This article originally appeared on Courageous Lion Substack and was republished with permission.
How about we take a close look at the 2nd amendment to the Bill of Rights? And not just a cursory look, but rather an honest, critical, deeper look.
“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.”
It does not say “A well regulated Standing Army being necessary to the security of a tyrannical state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall always be infringed.”
Well-regulated means to run smoothly, be disciplined, and be well-supplied. Militia means the body of people consisting of lawful citizens in a free state of existence. Security means to keep safe. Necessary means needed, essential Free state, meaning the collective of states, the whole nation. The right means those essential liberties that all people have regardless of government.
The people, the lawful citizens in a free state of existence, To keep, meaning to own and possess And bear, meaning to carry on or about one’s person either open or concealed.
Arms , meaning weapons Shall not, meaning must not, will not be infringed, meaning restricted, retarded, or suppressed in any way whatsoever.
Therefore, a well-regulated, smooth-running, well-supplied, disciplined Militia is necessary, essential, and needed for the security, and safety of a free state, the whole nation for national security. The right, liberties, of the people, free and lawful citizens, to keep and bear arms, shall not, must not , will not be infringed, restricted suppressed.
Now if you suppress, restrict or infringe upon the rights and liberties of the people to keep, own, and bear arms, open or concealed you are compromising national security. The crime of jeopardizing national security is treason.
Referred to in modern times as an individual’s right to carry and use arms for self-defense, the Second Amendment was envisioned by the framers of the Constitution, according to College of William and Mary law professor and future U.S. District Court judge St. George Tucker in 1803 in his great work Blackstone’s Commentaries: With Notes of Reference to the Constitution and Laws of the Federal Government of the United States and of the Commonwealth of Virginia, as the “true palladium of liberty.”
In addition to checking federal power, the Second Amendment also provided state governments with what Luther Martin (1744/48–1826) described as the “last coup de grace” that would enable the states “to thwart and oppose the general government.”
Last, it enshrined the ancient Florentine and Roman constitutional principles of civil and military virtue by making every citizen a soldier and every soldier a citizen.
This from George Mason the, “Father of the Bill of Rights”: “Forty years ago, when the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, (Sir William Keith) who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia. [Here Mr. Mason quoted sundry passages to this effect.] Why should we not provide against the danger of having our militia, our real and natural strength, destroyed? The general government ought, at the same time, to have some such power. But we need not give them power to abolish our militia.”
“Mr. Chairman, a worthy member has asked who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country, and if we are not to be protected from the fate of the Germans or Prussians by our representation? I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, [Constitution, Bill of Rights] the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor…” -Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 1788
So why in the words of the “Father of the Bill of Rights” do we have a militia and bear arms? • We bear arms to keep from becoming enslaved by the federal government AND • To protect ourselves from the tyranny of OUR REPRESENTATIVES, whose dereliction leads us to suffer the same fate of foreign nations; • Mason makes sure we know WHO the militia is. This is contrary to what most politicians profess.
This from Noah Webster: “Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command: for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.
A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.” -‘An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution’, 1787
So why do we bear arms according to Noah Webster? • To prevent rule by a standing army; • To prevent Congress from executing unjust and unconstitutional laws; • To prevent the Federal Government from becoming unjust and oppressive; • The people bearing arms should be SUPERIOR to an army controlled by Congress. (And today the army appears to be controlled by the so called Commander in Chief. When was the last time we had a war declared by Congress? C.L.)
A short statement from Richard Henry Lee: “[W]hereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…” -Letter from the Federal Farmer #18 January 25, 1788.
So, why are our politicians and media mocking bird talking heads bent on disseminating misleading information and lies? Perhaps they repeat the lies because they’re intent on disarming the people? Because they know, as our founders did, that an armed citizenry is the last line of defense against absolute tyranny.
A proper debate on one’s right to keep and bear arms is NOT one that is framed in the terms of whether you can feel safe from wicked, depraved people who want to hurt you. You will NEVER feel safe from these people. They will not cease to exist just because YOU are not allowed to legally own a gun. They do not care about laws and will always find a way to hurt and destroy, with or without gun laws.
If society is honest and historically accurate, the only question that has any relevance to the gun control debate is this: “Do you trust those in government, now and forever in the future, to not take your life, liberty, or property through the force of government?”
If the answer to that question is “No”, the gun control debate is over.
