Get PJ Media on your Apple

Unexamined Premises

Empowering the Eloi: 10 USC § 311

October 22nd, 2013 - 12:58 pm

I’m sure constitutional lawyers on the Left will give me a hundred reasons why the plain language of the U.S. Code does not mean what it says, just as they say that the Second Amendment’s subordinate clause is — perhaps uniquely in grammar — really an independent clause, thus governing the true meaning of the amendment.

But that’s crap, as Randy Barnett has pointed out:

The next time someone tells you that the militia referred to in the Second Amendment has been “superseded” by the National Guard, ask them who it was that prevented United Airlines Flight 93 from reaching its target. The National Guard? The regular Army? The D.C. Police Department? None of these had a presence on Flight 93 because, in a free society, professional law-enforcement and military personnel cannot be everywhere. Terrorists and criminals are well aware of this — indeed, they count on it. Who is everywhere? The people the Founders referred to as the “general militia…”

Ask yourself every time you hear a proposal for increased “security”: Would have in any way have averted the disaster that actually happened? Will it avert a future suicide attack on the public by other new and different means? Any realistic response to what happened and is likely to happen in the future must acknowledge that, when the next moment of truth arrives in whatever form, calling 911 will not work. Training our youth to be helpless in the face of an attack, avoiding violence at all costs will not work…

The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights in large part because many feared that Congress would neglect the militia (as it has) and, Congress could not be forced by any constitutional provision to preserve the militia, the only practical means of ensuring its continued existed was to protect the right of individual militia members to keep and bear their own private arms.

Amen to that. What kind of society willingly repeals the law of self-preservation in the name of an illusory “security” that can never be provided? That turns law-abiding youth into sheep and the elderly into prey? That prides itself on weakness and openly prefers dishonor before death?

This kind:

eloi

Let’s give the last word to Barnett:

It is long past time we heeded the words of the Founders and end the systematic effort to disarm Americans. Now is also the time to consider what it would take in practical terms to well-regulate the now-unorganized militia, so no criminal will feel completely secure when confronting one or more of its members.

<- Prev  Page 3 of 3   View as Single Page

Comments are closed.

Top Rated Comments   
The right of the People to "keep and bear arms" has been settled law for a long time. The Progressives who advocate gun control laws, and the states which prohibit the carrying of firearms by private citizens, are in violation of the Constitution.

It's as simple as that.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
There is another thing you can do. You can quit balkanizing socieites with indiscriminate mass immigration policies, especially when it comes to the adherents of Islam.

The most peaceful societies are homogenous. WW2 was a giant exercise in Ethnic Cleansing.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
God bless those poor souls....what animals could commit such barbaric atrocities against innocent people? Arm yourself, train yourself, ALWAYS be aware of your surroundings (situational awareness) and steel yourself to confront evil with that force necessary to protect your life and the lives of those you love. ANY and ALL 'politicians' who want to restrict your rights to "keep and bear arms" should be identified and defeated. Remember this: "It is always better to be judged by 12, than to be carried by six" - 1SG D. Henderson, Republic of Panama, December 1989

Remember BENGHAZI!
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
All Comments   (49)
All Comments   (49)
Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
"they are incapable of conceiving of a “good” use for a gun in a civilian’s" hands

That's not true. They are not calling for disarmament of police. At least, not that I've ever heard. They have no problem with the police being armed.

Of course, any reasonably well-educated person knows that the police are civilians.

They are not part of the military. They are part of the civil authority. They are subject to civil laws, in contrast to the Uniform Code of Military Justice.

And, of course, any reasonably well-educated person knows that this distinction is not mere pedantry, but is, in fact, hugely important to the preservation of our liberty, and that the ongoing militarization of our police is a grave threat to liberty.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
I have harped on the notion that the States that are willing ought to form a militia, separate from the NG. Everyone between 17 & 60 ought to be required to put in a weekend a year training. A formality, sure. But I would like to stuff a sock in the left's notions about militias and the right to keep and bear. Then we can make the case for the right to keep and bear military grade weaponry. Can't we get a dozen states to climb aboard?
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
An acquaintance of mine, who is now in his early seventies, recently told me that when he was in elementary school in our small Colorado town the principle at the time would let them take their .22's to school so they could target practice at recess.

I asked him how that worked and he said; "well, we had to keep them in a rack at the front of the classroom and only got to use them at recess. of course we had to make sure they were unloaded when we came in."

When I asked him how they got their guns to school he kind of smiled and said: "On the bus of course.""

