this sentence allows the government to decide which books are safe and which are dangerous, and permits it to ban those it does not approve, and to dictate how all books under private ownership must be stored):
Some knowledge is dangerous enough that it has to be kept under lock and key. My “Nukes for Dummies” example is one. The security plans for the White House is another. There is no question that this information would be used against us if it was freely available.
The Second Amendment is based on the reality that there cannot be an armed rebellion against on oppressive government unless there is an armed populous. Guns are a physical commodity, though. Allowing a population to arm itself does not arm other countries at the same time. Knowledge is easier to transport across borders so it has to be more tightly controlled.
Then there is the question, is “A well regulated Intelligentsia, being necessary to the security of a free State” true? After all, the Intelligentsia invented Communism and Facism. A reactionary position would be that Intellectuals are a threat to the freedom of individuals but I am not sure how to regulate them.
Here is the fundamental flaw in every “there’s no taking away my guns- ever” interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. EVERY right granted has some limit attached to it. We all know the classical examples, you have free speech, but you can’t yell fire in a crowded theater (a limit). You have freedom of association, but you can’t create a group that advocates the violent overthrow of the government (a limit). There is, in fact, no right in existence where there isn’t some limit on it set formally into law. (Even the right to live, which must be considered the most fundamental right of all, can be limited in capital punishment, right to die, and abortion cases- depending on how you define life).
Yet somehow, people got into their heads that this lone right is completely different from the rest and is somehow absolute. So does this means violent criminals should be able to purchase weapons? Or the severely mentally disturbed? Or a ticked of 13 year old gang banger in South Central? Well if you don’t think they should have the right to this magical, absolute, never to be limited in any way 2nd amendment, then guess what - you just placed a limit on it.
So the question isn’t if the 2nd amendment should have limits, because all rights can only extend so far until they infringe on other rights. It is not absolute. Nothing is. Get over it. Instead, we should focus on what limits should be in place, and which limits violate the meaning of the 2nd amendment. This is a complex issue, and despite the empty headed slogans on both sides, requires a bit of give and take. But most gun-nuts don’t want this genuine debate, because justifying selling guns and ammo that are designed to penetrate “bullet proof” vests is a tough job. And highlighting “print resistant finishes” on handguns seems to betray the underlying principles of the constitution. So, better to just say “the constitution says you can’t control my guns, so back off” rather than actually have to look for a sensible balance in this complicated issue. Sound bites are great. Thinking is hard.
And as for your laughable “test” that started this blog listing, talk about your apples-to-NRA comparisons. First you use “Intelligentsia”, a nice pejorative term evidently designed to belittle anyone who doesn’t think like you do. Then there is the establishment of the intelligentsia being necessary for a free state, which is not a comparable idea to a “well regulated militia” being linked to a free state- a couple of centuries ago. And then the right to books being in any way related to the right to bear arms- yeah, that makes about as much sense as many of the arguments on this page. Completely intellectually lazy, but about what I would expect.
Since I know you guys can’t read and digest all of that, I’ll break it down into a nice little Fox New like sound bite for you. No right is absolute. So either make rational arguments about where the limits should be (and there are many anti-gun control advocates out there who actually do bother to make persuasive arguments on the specifics and do research to back up their points), or keep marginalizing yourselves with the “out of my cold dead hands” crap.
Thought I’d add one point. To those who talk about “tactical nuclear missiles, tanks, ICBMs,” and whatnot, the simple answer is that the Second Amendment was *not* intended to apply to those things. It’s keep *and bear* arms; those arms not capable of or intended to be *borne* by an individual are not within its purview. The Founders never envisioned individuals keeping cannons in their homes; a similar weapon today would be a .50 caliber machine gun squad weapon. On the other hand, a shoulder mounted antitank weapon might conceivably qualify.
But to be honest with you, I do not think allowing individuals to own shoulder mounted anti-tank weapons would be all that big a deal; if they do anything illegal with them, that’s another matter.
Don’t get too hung up on the word militia….and don’t base your arguments on it.
To be a free society we need the right and ability to form militia. To do so we need arms. We have the right to form militias at need.
Most of everyone’s arguments would go out the window if the gov’mint decided to make militia’s illegal.
To Mike K-
I like how you are deriving a meaning out of the 2nd amendment, based on your own interpretation of a word. Dictionary.com describes bear as:
To carry from one place to another; transport.
So, if it can be moved or transported, it can be bourne.
By this definition, your argument of the “Founders never envisioned individuals keeping cannons in their homes” is something you are just inventing. Just as if I said the founders never envisioned sub-machineguns, or drive by shootings, or amor piercing bullets. That argument never seems to take hold with the pro-gun crowd, so why should your arbitrary definition of what the founders intended?
To Trainer-
When was the last time an “armed militia” did anything at all to protect my freedom? Can you give even one example? A free press that can expose government overreaching, that gives me freedom. The right to protest and create a groundswell of changes through civil disobedience, that gives me freedom. The military that keeps the fight with our enemies away from my doorstep, that gives me freedom. Many people have died (or at least put their own lives at risk) in these pursuits just in an attempt to keep you and I free.
But a bunch of wingnuts in Idaho who buy up a thousand guns so they are “ready” when the race wars breakout? Please. (Doesn’t mean I think they should be illegal, of course. Just that saying they are the bedrock of our freedom shows a complete ignorance of what truly makes us a free people.)
Alex:
Let me take you up on a couple of points. Regarding private ownership of cannon during the Revolutionary War period - individuals did indeed own them, mostly on privately owned sailing vessles used as “privateers” but also in a couple of militia artillery batteries. Not many, given the expense, but they did exist.
Now, concerning your comment “When was the last time an ‘armed militia’ did anything at all to protect my freedom? Can you give even one example?” I can give an example of how an “armed militia” has protected it’s own freedom. I can give you four, in fact, quite easily.
First, during the Los Angeles “Rodney King” riots, the Korean community armed itself in defense of their businesses and prevented arson and looting. Second, during the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew, residents of the devistated areas armed themselves and again defended against looting until law enforcement could be reestablished. Third, Secretary of State Rice recently recounted to Larry King how her father and others armed themselves in defense against “night riders” during the civil rights struggle. And finally, I recommend that you read up on The Battle of Athens, TN. These may not have affected you, personally, but I assure you, these incidents affected the participants greatly. And before you complain that these acts were not carried out by “militia,” I feel in necessary to inform you that according to the U.S. Code, Title 10, subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13 § 311 defines the militia as:
Those involved in these actions fall under subsection 2 - the “unorganized militia.”
Kevin:
As for the cannon thing- I didn’t argue whether people owned them or not. All I said was it seems ridiculous to say “The founders never envisioned people keeping cannons in their homes” and then disco