How to explain the second amendment

[Hugh Damright]

Hugh, perhaps we need to agree on a definition of a "domestic" threat.

For argument's sake, let's say that elements of the US federal government choose to openly and blatantly abrogate the Constitution- the President declares himself "President for Life", and with the help of a junta of US Army generals, marches an army on the capital, forces the Congress and Supreme Court to dissolve, imprisons the congressmen and justices, and replaces them with handpicked US Army officers. If something like this were to happen, the states could then call forth their well-regulated militia to restore a constitutional government. I can agree that the militia clause of the 2A was written with this sort of scenario in mind.

OTOH, if a constitutional federal government is in place, the Congress has the power to call forth and organize the militia under Article I, Section 8 and the President is the militia's commander in chief under Article II, Section 2. Any action by the militia against a duly elected and constitutional federal government is by definition an illegal and treasonous act.

In your scenario the feds turn against every State, and every State acts to reel in the feds. But in that scenario the US might as well be one big State, there seems to be no aspect of federalism ... suppose instead that the feds turn against some States in the name of others i.e. a conflict between the States ...

What about this scenario ... the US gets to where the blue States are controlling the government such that 1/4 of the States are ruling over 3/4 of the States ... and the 3/4 of the States call for a constitutional convention and propose and ratify amendments to the US Constitution which are intended to strengthen our federal system so that the minority of the States can't rule over the majority of States ... now suppose that the federal government refuses to respect the properly ratified amendments, because Congress had no say, and it was all done in a purely federal manner with each State having one vote (i.e. they might cry that the people had no voice or some such nonsense) ... and further suppose that the 1/4 of the States contain the majority of citizens, such that they have numerical superiority, and so they resort to force, sending the US military into the 3/4 of the States e.g. Virginia, put us under military rule, and tell us we have no representation in congress or any other rights until we agree that our properly ratified amendments are nullified and we agree to abide by their view of government ... in this scenario, most people might think that we had a constitutional government in place, but most states might see it differently ... if Virginia sees it differently, if Virginians believe that the US federal government chose to openly and blatantly abrogate the US Constitution, then would we be required to submit to US military rule, or would we have a right to resist?

If one dislikes the level of federal taxation, the constitutional solution is to elect representatives who will legally change it, not to take up arms and depose the federal government!

Again, nobody is talking about desposing of the federal government by force. But ... I think it was 25 years before the "civil war" that South Carolina declared that they were justified in secession because of federal taxation. I think it was unfair how the tariffs were such a burden on South Carolina as compared to other States. And the money was going to infrastructure up north. I don't see any way that South Carolina could have resolved this situation by electing different representatives. Of course, again, they said they were justified in secession, they did not say that they were justified in "taking up arms and disposing of the federal government".

[BlueTrain]

A problem with the line of thinking going on here is that in one instance, a red state is only a red state if 51% of the population is, uh, red. Otherwise it get colored in as blue, unless your brother is governor. It is true that the majority rule remains in effect but you can see right away that it isn't that simple. Of course, there has always been much controversy along the way with all these conventions and bills going through congress and state legislatures. Ultimately, it will be rare that everyone is satisfied. There was even controversy in parliment over some of the things being done with regard to the American colonists. And it never helps when some of the things being said are exaggerations, lies or simply being ignored.

Thomas Jefferson said a little revolution now and then is good for the country but he was out of the country when he said that. The immediate problem is, if the people are justified in revolting now and then, is deciding when they are justified and when it is treason. Over the years the problem has come up time and time again, nearly always in a different context, but never over something trivial to be sure. Naturally, who ever is in power at the time will see it as treason or something close to it. And a problem with revolution is that all revolutions, successful or unsuccessful, increase the power of government. And that isn't what you're look for, is it?

[cannonfire]

What about this scenario ... the US gets to where the blue States are controlling the government such that 1/4 of the States are ruling over 3/4 of the States ... and the 3/4 of the States call for a constitutional convention and propose and ratify amendments to the US Constitution which are intended to strengthen our federal system so that the minority of the States can't rule over the majority of States ... now suppose that the federal government refuses to respect the properly ratified amendments, because Congress had no say, and it was all done in a purely federal manner with each State having one vote (i.e. they might cry that the people had no voice or some such nonsense) ... and further suppose that the 1/4 of the States contain the majority of citizens, such that they have numerical superiority, and so they resort to force, sending the US military into the 3/4 of the States e.g. Virginia, put us under military rule, and tell us we have no representation in congress or any other rights until we agree that our properly ratified amendments are nullified and we agree to abide by their view of government ... in this scenario, most people might think that we had a constitutional government in place, but most states might see it differently ... if Virginia sees it differently, if Virginians believe that the US federal government chose to openly and blatantly abrogate the US Constitution, then would we be required to submit to US military rule, or would we have a right to resist?

