I will gladly discuss this. I will happily debate the points brought up. Please try to be civil. Please use facts when and where possible; as that is what it takes to change my mind.
I was raised around guns. I was taught to respect what they could do if misused or used for any purpose other than what each one was designed for. That continued to be ingrained in me through Boy Scouts, the military, as a civilian police officer, and as a trained and licensed concealed pistol carrier.
The sole design purpose of a firearm is to destroy the life of whatever it is used upon. I will neither deny nor argue that fact. It has an implied intimidation factor to those who know that it is a weapon of destructive capability, but that is not what it is designed for. Its purpose is to kill. Whether it is to hunt and place food on a table, to defend oneself or other innocent persons (loved ones or strangers), or defend ones way of life from an enemy who wishes to rob that from you and your country, it is meant to be used to kill. Does it have other legitimate uses? Sure. The entire sport shooting industry shows us that is true. Collecting these works of art and mechanical ingenuity seems a popular hobby. So, yes, they have some various uses beyond their lethal purpose, but these are secondary to their design. However, that can pretty much be said of every other tool man has made, that is has secondary and tertiary uses beyond their original designed purpose; be it one that is used for cooking, building, traveling, etc.; and each has the ability to be misused or intentionally used for a nefarious purpose other than what it was designed and manufactured for that can inflict serious harm or cause the death of one to several persons.
A while back, I contacted my three federal Congressional representatives (Congressman and both Senators) in regards to my opinion on a matter that was of national interest and that they could take action on. What is not of import here; I am telling you this because, I have been inundated by email from one of the political parties asking for my signature on petitions and for monetary donations to “Help End Gun Violence.” Ending the criminal use and tragic misuse of firearms is something I can wholeheartedly get behind. While I don’t expect a reduction to zero of such things, I can hope for significant downward trends. That isn’t being unrealistic. But then you read the petition, or the plea for money and it isn’t about reducing violence, but about draconian methods of restricting legal access to firearms and bans on weapons for their cosmetic appearance.
Then to read the opinion piece of a retired United States Supreme Court Justice, John Paul Stevens, advocating for the repeal of the 2nd Amendment, I wonder what makes a man who pledged his life to upholding and defending the Constitution, to turn his back upon it. Think about it for a moment. In the entirety of our nation’s existence under the Constitution, we had the debate and ratification of however many proposed to the 10 we know as the Bill of Rights, which includes that darn 2nd Amendment. Since then there have been 23 more proposed amendments, with only 17 of those being adopted. Of those 17, only ONE restricted the rights of the people (prohibition of alcohol) and that was later repealed by another amendment. Of the fifteen left, six of those encompasses the expansion of or more specifically defining the rights the people, and the other nine dealt with government operations. Thirty three proposed and twenty seven adopted amendments in well over 225 years. Damned if those founding leaders of our nation weren’t pretty damn good at laying an amazing groundwork for a nation. And with only one where the Rights of the individual were revoked. Which led to a black market, and a rise in crimes, both violent and non-violent, and was deemed such a disaster it was repealed. So, repealing the 2nd Amendment, is to my layman’s opinion a horrible step backwards as it removes an individual right, with no promise of security or comparable expansion of liberty in another direction. I paraphrase Benjamin Franklin in saying that those who willingly give up a right for a temporary safety end up with neither liberty nor safety.
The idea of the free citizens of a nation being armed has been debated since ancient times. Socrates and Aristotle both pondered on it at length. Some of those arguments were for and some against. But this very idea, of what a full and free citizen had, not by decree or privilege but by right is pretty much as old as civilization itself. These discussions included debate upon a warrior/protector class that would be armed while the rest of the citizens would not be. The argument being that since the warrior/protector did not farm or craft goods they would be reliant upon the rulers for their welfare. So being, they could be swayed to oppress the people they protect and extort goods and services for the protection that they had sworn to provide.
Does this sound familiar? The rich, the tyrannical, the oppressive, using the professional caste of warriors/protectors to protect their interests while keeping those who do not have wealth and property and power in a subservient and down-trodden state. Again and again, throughout history we see examples of a disarmed group, even if that disarming had been initially for benevolent security and care taking purposes, subjected to various means of control that deprive them of rights and liberties, privileges and the ability for advancement within the society.
