Introduction
I wish to claim personal credit for killing the Second Amendment, which I actually do (right here!) by means of the following words. That is, if you read this article, you are witnessing a killing in progress. Now that doesn’t mean anybody else knows this. In fact, most aren’t aware of this at all – but that simply means our lives are being governed by yet one more ghost among many.
Ignorance in the USA is truly massive. Though much evidence can be cited as proof, I’ll just offer this:
Based on a poll of registered voters conducted from June 28 - July 9, 2012, Pew Research Center found, “Six-in-ten voters (60%) are able to identify Romney as a Mormon.” In addition, 32% came right out and said they “don’t know” what his religion is. Of course, out of those 60%, it’s debatable how many actually know what a Mormon believes.
This poll is especially damning because we are, as of today, 100 days from Election Day. We-the-Sheeple have had two complete primary election cycles (since Romney had run for president back in 2008), so how can so many be so unaware of something so important?
Before I go any further, I’d like to introduce the corpse which I’ll then proceed to dissect as I perform my autopsy. That is, here’s the Second Amendment itself:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
I encourage you to read the following, which I found fascinating and helpful in my killing of the Second:
“The History of the Second Amendment” by David E. Vandercoy, copyright © 1994 Valparaiso Univ. Law Review:
My Autopsy of the Second Amendment
Again, I’ll state the Second in its entirety:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Its biggest and most glaring weakness:
I highlighted in yellow this amendment’s biggest weakness: It can no longer be reasonably argued that any kind of militia – even one consisting of all able-bodied citizens – is necessary. It is not necessary in terms of defending against foreign enemies, and it is not even possible in terms of fighting against our full-time standing army (which we weren’t supposed to have in the first place but, due to the march of history, we very much have in our midst).
That part about “fighting against our full-time standing army” is very much in the spirit of the Founding Fathers. They were very concerned about the threat posed by a standing army, thinking that a well-armed citizenry could oppose such an army should it become the tool of a strong central government bent on threatening the liberty of the states and of the people in general. However, neither the organized nor the unorganized militia (defined in the next section) could possibly resist the professional and battle-hardened standing army we now have in this country.
Proposition: The Second is the only amendment that gives a reason for its being; if that reason ceases to be reasonable, then the Amendment dies. In effect, it commits suicide by means of a built-in kill mechanism.
If this kill-mechanism wasn’t meant to do its job, then the Founding Fathers should have simply stated the Second as follows:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
That’s right – the first 13 words should never have been included if the Second was meant to be timeless. My point can be more clearly understood by restating the Second Amendment by using these words:
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.”
Again I highlight in yellow to emphasize a point: If the “because” part is no longer valid (in this case, having been made permanently invalid due to the march of time), then the preceding part becomes invalid due to lack of sustenance.
Point by point analysis
Once more, I’ll state the Second. Then I’ll follow up with a detailed point-by-point analysis of its language:
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
Point:
“A well regulated militia”
Analysis:
First, I will tackle the definition of “militia” before I comment on the full term – “a well regulated militia.” This source will give you an idea of how the word “militia” is used, legally speaking: [According to] Title 10, Subtitle A, Part I, Chapter 13, Section 311:
QUOTE:
(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.
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
:UNQUOTE.
Just to emphasize this point, it is the unorganized militia to which the vast majority of male US citizens between the ages of 17 and 45 belong. It would surprise most males in that age bracket to know they are automatically part of the US national militia.
Going back to the entire phrase – “a well regulated militia” – a question comes to mind: How can a militia be “well regulated” if it is “unorganized?” In fact, there shouldn’t be any such entity as an “unorganized militia” if our militia in its entirety is supposed to be (in the terms of the Second) “well regulated.” In fact, the term “dormant militia” should be used instead of “unorganized militia.” Furthermore, this dormant militia, in order to even approach the standard of being “well regulated,” should be subject to periodic drill and instruction in military topics.
I wonder, though, how many Tea Party types would appreciate being told they had to undergo training under the command of their state militias in order to attain the Constitutional standard of being “well regulated?”
Point:
“…, being necessary to the security of a free state…”
Analysis:
Since I’ve already analyzed the first two words, I’ll deal with “the security of a free state.” I understand that to encompass the idea of making secure the liberties of the country from domestic as well as foreign threats. The first point to make is, the militia is not necessary at all for preventing the US from being subjugated by a foreign power – our standing army being more than adequate to that task.
As for protecting our liberties, that’s something militias cannot do since the biggest threats to our liberties don’t have military aspects. Among those threats:
· The increasing power of the Imperial Presidency – heartily endorsed by both political parties;
· The Two Party system itself which fosters a corrupt environment inhabited by lobbyists and unregulated campaign financing laws;
· The dominance of corporate culture seeking its own advantages, interlinking with its counterparts in other countries to weaken our legislative control over our own affairs;
· A judicial system which, due to its pay-to-play nature, effectively excludes the average citizen of humble resources;
· The increasing marginalization of the power of the states – to the point where (in the case of Arizona) the locals can’t even defend themselves from foreign invasion nor count on the national government to do so (that is, from the effects of illegal immigration).
