The"Anachronistic" 2nd Amendment

I've been harping on the ACLU position on the Second Amendment for a while. Please note that their webpage describing their position was long enough that I have addressed it piece-by-piece it in several blogs. In fact, I addressed this particular section of their webpage several articles ago, in this tome of wisdom. But I have more to say on the issue, so grab a cup of coffee, strap on that .45 or .357 or (fill-in-the-blank), pull out the magnifying glass, and let's examine the ACLU position and why I believe it is so incorrect and inadequate.

This is what the ACLU states as background to their position:

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Let's break it down and then let's beat it up.

"We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles."

Our Second Amendment:
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.

Is the right a "collective" one? If this is collective - meaning individuals cannot exercise this right, then all of the Bill of Rights is collective, not individual. The same wording is used throughout the Bill of Rights.

Who are the entities in this amendment? The militia and the people. The militia is necessary to the security of a free nation. Who makes up the militia? According to 10 USC Sec.311, all able-bodied men between 18 and 45 are defined as members of the militia.

Who are "the people"? Well, they are the citizenry, right?

So the militia is not, per se, part of "the people." But members of "the people" compromise the militia, which has a function different from a standing army. There is a clear distinction between the militia and the people. We are allowed a militia, and we are allowed our individual right to keep and bear arms.

What was the purpose of a militia? It was not necessarily, as the ACLU states, to keep the people free from the central government. Their purpose was to protect people from forces that would harm people, such as armed forces from another state (which did occasionally occur) or from raids by Native Americans.

This right has nothing to do with the National Guard. If we are to truly believe the National Guard fulfills the purpose of the militia as stated in the 2nd amendment, why is the Federal Government sending members over to Iraq? Shouldn't they be stationed in their home state? Isn't the National Guard a part of the U.S. Army, while militia units have not been part of a standing army, historically? Sure, militia units served the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War, but under the control of local officers - plus, they were no longer serving with the standing Army at the conclusion of the war.

And, contrary to ACLU opinion, there is nothing anachronistic about the militia. It exists today, and not as the National Guard.

The situation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina should show that a handgun or hunting rifle can do lots of good in one's personal protection, and that a militia can form to protect people. Neighbors acted in a militia capacity until control could be restored. The National Guard and the police were not protecting people. Neighbors protecting neighbors, fathers' and mothers' protecting their families, friends protecting friends, and decent people protecting those who couldn't protect themselves - all of these became the militia. Counter to the ACLU slam on hunting guns and handguns, these tools worked just fine for the New Orleans militia members.

There is nothing anachronistic about defense or self-defense. I imagine that late at night, if an ACLU member was at home, sleeping snugly in bed until a window shattering wakes the member up, that member would "get anachronistic" really quick.


"The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration."

Again, I refer to the Second Amendment.

We have already established the 2nd contains an individual right to keep and bear arms, as well as a right to act as a militia. The 2nd very clearly states this right "shall not be infriged." What is the purpose of licensing and registration? To remove the guns from the people. To disarm those that would be the militia in times of crisis, when there is no protection from the National Guard or from the police.

When "licensing and registration" are called "reasonable regulation," we see that there no such reality exists... there is no "reasonable regulation." The rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

As a side note, the ACLU really does have an interesting web site. Whether or not you agree with their opinions, and I rarely do, they do a great job of clearly laying out their beliefs and making information easily accessible. Take a trip to their web site sometime.

Tags: Guns , 2nd Amendment , Bill of Rights , Militia