The Militia Connection To The Second Amendment
BY Herschel Smith
2 years, 7 months ago
It’s entitled How Alexander Hamilton Solved America’s Gun Problem – 228 Years Ago. I’ll only paste his conclusion. You can read the rest for yourself.
The result of compulsory militia membership for gun owners is actual reform whose design originates directly from the framers of the Constitution. This reform adds oversight, training, and state regulation while keeping the federal government out (militias existing specifically as a check on federal power); preserving the right to keep firearms; contributing perhaps to the security of the United States in some presently unimaginable future conflict at home that involves enemy divisions and open warfare; and has a better chance of seeing law than does confiscation or a repeal of the right to bear arms.
There is the gist of it. As I said, read the rest for the full argument.
But the argument fails the test of history and suffers from the obvious attempt to make a case where there is there none. Remember that we’ve discussed this before, but just to rehearse, firearms ownership and use was ubiquitous in the colonies.
In the colonies, availability of hunting and need for defense led to armament statues comparable to those of the early Saxon times. In 1623, Virginia forbade its colonists to travel unless they were “well armed”; in 1631 it required colonists to engage in target practice on Sunday and to “bring their peeces to church.” In 1658 it required every householder to have a functioning firearm within his house and in 1673 its laws provided that a citizen who claimed he was too poor to purchase a firearm would have one purchased for him by the government, which would then require him to pay a reasonable price when able to do so. In Massachusetts, the first session of the legislature ordered that not only freemen, but also indentured servants own firearms and in 1644 it imposed a stern 6 shilling fine upon any citizen who was not armed.
When the British government began to increase its military presence in the colonies in the mid-eighteenth century, Massachusetts responded by calling upon its citizens to arm themselves in defense. One colonial newspaper argued that it was impossible to complain that this act was illegal since they were “British subjects, to whom the privilege of possessing arms is expressly recognized by the Bill of Rights” while another argued that this “is a natural right which the people have reserved to themselves, confirmed by the Bill of Rights, to keep arms for their own defense”. The newspaper cited Blackstone’s commentaries on the laws of England, which had listed the “having and using arms for self preservation and defense” among the “absolute rights of individuals.” The colonists felt they had an absolute right at common law to own firearms.
The notion that the rights to firearms ownership was granted by any government would have been considered ridiculous and dismissed in colonial times. God grants rights – the state merely recognizes them, and if it doesn’t, the people have a right and duty under God to take action to ensure that the right is recognized. There is so much more.
“1. John Adams John Adams, as a 9-or-10-year-old schoolboy, carried a gun daily so that he could go hunting after class. 3 DIARY AND AUTOBIOGRAPHY OF JOHN ADAMS 257-59 (1961). 2. Patrick Henry Patrick Henry would “walk to court, his musket slung over his shoulder to pick off small game.” Harlow Giles Unger, LION OF LIBERTY: PATRICK HENRY AND THE CALL TO A NEW NATION 30 (2010). 3. Daniel Boone “When Daniel was almost thirteen he was given his first firearm, a ‘short rifle gun, with which he roamed the nearby Flying Hills, the Oley Hills, and the Neversink Mountains.’ ” Robert Morgan, BOONE 14 (2007). 4. Meriwether Lewis Meriwether Lewis’s neighbor Thomas Jefferson observed that young Lewis “when only eight years of age . . . habitually went out, in the dead of night, alone with his dogs, into the forest to hunt the raccoon & opossum.” 8 WRITINGS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, at 482. 5. Thomas Jefferson Thomas Jefferson himself carried as a lad. “When he was ten he was given a gun by his father and sent into the forest alone in order to develop self-reliance.” 1 Dumas Malone, JEFFERSON AND HIS TIME: JEFFERSON THE VIRGINIAN 46 (1948). As an adult, Jefferson wrote about a holster he made for one of his Turkish pistols, “having used it daily while I had a horse who would stand fire,” and he noted another holster he made “to hang them [the Turkish pistols] at the side of my carriage for road use.” 10 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON, RETIREMENT SERIES 320-21 (2004). Jefferson advised his fifteen-yearold nephew to “[l]et your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks.” 8 THE PAPERS OF THOMAS JEFFERSON 407 (2004). 6. James Monroe Every day, “[w]ell before dawn, James left for school, carrying his books under one arm with his powder horn under the other and his musket slung across his back.” Tim McGrath, JAMES MONROE: A LIFE 9 (2020). 7. Ira and Ethan Allen Ira and Ethan Allen regularly carried multiple arms at once. For example, in 1772 Ira, Ethan, and a cousin went to purchase land near New York’s border “armed with holsters and pistols, a good case [pair] of pistols each in our pockets, with each a good hanger [sword].”
We could continue but won’t for the sake of brevity. The point is that firearms ownership is the presupposition to understanding the constitution, not the outcome, product or pronouncement.