The militia is by definition the free citizens of a political entity keeping arms for the purpose of defense of the nation and community, first and secondly for defense of self, family and under certain circumstances and situations, property. This was an important issue for the people of England when they made the king sign the Magna Carta and, it was an important enough issue that a significant portion of the Constitutional debates, and the subsequent first 10 amendments of that Constitution contained an amendment making the ownership of arms so the people could be raised as militia should the need arise. Not just if the new government became repressive or tyrannical, but for defense of the country from foreign invasion, domestic unrest, and the like, as well as the community being able to raise muster the militia to deal with lawless behavior that affected the whole. A standing army (a profession of armed warriors) was considered a necessary evil on the frontiers and was pretty much anathema within the states proper. And policing in the modern sense of that profession was still some time off in the future. So these civic duties were a responsibility that came with the rights and privileges of of being a full and free citizen.
An armed free citizenry is the bane of many nefarious things, to include the criminal who is attempting to intimidate those whom they perceive to have power over, to the despot who tries to reign the citizens with an iron fist and no rule of law beyond their own whim.
You may try to say that modern citizens would be slaughtered should they have to face the modern military, and that the necessity of self defense against criminals is moot because we have professional police forces. Technically, you are correct on the first and partially correct on the second assumption.
However, our military is sworn to protect and defend the Constitution. They have an obligation to disobey any order that would put their duty as a soldier in conflict with the legal and moral duties as a citizen. Thus, should a member or members of the civilian government attempt to rule in such a way, or should some admirals and generals attempt a coup d’état, their subordinates should refuse to obey and by right attempt to place those who would try those things under arrest and then bear witness against them. Granted, this is a heavy burden to place upon the lowest ranking members of our military, especially since they just completed a training which instilled upon them to follow orders. But one of the strengths of the US military has been that its members are not drones. Should leaders fail or fall, subordinates step in and step up and continue a mission, unlike so many other armies, that once a leader is removed, those subordinate to that level of leader usually lose the direction and drive to complete the order as they also do not have the information and details of the operation to complete let alone continue it. So, I believe that for the majority of our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines, they have the ability to make choices and weigh options on the legality of orders and whether it is Constitutional or not; at least to some extent.
The militia then has the responsibilities that are first and foremost to help protect and defend the country and the community should the need arise; and secondly to defend one’s own life, the lives of innocent persons to include their loved ones but also any stranger or bystander, and if the criteria are met in those places where it is allowed, defense of property. Why? Due to the fact that it IS their nation, their way of life, their home, their family. I am not speaking in terms of preventative offense (except in the effect that a target that potentially has the ability to fight back on equal terms is an offensive deterrent) but in true defense of self and those we most wish to keep safe from harm. While the quote is misattributed to Adimiral Yamamoto (and possibly not even a factual quote of any figure in history), we have the idea (paraphrased here) that to invade the United States would be folly for every citizen would be armed and resist.
Granted our nation is comparatively large (4th in land mass and 3rd in population <as of July 2016>). So an invasion force to be able to completely take over would require materiel and manpower that couldn’t be sustained long enough to accomplish such. But those same size statistics make it nigh impossible for the other professional “warrior/protector” class that we have today...the police officer. It would pretty much require that half of us are police to begin to have the ability to have an officer be able to be on scene of a violent act at the exact moment that it becomes necessary for one to be needed. Even then, as the police, there is no guarantee that one will be there right as you need one, because in those types of situations they try to respond with a show of force and not in an individual capacity. Further, the police have no duty to protect the individual person. The community at large, and public property, yes; but not the individuals who comprise the community.
Going back to Sir Robert Peel, the British Home Secretary and considered the father of the modern police force (London’s Metropolitan Police Officers are called Bobby’s in homage to him); we find that he considered the police role as an adjunct to what the neighborhood, community, city residents should already be providing; a watchful eye, interruption and deterrence of potential criminal activity, witnesses who would provide details to aid investigators, and defenders of their own until help could arrive. The police are of the public and the public are the police is a belief he espoused.
Policing for all of the advancements it has made in catching criminals, does so almost exclusively after the fact of the crime being committed. Rarely, is it ever stopped in progress, and more rarely stopped before it starts. The latter, because we can’t read minds and predict future events, and because deterrents only deter those who see them as too much of an obstacle; while the former is because we don’t have a cop on every corner, nor would we want it that way. The state should always be the last reason one decides to live in peace and harmony, or at least in a non-assholish tolerance, with those around them, not the driving factor of such.