Please do understand, the US Constitution does not give us any rights, and that includes the 2nd Amendment. Rather, it affirms rights that already existed, espoused in the “Bill of Rights”, in order to safeguard them. Note that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms” isn’t given by the language above. Instead, our right to keep and bear arms, which existed outside of any Constitution, is protected from infringement.
The word NECESSARY is used in one place in the Bill of Rights and only in one place. Those first 13 words which were eviscerated in 1902-1903 with the “Dick Act” and following legislation that pretty much converted the voluntary state militias into a part of the federal army known as the National Guard. Those 13 words may be the most important 13 words in the whole Constitution. We should be working to get them back into effect.
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. …Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. —Elbridge Gerry, Fifth Vice President of the United States
“The army…is a dangerous instrument to play with.”
George Washington to Alexander Hamilton, April 4th, 1783
“A standing army is one of the greatest mischiefs that can possibly happen.”
James Madison, Debates, Virginia Convention, 1787
“Always remember that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics—that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe.”
James Madison, Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809
“Standing armies are dangerous to liberty.”
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers, 1787
I believe the US Constitution makes clear the prohibition against a standing army. If you look at Article 1 Section 8 you will find this:
To declare War,(this is NOT the President’s jurisdiction! The President states he can act defensive only, and then Congress steps in), grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal (which could help keep us OUT of wars!), and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Note the time frame for the appropriation of funds for an Army. TWO YEARS. And of course if we were at war, they could extend it another two years after the first two years were up. Note the continual use of the Militia. The VOLUNTARY militia would have soldiers for an ARMY called out of it to defend the nation in case of invasion or insurrection.
If a state started a voluntary militia patterned after the original intent, would you join? If our country was invaded, would you be willing to arm up and help defend your state and the nation? I suspect that the ranks would be overrun with volunteers.
Realize this…standing armies, after all, do not always only practice defense. And don’t give me the line, “Our military would never turn on the people,” b.s. because if you are a student of history, every time a country turns tyrannical, the military is used on the people. As a matter of fact, the Founding Fathers fought THEIR military at Concord Green because it wasn’t the United States yet!
Once established, a government’s bureaucrats and leaders, as well as the military and even laymen, all face a different set of incentives. Those with a job related to the military have an incentive to keep their job. My late father was an employee of Rockwell International, which is part of the military-industrial complex. Talking to him about the subject of ending standing armies was futile.
In a lot of cases, they probably would love to see their power expanded and their pay and benefits increased. Their support for war, then, is the ideal way for achieving their goals. Most likely, incentives like this could convert a champion of peace into a war-loving bureaucrat. It’s a lot easier to rationalize a war if your job depends on it.
The Militia Act of 1903, known as “the Dick Act,” named after its writer, created the National Guard out of the Organized Militia and created the Reserve Militia, consisting of males 17-45, those eligible for the draft, on the way to doing totally away with the organized militia.
This removed more control of the Militia from the States but provided additional funding for training, equipping, and manning the force. It was the National Defense Act of 1916 that fully modernized the National Guard, provided Federal funding for training, drills, annual training, and equipping.
It did, however, stipulate that in return, the War Department and the Army gained far more control over the Militia; for example, the Army was now able to dictate what types of units would be raised in each State. The Act also removed the issue of Militia serving outside the United States by stating that when called into Federal service, the National Guard would be considered Federal troops. So, can we quit calling the National Guard the militia?
From then on, the National Guard has served with distinction in all the major conflicts of the United States. Oh, they were just used for “major conflicts”. Another way of saying UNDECLARED WAR. So what was originally supposed to be a voluntary force garnered from the organized militias of the several states in a declared war or national emergency has been morphed into a “division” of the Standing army.
Need I say any more about standing armies? Of which we have in force and existence today rampaging all over the world involved in conflicts that are none of our business? Oh wait, they are involved in “conflicts” which in most cases are the people running our government’s way of doing business. Sort of like a bully taking the lunch money away from a smaller kid in a public school only on a far greater scale. We should be proud.
Seriously, and I repeat… those first 13 words of the second amendment may be the most important 13 words in the whole Constitution. We should be working diligently to get them back into effect.
The founding fathers understood clearly what the word NECESSARY meant as well as the word SECURITY. And if you think about it the carrying of arms is NECESSARY FOR SECURITY to exist.
Just recently we saw how someone taking the word NECESSARY to heart was willing to supply SECURITY for the people in his vicinity when a mass shooter began a rampage. Now imagine THOUSAND, no MILLIONS of citizens who have taken the step to volunteer into state militias in all 50 states and are carrying arms on or about their person to supply the SECURITY NECESSARY for a free state for those that are in their immediate vicinity.
