If you don't already know, the Second Amendment to the Constitution says:
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.
I was listening to a discussion on NPR this morning (hat tip to HODAR) on a book by Saul Cornell "A Well-Regulated Militia". It was one of the few times I've listened to NPR for a solid hour and not once did I yell at the radio (nor did I have the barely-controllable urge to shoot it...)
You can find the book here:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0195147863/002-3409904-8237607?v=glance&n=283155For starters, from the things he said in the interview, Mr. Cornell appears to be pretty well enamored with the "well-regulated" part. In the discussion over regulation, he made reference to the government having the power to make sure your battle rifle is clean and something to the effect of "locked up in the basement."
That's where his opinions came through. Since when did "regulation" mean keeping the rifle locked up? Did the founding fathers - Federalist or anti - have gun safes? Trigger locks? Somehow I doubt the battle rifle of the American citizen of 1791 was "locked up" in any way, shape or form. I doubt they intended to keep the rifles locked up. Rather, it was probably hanging on the mantle over the fireplace, ready to go, with the ball & powder within easy reach.
Well-regulated, indeed.
My basic opinion is that less regulation - regardless of the issue - is always best. I simply don't believe that more regulation makes the public all that much safer (and if you want to argue that it does, do some research into our well-regulated driving habits: licensure requirements, car inspections, legal drinking age, speed limits, and then we'll talk about annual highway deaths involving speeding and drunk-driving, and then I'll inform you of where you can stick your regulations...) In my view, in the context of regulations of any kind, we reach the point of diminishing returns real quick. All regulations seem to do is make life difficult for the rest of us.
At any rate, based on the discussion of his book, I think I agree with his basic tenet - that the Second Amendment has more to do with a
civic right to keep-and-bear arms, so that the citizen can participate in the militia to defend his state and country. It has less to do with the modern debate over individual-versus-collective rights.
When it comes right down to it, gun owners already deal with quite a bit of regulation. We have to fill out our little form and have a background check every time we buy a gun. We have to submit photos and fingerprints and have
another background check in order to have a carry permit.
In Mr. Cornell's view, the idea that "regulation" means that I - as a citizen - be required to buy (yes, at my own expense) a modern battle rifle, get my own ammo, and show up for muster once in a while to make sure the rifle is clean and functional and that I can shoot it and participate in the local or state militia is a
superb idea. That's democratic participation by the citizenry in its purest form. I do, indeed, believe that's my civic duty - and that's what the Second Amendment really means.
What the author skipped, however, is the basic idea that the Bill of Rights outlines what the government
cannot do, and what the rights of the People are (as opposed to the main body of the Constitution, which outlines what the Government
can do...) As I said, he warms right up to the concept of "regulation," but he skimmed over the idea that, in order for the People to spring to action and participate in the Militia as the Minutemen once did, the rifle has to be in the hands of the People
as individuals. That doesn't entail that the rifles be stored in a warehouse somewhere - it means I keep my rifle with
me. I hope Diane Feinstein has a migrane right about now.
The author only had an hour in which to discuss the book, so he kept his discussion limited to a historical analysis of the Second Amendment. I wish he'd had time to see how it still applies today - in much the same context that it did in the late 1700s.
What threatens our states and our nation today? Crime? Terrorism? Ask yourself:
How well does the State protect us from those threats?
Might the time for Minutemen have come around once again?
Look at just a couple of examples: Passengers on Flight 93 revolted and fought back against terrorists on 9/11 while the government tried to figure out what was going on. Ordinary people got in their personal boats and rescued people from the water after Hurricane Katrina hit, while the government (yet again) tried to figure out what was going on.
You'll note that 1. both are shining examples of civic duty and participation by the People and 2. neither example has jack to do with guns.
I'm gonna put the guns back into play now, of course.
The 2 examples I cited are just to show that the idea of the Militia isn't dead. On the contrary - it's very much alive - it's just not labeled that way. We still face threats in modern-day America that require the civic duty of participation by regular Joes - modern Minutemen, in modern Militias. And we still need to keep and bear arms for that same reason.
Terrorism and crime happen at the drop of a hat. We don't (and shouldn't) live in a police state. The People need to means to protect themselves, their State, and their Country, from the things that would threaten them - and they need that protection at a moment's notice. If more of us acted like well-regulated Minutemen - with battle rifles and the training to use them with our fellow Citizens - would we cower in fear from criminals and terrorists? If we still participated in Militias, would 9/11 have happened at all? Or would we have read headlines on 9/12 about a bunch of terrorists beaten half to death on a handfull of flights when they tried to take over the planes with pocketknives? Where was our civic duty? Where were our Minutemen?
Might they have been too "well-regulated" - mentally as well as in terms of arms?
The author seemed pretty critical of handguns - suggesting they didn't qualify as "arms" in the historic context of the Second Amendment. I disagree. Our forefathers fought battles which were far different than the battles we fight today. They formed up and shot at each other in fields. Our threats don't wear bright red coats and line up in front of us. Rather, they dress like us. They hide amongst us. They don't broadcast their presence until they strike. The founding fathers fought battles conducive to long rifles. We fight battles more suited to handguns. A handgun on the hip is better suited to neutralizing a bomb-wearing terrorist on a bus. Or a carjacker. An AR-15 (or HODAR's formidable WASR-10) with a collapsible stock is very well suited to battling home invaders. Handguns and short, maneuverable semi-automatic rifles are most certainly the "arms" of the battles we fight today. The technology has changed, but handguns are most certainly "arms" with which we fight our battles today.
Oh, and he was dismissive of the whole States-having-the-power-to-rebell-against-an-oppressive-Federal-government argument. Oh, really? I wonder how he feels about Florida in the 2000 election ... or Ohio in 2004. How many of those "stolen" elections might it take for that idea to come back around?
Check that - the blue-staters from whom the elections were "stolen" have largely gotten rid of their guns. They're not rebelling any time soon. They didn't even move to Canada after 2004 like so many of 'em claimed they would. Limp-wristed, panty-waisted nancies. How's that non-violent protesting and civil-disobedience working out for 'ya? Oh, never mind.
But I digress...
Generally, I think I agree with Mr. Cornell in that the Second Amendment entails as much
duty as it conveys a
right. Unfortunately, I think he - and most of America - are afraid of that obligation - and of that right - and would like to see the Second Amendment relegated to the dust bin of history. They want "regulation" to amount to
confiscation.
But he and they are mistaken in their feelings and in their fear. We shouldn't fear the Second Amendment. It's not irrelevant - quite the opposite, actually. It's more relevant than ever. We haven't lost the need for the right protected by the Second Amendment. What we've lost is our notion of civic duty and participation. We've taken the idea of "well-regulated", and we've run away with it. We've made "regulation" into de facto prohibition in many ways (and in many states and cities.) We've allowed the howling, reactionary mainstream media to re-define the Militia as groups of anti-government, camo-clad freaks running around in the woods, plotting the overthrow of the gub'mint. Let's re-think that, shall we?
As Mr. Cornell pointed out, to make sure the Militia is "well-regulated" means to make sure that every citizen has an arm, and that he or she knows how to use it, and participates accordingly in the well-regulated Militia in his or her State.
I don't know about you, but my rifle works. It's by my bed. My handgun is by my side on the desk. I'm going to work on my shooting skills in matches on the next two weekends. I wish my fellow citizens would do the same.
Let's rediscover our civic rights and duty and be well-armed and let's redefine our Militias...
... and then maybe we won't need to focus so much on the "well-regulated" part.
