Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

With the probability of a Harris Administration—Biden is just the bait in the biggest bait and switch scam in history—two common anti-liberty/gun lies take on new currency (1) the idea that the Founders wrote the Second Amendment to oppose the government is an outrage; (2) If the Founders knew about weapons like the AR-15, they would have never written the Second Amendment.  With a Republican controlled Senate, these issues may—may—be mostly moot.  But should the vote fraud machine again go into overdrive in Georgia…

Let us review the Second Amendment ratified on December 15, 1791:

The Founders did not grant a right.  They believed in unalienable, natural rights, rights given us by the Creator.  As such, they are beyond the ability of man to grant or rescind.  From the natural right of self-defense, the right without which no other right matters, flows the means necessary to secure that right.  If we are to move beyond a world where the youngest, biggest, strongest and most vicious decide who lives and dies, all must have the weapons most common, usual and effective for self-defense, and they must be able to carry those weapons everywhere.  A right to self-defense confined to one’s home is no right at all.  So the Second Amendment merely acknowledges the most important right, and limits the government in any attempt to rescind it, as the Founders knew some future government would inevitably be tempted to do.

But this is not the only utility of the Second Amendment.  The Founders were very worried about a standing army, because standing armies of their time were so often used to oppress the people, just as they re today .  In the Second Amendment, they found balance, because the “militia” of their time, was every man capable of bearing arms, all of the citizens, bringing their own arms when called in defense of the state.  “Well-regulated” did not mean a standing army, quite the opposite.  The people, they reasoned, would be a powerful check on any government seeking to deprive them of their liberties, because the people were the army—the militia.  A well-regulated militia was merely a well organized, drilled, practiced militia, men capable of functioning as soldiers when called to service.  It was necessary to the security of a free state because politicians seeking to become despots would know the very army they would need to oppress and subjugate the people, was the people, thus would the state, which derives it’s just powers from the consent of the people, remain free.

Consider Alexander Hamilton, writing as “Publius” in The Federalist #29:

Alexander Hamilton
credit: history. com

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.

Here, Hamilton states the concerns of so many of the Founders.  It is the people—the militia—using their own arms, that in time of need, will muster to defend the nation.  And because they are the army, no standing army is necessary, in fact, is to be avoided.  They will defend their own rights against enemies foreign and domestic, and will be properly motived to do just that.  That America, growing in numbers, power and foreign responsibilities, eventually found a standing military establishment necessary does not diminish the Founder’s intentions and worries.  Until now, uncontested civilian control of the military has served as an additional check and balance.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

Hamilton’s assumptions have proved to be prescient.  To date, the mere idea of American killing American for political advantage has been essentially unthinkable.  This is why communist states have always conscripted peasants, and shipped them far from their homes, their people, so they would be more willing to kill their countrymen.  Sadly, Hamilton’s wise calculation may, if things deteriorate too much further, no longer hold.

Consider James Madison, writing in The Federalist #46:

James Madison
credit: history.com

Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the state governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.

In 2017, there were about 1.3 million active duty service members, with something more than 800,000 reserve forces.  Circa 2020, the US population is about 331 million. But no matter how large, no force armed only with small arms could stop a modern army.  More on this in a moment.

Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.

A Contemporary AR-15

In other words, America is a union of separate states, peoples owing allegiance to those state governments.  As Admiral Yamamoto is said to have warned that any occupying force would be confronted by a rifle behind every blade of grass, the number of weapons in the hands of Americans–the militia–is formidable.  Those that claim a modern military would crush dissent know nothing of logistics, tactics and strategy.  They also assume military members would be glad to murder fellow Americans—their friends, neighbors, their families and relatives—for a craven politician like Kamala Harris.  Take this link to an article by author Larry Correia–everyone should know it–to explore this issue.

Madison was serious in noting Americans, unlike any other people, are armed.  No monarchy, no tyranny can long survive if the people can rise up against it.  He was demonstrating our system was written to prevent conflict.  Surely no politician, no matter how power mad, would try to subjugate Americans if they understood the military power of America is the citizens themselves.  Until now, this deterrent has, largely, worked.

Understanding this, we can see how stupid is the idea the Founders would never have written the Second Amendment if they could foresee modern weapons.  They saw every American as the militia, and were content that they have the most powerful, effective weapons of their time.  They surely would have seen AR-15s as an even more powerful vindication of their check and balance on tyranny, and would have been delighted to have them.  It is not the tool, but the principle.  The more effective the tool, the more effectively is tyranny deterred.

Circa 2020, we stand at a tipping point.  D/S/Cs seem hell bent on tearing down the checks and balances that have prevented conflict, and they are no longer hiding their intention to disarm the American people, to eliminate the militia and to deprive them of their voice of dissent.  No government that seeks to disarm the people is legitimate, and their intentions reveal their goals: domination of the people, and the usurpation of their unalienable rights.

I don’t know about you, gentle readers, but I’d absolutely trust a government that took all my arms at gunpoint, threatening to gleefully slaughter me and my entire family if I didn’t turn them over.  Surely such a government would never, ever turn—what’s the word?–tyrannical?