The militia is mentioned as the goal for the protection of our right to live under the security of a free state of existence and thus to keep and bear arms —and yet it is not a requirement to be a member. The word VOLUNTARY comes into play. Obviously all living and breathing people have a right to their lives and thus a corresponding right to defend that life by WHATEVER MEANS NECESSARY.
For anyone, any officer of the court, any law enforcement, any senator, any congressman, any president to make an effort to disarm and take away the people’s right to defend themselves, their county, their state, their country is tantamount to treason and they place themselves in a state of war against those that they become an aggressor against. After all, all law is enforced through the barrel of a gun.
If we were to get back to voluntary militias a lot of the empire building that the behind the scenes rulers of the United States engage in would grind to a stop. We would have state militias made up of men and women between the ages of 17 and 45. There would be incentives to be in the militia such as are now with military members like militia member discounts at stores.
Help with loans, help with arming members for instance. Those who are not actual members could offer voluntary assistance in helping train and arm those who are unable to arm themselves. At my age I could no longer volunteer to be a member, but I could assist in training and arming younger militia members. I believe that many of our country men would join a volunteer militia today to get the training and to be able to stand in the gap whenever they are out and about in society.
Can you imagine millions of trained militia members in our society being everywhere at all times and what kind of deterrent it would be against any kind of armed crime that may happen?
What I would love to see is a state governor to do some research and reinstate a REAL voluntary state militia patterned after the Founders version, which is patterned after the many years old Swiss tradition. Not some group like the Texas Guard or the Florida Guard which is state only sponsored, but not really trained in military response.
They are not armed and basically act like a force to help the actual standing army version, “National Guard” in case of state emergencies. The first governor to bring back A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state would become a legend and many other governors, mostly “red state” governors would most likely follow suit. And then we will have back in force and effect…A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.
You can expect an outcry of citizens in “blue” states if their governors don’t follow suite with a national effort to re-establish the state militias.
Oh, and on the COUNTY level, I don’t want to forget that the SHERIFF, who is the highest elected law officer of the county, can form a POSSE which is actually the county level example of the militia.
I end this with this quote from John Locke, one of the men the founders of our system of justice read:
“He who attempts to get another man into his absolute power does thereby put himself into a state of war with him, it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life; for I have reason to conclude that he who would get me into his power without my consent would use me as he pleased when he got me there, and destroy me, too, when he had a fancy to it; for nobody can desire to have me in his absolute power unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e., make me a slave. to be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him as an enemy to my preservation who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me thereby puts himself into a state of war with me.” ~ John Locke – Two Treatises Of Government
Ask yourself…are we not being placed in a state of war with all of the thousands of violations and infringements on SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED? I think you know the answer. We need to change that and get those first 13 words back into force and effect.
One detractor on Fakebook said my view was “demented” because what would happen if all we had were militia and we were invaded by say, China? My question to him, which he ignored was…where do the tank operators, drone operators, jet pilots, gun boat pilots come from? Do they pop in from another dimension and fill the positions or do they come from the CIVILIAN population?
Since the civilian population would be the correct answer, then why couldn’t militia members be trained to run a tank? Or an drone? Or fly a jet? Obviously, the answer is, well of course they could be. And he never realized that Afghanistan didn’t have a standing army. They had MILITIAS. And what was the end result THERE? They ended up with a better-armed MILITIA than any of the 50 states have. Since there are NONE. The following lists are what was left behind, valued in BILLIONS of “dollars,” all paid out to the military-industrial complex.
Imagine, if you will, all of this equipment in the hands of a well trained and armed militias in all of the 50 states…And the BILLIONS of “dollars” that wouldn’t have been lost.
You see, the major DIFFERENCE would be that the militia would be DEFENDING the continental US, Alaska and Hawaii. They wouldn’t be running around the world and pretending to be defending “our freedom” in Iraq, or Syria, or Afghanistan or any other place that we shouldn’t be and the military-industrial complex wouldn’t need to keep replenishing the weapons they build because the stockpiles keep getting used on while blowing up aspirin factories and wedding parties in a far away distant land full of people who have NEVER harmed us in any way.
Reason, logic, and common sense dictate that we would be very well protected with a MILITIA where, with a standing military making enemies all over the place and then wide open borders that allow anyone and everyone to come here…we are going to be reaping some nasty results. ESPECIALLY if we don’t get the militias back in force and effect. Mark my words…C.L. )
