A different view of the Second Amendment.

[Mudinyeri]

Recently, I was reading the Heritage Foundation's Guide to the Constitution.  (A little light reading before bed.)    As I read through the section on the Second Amendment, I saw the old, familiar verbiage in a new light - in a way that I've never seen elsewhere.

For reference, you can find the article here: http://www.heritage.org/constitution#!/amendments/2/essays/142/to-keep-and-bear-arms  (Click on the text of the Second Amendment to read the essay.  The Essays button doesn't work.)

Now, on to the alternative view:

In general, the Founding Fathers were suspicious of standing armies, especially the anti-Federalists.  They believed, based on their knowledge of English history, that central governments were prone to using armies to oppress people.  However, they also recognized that a centrally commanded army was necessary to the defense of the republic.  (A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State ...)  In other words, an army - or well regulated militia - was a necessary evil, if you will.  Such a militia/army had the distinct potential for misuse as well as the potential for legitimate use in the defense of the State (country).

Since this evil (the well regulated militia) was necessary, so too was a counter-balance.  The people, armed and able to defend themselves against tyranny and oppression, were the counter-balance.  As such, it was necessary for individuals to retain their natural right to self-defense.  Moreover, it appears to have been the intention of the Framers to allow individuals to be armed in such a way as to be able to defend themselves against any current standing army - at the federal level or otherwise.  Obviously, this has far-reaching implications.  This would mean that civilians would have the right to own fully automatic firearms (without limitation), grenade launchers, missile systems, jet fighters and large-scale ordinance and associated systems.  Essentially, whatever weaponry was available to the standing army would also be available to the citizenry.

As such, the Second Amendment is not about arming individuals to participate in militias but rather arming them to counter-balance the potential for a well regulated (centrally commanded) militia to be used by its masters to impose the wishes of an oppressive and/or tyrannical government.  The Second Amendment mirrors the three branches of government - providing a system of checks and balances if you will.  On one side of the scale is a standing army (well regulated militia) necessary to the defense of the nation.  On the other side of the scale is a similarly-armed citizenry necessary to the defense of freedom.  As long as the scale is balanced, we have protection from enemies both foreign and domestic.

Thoughts?

[bkoenig]

I can't argue with that.

[Mudinyeri]

I can't argue with that.

I guess I'm nowhere near as good as Thomas at starting an argument.

[pianoman]

That's exactly how I read the intentions of the original documents.  It's not just about personal self defense like so many people assume today.  I really wonder how government officials would act and work if they really believed they could and would be held accountable by armed citizens in the defense of freedom as described in the original documents.

[JTH]

I guess I'm nowhere near as good as Thomas at starting an argument.

If you'd said something like "The 2nd Amendment enshrines the right of all Americans to compete in shooting sports!" then you'd have an argument. 

Everyone knows that competition stuff is useless, and Serious Shooters (tm) wouldn't ever do it.  Guns are to protect us from the tyranny of our government!  And to shoot bad guys!

Oh.  And hunt, too. 

I do note that this idea that the "militia" was NOT the sum of the able-bodied populace, and was instead an official government-run-and-commanded body is a new one to me---and one, I'll note, that runs counter to my knowledge of the original writings that discussed the formation of the second amendment.

In particular, the point that the militia was "necessary for the security of a free state"--seems to be the opposite idea of that from the article you linked.  My understanding was that the militia itself (the able-bodied populace) was the check on the government, as opposed to the people being a check on the militia (as a government entity itself).

I'll note that the terminology difference doesn't really make for a substantive difference in actuality, though.  In either case---the free people's right to arms is the check on the government's powers.

[Mudinyeri]

I do note that this idea that the "militia" was NOT the sum of the able-bodied populace, and was instead an official government-run-and-commanded body is a new one to me---and one, I'll note, that runs counter to my knowledge of the original writings that discussed the formation of the second amendment.

In particular, the point that the militia was "necessary for the security of a free state"--seems to be the opposite idea of that from the article you linked.  My understanding was that the militia itself (the able-bodied populace) was the check on the government, as opposed to the people being a check on the militia (as a government entity itself).

Although I can agree that the idea of the "militia" being a centrally-commanded army is a new concept to me as well, my interpretation of the linked essay is (obviously) different from yours.  I think the confusion comes with the different uses of the terms (and related forms) "army" and "militia" in the essay.  In some cases the two terms appear to be used synonymously and in other cases used to differentiate one concept from another.

This paragraph seems to juxtapose army and militia ...

This led to a dilemma at the Constitutional Convention. Experience during the Revolutionary War had demonstrated convincingly that militia forces could not be relied on for national defense, and the occasions requiring a defense of the nation might not always be foreseen very far in advance. The Convention therefore decided to give the federal government almost unfettered authority to establish armies, including peacetime standing armies. But that decision created a threat to liberty, especially in light of the fact that the proposed Constitution also forbade the states from keeping troops without the consent of Congress.

... whereas this paragraph, which follows immediately after, refers to a militia established and maintained by Congress (centrally commanded) ...

One solution might have been to require Congress to establish and maintain a well-disciplined militia, which would have to comprise a very large percentage of the population (in order to prevent it from becoming in effect a professional army under another name, like our modern National Guard organizations). This would have deprived the federal government of the excuse that it needed peacetime standing armies, and it would have established a meaningful counterweight to any rogue army that the federal government might create. That possibility was never taken seriously, and for good reason. How could a constitution define a well-regulated or well-disciplined militia with the requisite precision and detail and with the necessary regard for changes in future circumstances and national needs? It would almost certainly have been impossible.

Here again, the essay refers to at least two different types of militias ...

Thus, the choice was between a variety of militias controlled by the individual states, which would likely be too weak and divided to protect the nation, and a unified militia under federal control, which almost by definition could not be expected to prevent federal tyranny.

Furthermore ...

Anti-Federalists argued that federal control over the militia would take away from the states their principal means of defense against federal oppression and usurpation, and that European history demonstrated how serious the danger was.

It took me several readings of the entire essay to come to the conclusion that I outlined in my original post - that citizens are not to remain armed as a part of a well regulated militia but as a defense against a well regulated militia's potential to be used as a tool of oppression.

[CitizenClark]

.

[AWick]

I do note that this idea that the "militia" was NOT the sum of the able-bodied populace, and was instead an official government-run-and-commanded body is a new one to me---and one, I'll note, that runs counter to my knowledge of the original writings that discussed the formation of the second amendment.

I think one of the things that is overlooked often is that in Article 1 Section 8 Congress is granted this enumerated power:

"To 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;"

So it stands to ask the question why they would grant ability to arm the "Militia" in Article 1 and then try to again grant the power to arm the "Militia" in the 2A... This is where the granting of a small list of enumerated rights and reserved rights yet to be determined to the people and restrictions of the Federal government, the sole reasoning behind the "Bill of Rights", comes into play. I think that you're correct in your interpretation of different uses of Militia in this context of the article.

[Greybeard]

Having no great knowledge of anything in particular, I would suggest that perhaps the Army and Air National Guard, which are State units, when not federalized, would serve against the Central government. They certainly have the equipment, manpower and training to operate the equipment. And, they are "citizen Soldiers, Airmen, etc..." from the local area. Just my $0.02 (allowing for inflation)