Point:
“…the right of the people to keep and bear arms…”
Analysis:
In the true spirit of the Second Amendment, this should read, “…the obligation of the people to keep and bear arms [shall be enforced].” The intention of the Founding Fathers (which it was, by the way) was to have a citizenry armed to the teeth that could resist by force any tyranny from the central as well as from local government authorities. That being the case, wouldn’t such potential tyrants be held in place by knowing that all citizens had to have a weapon and had to be trained in its use?
As for “bearing arms,” that would seem to imply that I could walk down the street and, in fact, even enter federal buildings, with a rifle slung visibly over my shoulder. What part of “the right…to…bear arms” isn’t clear enough, here?
What about the word “arms?” In order to better oppose our standing army, should defense of freedom ever dictate that choice, we must have more at our disposal than small arms. How about bazookas, tanks, land mines, armed drone aircraft, machine guns, biological weapons, hand grenades…even nuclear weapons? What better way to defend our freedoms than to have weapons of mass destruction at our disposal? [I’ll answer this question in a bit, since there is, in fact, a better way.]
Point:
“…shall not be infringed.”
Analysis:
No rights are absolute – as in the case of falsely yelling “fire” in a crowded theater not being the type of speech protected by the First Amendment. All good intentions aside, there will always be infringements on our rights. These sometimes come under the heading of public safety concerns and the state’s preoccupation with issuing regulations. Not to be overlooked, sometimes “infringements” can be imposed by how the Supreme Court cares to weigh in. And it might be reasonably claimed that levying a sales tax on a weapons purchase constitutes an infringement, since that added expense makes it more difficult to obtain a weapon. So the words “shall not be infringed” are pretty useless.
Post Mortem Analysis
Now that the Second Amendment is dead, though this is unknown by (well) almost everybody, we should contemplate the aftermath.
The timing of the death of the Second coincides beautifully with this underappreciated fact: “We don’t need military weapons to secure (and actually reclaim) our liberties.” This is something I wish the Tea Party and members of unofficial private militias would come to appreciate. If they would ever decide to rebel against (what they’d perceive to be) a tyrannical government, what would their targets be?
They should think about this, since I’m sure they don’t really want to start shooting at regular army forces (perhaps by ambush) who firmly believe they are protecting the country from extremists who threaten anarchy. Perhaps these “freedom fighters” might decide to blow up bridges or sabotage infrastructure. Think again: Innocent people might get killed and, even if these attacks were successful enough to worry the establishment, the response would be martial law and a suspension of the Constitution itself.
Any such revolution by private militias would fail, in essence, due to a lack of targets! When I see these guys strutting around among their fellow believers, all with six-shooters strapped to their hips, I can’t help but ask: “Don’t you see the futility of trying to shoot it out with Uncle Sam?”
We do have a very potent non-military weapon at our disposal, but it needs to be made most effective by word-of-mouth. It is this:
“In order to break the tyrannical power of the Two Party System (our greatest threat), we have to elect independents to office. If true, non-party aligned independents aren’t available, then we must (in overwhelming numbers and with consistency) vote the incumbents out of office, no matter who they are.”
When we make it clear that no official who is now or ever was affiliated with one of the two major parties can hope to be reelected, we will be well on our way to preparing the way for true independents to win elections. The primary goal is to deny job security to the career politician.
To put this in a personal context:
“If your Congressman is an incumbent who happens, as you are, to be a member of the GOP, vote against him in the next election. Even if this is profoundly distasteful to you, I hope you come to realize this is the only way we can shake off the yoke of the Two Party tyranny that is destroying this country. If your vote means that a Democrat gets elected, you can take grim satisfaction by voting against him in the next election – simply because he will be the incumbent.”
And that’s the point: To maintain this strategy with consistency and without exception for as long as it takes for true independents to emerge. Which they will since, hopefully, running for office under a major party label will prove to be unviable.
Hand-in-hand with this strategy is yet another:
Vote in such a way as to disrupt the primary election process. Voter turnout in primaries is always notoriously low; so much so, that independents (for example) could render the outcomes as so corrupted as to thwart the intentions of the political parties involved.
My point? We have options other than taking it to the streets – as the various Occupy movements have urged. And we don’t have to kill anybody to get this revolution well under way.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Steven Searle for US President in 2012
Founder of the Independent Contractors’ Party
“I fail to see how we can allow any one individual to build up a personal arsenal (of, say, 16 guns) and come to believe that that will help maintain our liberty.”
Contact me at bpa_cinc@yahoo.com
No comments:
Post a Comment