Empowering the Eloi: 10 USC § 311

It used to be only right-wing nuts who argued that an armed society is a polite society. Now it’s the head of Interpol:

Interpol Secretary General Ronald Noble said today the U.S. and the rest of the democratic world is at a security crossroads in the wake of last month’s deadly al-Shabab attack at a shopping mall in Nairobi, Kenya – and suggested an answer could be in arming civilians.

In an exclusive interview with ABC News, Noble said there are really only two choices for protecting open societies from attacks like the one on Westgate mall where so-called “soft targets” are hit: either create secure perimeters around the locations or allow civilians to carry their own guns to protect themselves.

“Societies have to think about how they’re going to approach the problem,” Noble said. “One is to say we want an armed citizenry; you can see the reason for that. Another is to say the enclaves are so secure that in order to get into the soft target you’re going to have to pass through extraordinary security.”

The secretary general, an American who previously headed up all law enforcement for the U.S. Treasury Department, told reporters during a brief news conference that the Westgate mall attack marks what has long been seen as “an evolution in terrorism.” Instead of targets like the Pentagon and World Trade Center that now have far more security since 9/11, attackers are focusing on sites with little security that attract large numbers of people.

At least 67 were killed over a period of days at the Westgate mall, more than 60 of the dead were civilians.

And there in a nutshell is the argument currently raging in America. One side, an armed populace of exactly the kind the Founders envisaged; on the other, a fascist police state in which you’re disarmed for your own good, since the presumption is that you would use a firearm for ill, not good. It’s easy to see why the Left favors the latter, since the end result of so many of their policy prescriptions is enforcement by coercion, and they are incapable of conceiving of a “good” use for a gun in a civilian’s hands. Which is why they’ve been adamantly screaming about the “militia” clause in the Second Amendment from time immemorial.

Never mind that a distressingly high percentage of “trained law enforcement” personnel are terrible shots, or that their training these days mean more time in the “celebrating diversity” classroom than on the firing range. Sitting in their gun-free homes with ARMED RESPONSE signs posted prominently out front, Regressives imagine that when hours count, the cops or the Army are only seconds away.

So let’s take a look at that pesky Bill of Rights thing again. The U.S. Code, in all its majesty, actually addresses an important Second Amendment issue:

a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

That’s right — if you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, you’re automatically a member of the “unorganized militia” or “reserve militia” — something quite distinct from the National Guard. Which means that you are expected to come to the defense of your country should the regular Army be unable to function or the situation require an instant first response. And in order to do that, you have to have and carry your own gun. If that doesn’t settle the argument about the “right to keep and bear arms,” I don’t know what will.

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:

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.