The men who wrote it had just gotten finished with a war against their former king, using firearms they personally owned, and so the idea that they wouldn’t have understood the God-given right to oppose tyranny is absurd. Moreover, their real concern within the context of the covenant they were producing in the constitution was that their newly formed federal government would become just like king George.
In order to prevent that possibility, they recognized the right of the states to be free of intervention by the federal government within the context of their men and armaments. They only needed one reason to write those protections into the constitution, and this was it. To them, it was the most important.
The constitution was not and is not a treatise on the entirety of the history of mankind and his rights. It is a covenant between the states and the federal government, and between government and the people.
The author at The Week, David Brown, is correct to highlight the noted militia clause in the second amendment. I wish more people would become aware of their history and heritage. The militia needs to exist today, and for the very same reasons it did in the 1700s.
But David’s presuppositions led him astray. He believes that a different rendering of the second amendment changes the well-documented, well-rehearsed, and well-established history upon which America was built. So in conclusion, let’s pose two questions David could have asked, and give the correct answers to those questions.
First, “Is it important for men to own firearms to be able to answer the call to oppose tyranny, or in other words, does the militia have a valid role in today’s society?” We may answer, yes, and in the superlative in today’s society.
Second, “Should compulsory militia membership be required as a precondition for firearms ownership?” To which we may answer, the mere asking of the question betrays a fundamental misunderstanding of the source of our rights, the history of colonial America, God’s expectations for us, and the reasons for the Bill of Rights.
The question isn’t just answered with a ‘no’, it is completely irrelevant and immaterial. It has nothing whatsoever to do with rights granted by the Almighty, or for that matter, the second amendment.
On September 8, 2021 at 9:35 pm, Ohio Guy said:
Too much mental illness in and out of positions of power. They’re gonna need killin’! There! I said it.
On September 8, 2021 at 11:06 pm, Dave Moore said:
10USC246 DEFINES the US militia as all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. (Plus some others, including women in the National Guard.)That’s the definition, not the enlistment criteria.
Seventeen is, roughly, high school juniors.
Question for school boards: Are you preparing our young men to exercise the rights and duties of militia membership before they’ve graduated high school?
No? You’re actually fighting against requiring teachers and administrators within that age range to carry concealed to protect their students and as examples of good citizenship?
You’re fired.
===
Side note: You’d like to take out your frustrations on society by shooting up the local high school. You find there’s a portable sign out front congratulating the rifle team on winning the state championship. Every pickup truck in the parking lot has a rifle rack in the window. Is this where you’ll make your Grand Gesture?
On September 9, 2021 at 6:20 am, Mike Austin said:
I would make US citizenship dependent upon the ownership of a pistol and a rifle.
On September 9, 2021 at 11:11 am, Factions Speak Louder Than Herds said:
Every able bodied male is the Militia.
The 2A was made for this time because the Founder Fathers were some of the most brilliant men ever to live.
Is that offensive to the woke herd hive? Who the F’ cares about the feelings of those born to be wards of the state.
I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery. Thomas Jefferson
On September 9, 2021 at 12:19 pm, Fred said:
I would make US citizenship dependant on “…us and our posterity.”
On September 9, 2021 at 1:44 pm, scott s. said:
Many states have constitutional provisions similar to the 2A. I would like the author to explain what he considers is the object of these state provisions.
On September 9, 2021 at 2:44 pm, Paul B said:
It would be fun to have target practice at the church.
On September 9, 2021 at 4:42 pm, Mack said:
See what the VA Attorney General has to say:
https://www.oag.state.va.us/media-center/news-releases/2142-september-3-2021-herring-defends-longstanding-federal-gun-violence-prevention-measure
On September 9, 2021 at 9:00 pm, Bill Buppert said:
On 19 and 20 April 1775 when the hills were alive with swarms of militia, every one of those men were violating English law in a contest with British Regulars and in that moment were ALL Englishmen as Paul Revere and William Dawes were British in the saddle as they sounded the alarm that the regulars were out.
No government permits secession and divorce, it sends the wrong message.
All of this talk of the legal niceties of militias and rebellion have no relevance whatsoever to the inevitable act[s] of secession that visit every empire in Earth’s history.
Rebellion is not a video game nor a legal exercise.
On September 10, 2021 at 12:39 pm, Tionico said:
in response to Bill Buppert your claim that the “rebellion” of 19 April was wrongly pressed is a false claim.
Don’t forget, every one of the thirteen colo ies in existance at that tim had taken out charters from the reigning king at the time the charters were drafted and ratified. Every one of those charters had provisioins relating to the conduct of both the colon in question, and the government of England specificaly the King who signed that charter.