I have never heard of a school shooting that took place in that time period.

It seems they spent more time teaching responsibility than teaching political correctness in those days.

The problem isn't the guns it is the people.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
In what I hope is a forgivable error on my part, I failed to mention that Kenya is 90% Catholic and 10% Islamic.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
This article also puts paid to the idea that "...the weapons of war do not belong on our streets..." because the weapons of war are exactly what the militia were expected to bring.
My own firearms are cowboy-style. At need, though, I could put them to use until the authorities started issuing weapons and ammo.
One more to BronxZionist: the two most armed societies on the planet, the Swiss and the Israelis, commonly keep military weapons and ammunition at home. We don't need no stinkin' armory, we ARE the armory, is their position.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Indeed, our Founders, as seen in our Constitution, assumed that Joe Ordinary Citizen had access to, and liberty to use, as much military-grade weaponry as he could afford.

See the section on Letters of Marquee. Battleships. Private ownership. Treated as a given needing no comment or explanation.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Robert Heinlein's "Red Planet" touches on the idea of near-universal carry of weapons. His editor insisted on a bit about taking an oath to use weapons only for good purposes; Heinlein didn't like that but he included it.
If people are going to carry, openly or concealed, as a widespread custom, then yes, people must take seriously the responsibility of handling weapons. I don't carry, although I've considered it, and I hope I'd be as careful as I'd expect anyone else to be. That actually applies to driving, too.
Perhaps our society would gain a lot of things if open carry were to move closer to a norm. We'd probably see less fear of guns generally and less fear of people carrying them. After all, we don't panic at the sight of a car until the driver does something dangerous.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
"just as they say that the Second Amendment’s subordinate clause is — perhaps uniquely in grammar — really an independent clause, thus governing the true meaning of the amendment."
Just as they say the independent citizen is really subordinate- got it?

“He who controls the language controls the masses”. – Saul Alinsky in Rules for Radicals
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Oh, language matters?

Yes it does.


See my comment above re: police being civilians.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Just to make sure everyone understands a bit more explicitly what the Founding Fathers had in mind regarding reference to "militia" and whether the 2nd Amendment only refers to males 17 to 45 years of age....

A few words from someone who would have an idea what was meant by the wording of that amendment (from wikipedia):

Tench Coxe (May 22, 1755 – July 17, 1824) was an American political economist and a delegate for Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress in 1788-1789, and a key anti-Federalist, writing under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian".

"The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."

The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American... [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."

"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
No one's arguing that the 2nd amendment applies only to males between 17 and 45; that group, however, is in the "unorganized" militia whether it likes it or not. But that category is not exclusive of others.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
The article has to qualify as a standard of beauty itself.

The war to re-arm has likely been won on the Federal level. But it has not been won on the State level.

Unless a Federal Court finds that gun suppression - as opposed to regulation - by States violates the Second Amendment; then we face in the States the same fight we have fought and lost - the fight against the Left.

And this last we should understand if we are to win.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Directly related to your note and "progressive" foolishness: requiring a voter to have a photo ID, an item obtained in a few minutes for a few dollars and used for many daily activities -- this is a near-insuperable barrier to voting for poor people or people of color.
But requiring extensive training, a hefty fee, background check, long delays, frequent non-isses -- this does not "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
But requiring extensive training, a hefty fee, background check, long delays, frequent non-isses -- this does not "infringe" the right to keep and bear arms.

That should be "infringe on the right to keep and bear arms."

Language matters.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
Another thing that I have often wondered is if a person is so deficient in basic life skills so as not to be able to get a picture ID, does that person have even the most elementary competency to make informed judgments on the issues of the day?

Perhaps the ability to obtain for ones self a picture ID should be the minimum standard for the right to vote.

Since one can't even buy beer without an ID that bar is not very high.
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
Excellent...thank you for giving me a fresh bullet for the gungrabbers.

Remember BENGHAZI!
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
The militia issue is a red herring. It is presented in the 2nd amendment not as a prerequisite for having the right, but a benefit deriving from the people having that right. Yes, in an armed society is much easier to have an effective militia.

It is as if we said, "Healthy bones being good for children, the right to drink milk shall not be infringed." Only a liberal could possibly interpret that as "Only children with healthy bones can drink milk."
40 weeks ago
40 weeks ago Link To Comment
"It is presented in the 2nd amendment not as a prerequisite for having the right, but a benefit deriving from the people having that right."

Well said.
39 weeks ago
39 weeks ago Link To Comment
1 2 Next View All