Our second amendment begins “A well-regulated militia...”. The right of the people to keep and bear arms may indeed be an inalienable right, but like any right it comes with responsibility, and guess who makes the rules for what a well-regulated militia? Anyone? Bueller? That’s right, the government. The federal government has the least say in the matter, because while we appreciate a strong centralized federal government, the states individually and collectively want to ensure that their autonomy is neither curbed nor circumscribed by the federal government any more than is allowed by the Constitution.
Oh, so that means if you are or were a member of the National Guard, you were (are) in the militia? Um, no. Well, sort of. As a citizen you are part of the militia. Whether you choose to participate in this civic duty is pretty much the same as the other two...you should but you don’t have to. That’s what helps establish the freedom of the citizens; the ability to choose to participate. As for the National Guard: well, before World War I, yes, kinda. Prior to that time, the National Guard belonged to the states. Governors controlled them exclusively. And due to this, tho they are a military force, they weren’t part of a standing force (read today as active duty). Thus the Posse Comitatus Act didn’t apply when they were called to serve for an extended period. While the Guard still nominally retains this Governor call out and doesn’t violate Posse Comitatus, when called upon by the governor, they are technically a federal force, because they can be called to an active status by the federal government without the consent of the governor in the state in which the National Guard unit is posted.
Militia are the free citizens of a free country who have all the rights and privileges of such a citizen available to them, and is a civic duty in the realm of jury duty and voting. While a responsible citizen should participate in all of those duties, it is not a requirement, nor does it mean that they are an irresponsible citizen, just not as fully involved as they could be. Our society accepts that not everyone likes all of the liberties they are afforded. It is ok to choose to not keep or bear arms, to choose to defend oneself or not, to participate as a fully informed and active citizen or to participate in ignorance and the blind faith to a party, cause or issue at the expense of all other ideas and issues or to not participate at all knowledgeably or ignorantly.
The government has both a right and a duty to regulate the militia. Which means that firearms laws can be put into place. There must be due process of the law and fair and equitable hearings with right of appeal for those denied their rights to keep and bear arms. The laws and regulations must apply to all equally. The state (and to a much more limited extent) has a responsibility to place controls on who has the ability to purchase, own, and bear the arms which are deemed safe and legal to sell to the individual in their capacity as a free citizen and member of the militia, so that they will be ready for muster should it ever need to be raised.
And while I have so far focused solely upon the 2nd Amendment and my understanding of it specifically and the Constitution in general as topics of discussion, this issue is much more complex than just who has the right to have guns and for what purposes. This issue has many other facets, some of which I have discussed in some of my previous blogs.
Civility in discussion, debate to find and adopt a consensus to the problems we face so that it benefits the most people with the least restrictions and impositions upon them. In finding ways to include others into the everyday and not marginalize, harass, harry, intimidate and bully. Speaking up and speaking out about wrongs in society. Advocating for those who can’t advocate for themselves. Finding and implementing meaningful rites of passage from childhood into adulthood that emphasize the rights and responsibilities that come with those rights when one becomes a full free member of society. We may idealize individuality and individual perseverance/resourcefulness/ingenuity, but these ideals aren’t meant to satisfy selfish desires, but to better not only ourselves but those around us - our family, our friends, our community, our country. We do these things to build upon what was given us.
Finally, I want to share an opinion that is mine alone and only based upon what I see and read. I am of the firm belief that any and all minority communities should not only fully endorse the second amendment but embrace it as the secondary line of defense (free speech and public assembly and redress of grievances to the government being the first) against the oppression and repression that can be exhibited and sadly, but all too often does exist within the majority population. We again can look throughout history, and not even have to go too far back, to see that the blindness of justice and the ideals of equal opportunity are not distributed equally across socio-cultural differences, economic differences, gender and sexuality differences, religious belief or non-belief or any other thing that the narrow minded and bigoted will use to feel superior to others, instead of reveling in our commonality of struggle to live this life to its fullest, enjoy our liberties without trampling upon others in our pursuit of the happiness we all strive to obtain within ourselves and for this whom we care about.
No comments:
Post a Comment