By 1775 the Britihs Crown had violated nearly every term of every charter. They had ordered closure of legislative bodies, taxed way out of line, enacted numberous burdensome laws, drafted men into the British army to fight verious wars, preventd public meetings (in Massachussetts they got round that one by simply adjourning, rather than closing, any time of gathering, able to resume at will at some later date). Meetings were outlawed, quartering of troops in the homes was a signficant insult, military personnel went about as thugs do today, going wherever and taking whatever they wished. The final straw, the one upon which the people of Massachussetts could NOT swallow, was when the king, in December 1774, sent a direct order to his head stooge GeneralThomas GAge to “disarm those rebellious subjects”. He’d tried three times before, none of which succeeded in removing and keeping arms that were seized. Lexington/COncord was simply his ofurth powder raid, but his secret was leaked, Dr. Jseph Warren informed Paul Revere and Billy Dawes, they rode out into the night and spread the alarum. vernight, some 14,000 armed trained militia took to the field to oppose the military action.
The king had VIOLATED nearly every term of the Charters he and/or his predecessors had agreed to as each of the thirteen colonies was formed.
So I ask you, Sir, respectfully:
Exactly WHO was in rebellion?
I assert that had Gage not launched his atteck, the shooting would not have begun.. and it is fact that it was his Regulars that opened fire agaisnt the men of Captain Parker putting eight of them into their graves that day. Their crime? Standing to protect their personal property that Gage had sent Col Smith to seize, illegally, from them. Parker had given orders do not fire unless fired upon” That order was repeated hroughout the morning as Gage’s men under Smith engaged in further conflicts, opening fire upon C
olonials who were simply there, making no direct threat to anyone, only standing their ground.
Go and LEARN the history of this period of time. Your coments reveal yo are ignorant of it. Educate yourself and avoid proving yourself the fool by such drivel as posted above.
On September 10, 2021 at 1:32 pm, Bill Buppert said:
If your ad hominem attack assumes me to be sympathetic to the Crown in the American colonies, you are mistaken.
It was only a matter of time, remember, Gage started trying to sieze powder and arms in September 1774 and failed. The three strikes of the match during Lexington and Concord that set the colonies and crown on collision were inevitable.
And every one of those charters was administered by a Royal Governor of EACH of the thirteen colonies chartered by the King in England until the divorce proceedings were signed in blood on 19 April 1775. I stand by my notion that Paul Revere and his confreres were Englishmen in the saddle and on foot until that following morning on Lexington Green.
Tionico: “Go and LEARN the history of this period of time. Your coments reveal yo are ignorant of it. Educate yourself and avoid proving yourself the fool by such drivel as posted above.”
I would suggest you do the same and start with Fred Anderson’s magisterial “Crucible of War: The Seven Years’ War and the Fate of Empire in British North America, 1754-1766”. And I have other recommendations for reading in the period if you wish despite my “drivel”.
You talk about taxes and regulations, you mean these:
“Many causes emerged and these are certainly at the forefront:
October 7, 1763 King George III proclaims a ban on westward migration in the colonies.
April 5 and 9, 1763 Parliament passes the Sugar and Currency Acts
March 22, 1765 Parliament passes the Stamp Act (even playing cards and dice)
May 15, 1765 Parliament passes the Quartering Act of 1765
March 18, 1766 Parliament repeals the Stamp Act and passes the Declaratory Act (asserting the authority of Parliament to legislate for the colonies “in all cases whatsoever.”)
June 29, 1766 Parliament passes the Townshend Acts
July, 1767 Parliament passes the New York Suspending Act
April 21, 1768 The British Secretary of State for the colonies responds to the Massachusetts Circular Letter
June 8, 1769 The British Secretary of State for the colonies orders General Thomas Gage to deploy forces to Boston
March 5, 1770 The Boston Massacre leads to the death of five colonists
November 2, 1772 The first Committee of Correspondence is formed in Boston, and produces Samuel Adams’ bold assertion of the “Rights of the Colonists,” and Dr. Joseph Warren’s “List of Infringements and Violations of Rights.”
January 6, 1773 Massachusetts’ Governor Hutchinson argues the supremacy of Parliament before the General Court
May 10, 1773 With the passage of the Tea Act, the East India Company is granted a virtual monopoly on the tea trade in the colonies
March 31-June 2, 1774 The British Parliament passes the five Coercive Acts in order to punish Massachusetts for the Tea Party and regain control of the colony
September 11, 1774 King George III commits Britain to a policy of intractable opposition to colonial claims.
This is not the complete list but simply highlights what one can find in the primary source documents but many of these simply overlook the day to day predations of the ruling class both English and later American weaponized by the governing instruments of the state.The Whiskey Rebellion was merely a homegrown version of reacting to the Coercive Acts under the British yoke. I would urge everyone interested to read further on these precursors to American Revolution I.”
That’s an extract from my blog post, you find the rest here: https://zerogov.com/2015/05/02/the-first-ten-years-the-monster-proceeds-apace-by-bill-buppert/
Apparently not all of us have the historiographer’s command you boast about but there is it.
Cordially,
Bill Buppert