That sounds mighty close to the Civil War to me.... oh wait, that is basically what did happen

[BlueTrain]

Anyone here ever bother to read the Confederate constitution? There is a second admendment "imbedded" therein, and most of the others, too.

I think there may be a danger, mild perhaps but still a danger, of not so much misinterpreting the original meaning or intent of the 2nd admendment as maybe misinterpreting the reasons for it to begin with. It seems apparent to me that most of the "assaults on the 2nd admendment" are relatively recent (by which I mean in the last hundred years) and that the original fears which prompted any inclusion of mention of arms have been or had been totally forgotten. We now use the 2nd admendment as an excuse or reason to be able to go about armed so that we can deal with muggers, armed robbers while we are at the corner store, armed students while we are at school, international terrorists while we are at the Mall of America, kidnappers who are discovered when we are on our way to the Mall of America from Fargo, and for road rage. I just wonder if they envisioned such things.

One such en-visionary, Thomas Jefferson, however, I am positive approved of carrying a weapon to deal with creatures of the night. I've even seen it. It's on display in Charlottesville. As for others in his company, I cannot speak. But nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if he thought the second admendment was necessary for that, or for that matter, if the right to carry a concealed weapon was more of a privilege for members of his class only? That would be an interesting question to ask, were it possible.

[Aguila Blanca]

Good grief!

I go away for a few days, and this thread is still discussing militias as if the militia clause in any way affects or explains the 2nd Amendment.

Sheesh!

[ADB]

What is a militia? At the time of the constitutions writing there were no security forces such as the police angecies we recognize today. Internal security was carried out by the militias of the various states and counties.

Not true. State militias were fundamentally a paramilitary force, not a police force. For law enforcement, there were regional and local officials in the form of sheriffs appointed by the governor, and cities and towns had local constables elected by the residents. Using a militia for police work would be akin to using the National Guard today--sometimes necessary, but far from the usual order of things.

So what is a well regulated militia (internal security force)? A well regulated militia would have thier authority held in check. There would be controls in place to ensure thier behavior was well within contitutional norms and that they did not be come a law onto themselves.

Also no. "Well regulated" meant, in the vernacular of the 1700s, that something was properly functioning, orderly, and methodical. In this case, well trained and prepared for it's duties.

What about this scenario ... the US gets to where the blue States are controlling the government such that 1/4 of the States are ruling over 3/4 of the States ... and the 3/4 of the States call for a constitutional convention and propose and ratify amendments to the US Constitution which are intended to strengthen our federal system so that the minority of the States can't rule over the majority of States

The number of states is virtually irrelevant, since representation in the House and the electoral college is defined by population. The only place where the number of states is relevant is in the Senate, where it's the SMALL states that have an unfair advantage: Wyoming gets one Senator for every 275,000 people, whereas California gets one for every 18,500,000.

In your scenario, the fact that there are more individual states on one side or the other gives them no particular moral force or authority, if they don't have a majority of the people.

The problem wasn't taxation in and of itself; the problem was that the English monarchy didn't care what the colonists thought about the taxation, or what they thought about most anything. The American Revolution occurred because the colonists wanted to determine their own destiny.

Thank you! As a history geek it always drives me nuts when people say that the American Revolution was about taxes. It wasn't. The taxes spurred boycotts and protests, but not much more. The thing that touched off the war was the fact that the British government decided that the annoying colonials had to be taught a lesson, and did so by instituting a military occupation of Boston and the Massachusetts Bay Colony. It wasn't about three pennies per pound of tea, it was the seizure of colonial government and the fact that the British expeditionary force dropped about one redcoat in Boston for every resident of the city.

But nevertheless, I can't help but wonder if he thought the second admendment was necessary for that, or for that matter, if the right to carry a concealed weapon was more of a privilege for members of his class only? That would be an interesting question to ask, were it possible.

