View Single Post
Old 09-09-2019, 12:08 AM
kirkrapine is offline
Join Date: Sep 2019
Posts: 381

Thoughts on the Second Amendment

"A well-regulated [which in 18th-Century parlance meant, "well armed"] militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."

But, it isn't.

The militia, in the 18th-Century sense (a non-professional volunteer force, as distinct from a National Guard of part-time professional soldiers) has played no part in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. And yet we remain safe and free.

The FFs were afraid of a large-scale standing professional army, because they still nurtured painful memories of the Redcoats, and feared a professional army being used as a tool of domestic rule, as it often was in contemporary Europe. They were committed to a militia-based defense system, requiring that everybody be allowed to have a musket by the fireplace to use for national defense in the event the limited small-scale standing army proved inadequate to fend off invaders. That was the point of the 2d Am.

But, since then, the U.S. Army has only been used for domestic rule in only a few instances, none of them regrettable -- Reconstruction, and the Civil Rights movement, and that's all. And in no instance has any militia been used to any good purpose.

At any rate, the FFs never conceived of the militia being used as anything but an arm of the state -- certainly, not as a countervailing force against the state. After all, the Constitution authorizes the president to command the militia. The "insurrectionary theory" of the 2d Am. is total bullshit.

And none of this has anything to do with hunting or home defense. The authors of the 2d Am. would have dismissed such concerns as irrelevant.

Last edited by kirkrapine; 09-09-2019 at 12:11 AM.