At the time, everything was for Jefferson's class only. In early colonial America, if you weren't a wealthy white male landowner, then you pretty much got no respect. That said, Jefferson was a radical guy, probably the second most radical of the revolutionaries after Thomas Paine, and one who seemed to believe in the principles of equality. If you read his writings, he was very nearly an anarchist in some ways: describing his admiration for native american tribes that lived as a collective, without structure; believing that tradition and history shouldn't bind how people lived; and expressing strong opposition to the influence of money and the monied elite on governance. So I suspect he would be supportive. He also once copied down into one of his books a passage from another writer, remarking on the "false idea of utility," particularly when it came to carrying firearms: that laws were made about it in the false belief that they were useful, but that it did nothing to dissuade criminals, and made it harder for people to defend themselves.

[BlueTrain]

I agree with most of what you said except with your comments about well regulated. The admendment, only one sentence, does not necessarily hang on those two words, but I think maybe the point is missed. Obviously they wanted a functioning militia, which they already had and which had seen frequent action. We can talk about whether we want a militia or not in a minute.

If you read some of the earlier declarations, resolves and statements in the time period 1774 to 1776, there are other references to keeping and bearing arms. George Mason specifically mentioned it but he ended that part by saying that it had to be subject to civil authority. I believe that is what well regulated means, though not necessarily limited to that. Moreover, it does not follow that it was the last word regarding the militia and in fact there were acts of congress passed within ten years about the militia. The militia had a significant military role to play for the next 50 years. After that, the idea as it actually functioned became more like the national guard of today, although the name "militia" remained in use at least down into the 1920s in places. Whatever else you might say about it, the militia in this country was a military body with a purely military function composed of armed citizens who at first provided their own weapons and equipment, such as it was, and officered by the local gentry. In that respect, it was almost feudal. Armies in the middle ages were raised in practically the same way.

Everything else you said is pretty good. But then there's the tax thing again. They never go away, do they? And it wasn't even income tax! I think you'd have to say that taxes (and related issues, like representation in parliment) were the basic cause of the revolution, just as slavery was the basic cause of the Civil War. To say slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is rewriting history. But none of those things started the wars. In the revolution, it was the British attempting to confiscate arms, in the Civil War, frankly it was Lincoln's election. Some time passed in both cases before things got really bad but in any case, you know the rest of the story.

I mentioned before somewhere that not everyone was in full agreement with the way things were going on either side of the Atlantic and that was true later on both sides of the Mason-Dixon line. And in both cases it was a while after the wars ended before things all got settled. I lived in a border county in a border state. There were two factions after the civil war and there was some midnight voting, shall we say, over where the county seat was going to be, for instance. A few people hated everything about war, which may surprise some people here and there was some farmer who had the misfortune to be living around Manassas, near Bull Run, where the first battle of the war was fought. It bothered him so much that he sold out and moved to a little town in the country called Appomattox. Lee's surrender was signed in his house.

[Hugh Damright]

In your scenario, the fact that there are more individual states on one side or the other gives them no particular moral force or authority, if they don't have a majority of the people.

I disagree. Article V says that 2/3 of the State Legislatures can call for a convention, in this convention the State delegates can propose amendments, and then these amendments can be ratified by 3/4 of the state legislatures or by state conventions. It doesn't matter what the majority of people think about it, they have no authority in this scenario.

[BlueTrain]

You know, there was just as much argument about all this during the constitutional convention as there is here and they still had to amend it after they were finished. So it may not be a fair argument to state what the original delegates were thinking when there was not complete agreement--although they almost all signed it.

[P5 Guy]

Militia is about the citizens obligations to his/her country/state.
Every citizens is duty bound to provide for the defense of their community. How did we the people forget that we are the Militia! Furthermore, the obligations of the citizens is not limited to taking up arms. In times of emergency all the able-bodied are duty bound to provide comfort to the injured, aid the rescue of those in need, and secure the area of danger. Citizens that delegate their obligations to the "authorities" will find themselves at the mercy of the very ones they charged with their duties.
Free citizens never let others take up their civic duties!

[BlueTrain]

You can't delegate your obligations. You are obliged to pay taxes and I'd like to know how you can delegate that obligation. However, I take your point. We do have obligations to the place of our birth or the place we choose to live. I don't know if we have an obligation if we're forced to live somewhere. In any event, this obligation is usually termed patriotism but the term in the case of the revolution was a matter of which side you were on. You could have been a patriot, a rebel, a loyalist or even switched sides it it suited you, even though any of those terms may have been accurate and the moral choice depending on your point of view. If you hadn't made up your mind by the time the war was over, you would have had to sooner or later.

But to return to the issue of the militia, I think the classic, if we can use that term, view of the militia faded as it became militarily inefficient and possibly as the country became more diverse, which quickly happened, like it or not. While the militia continued to be embodied for generations, especially on the eastern frontier, it wasn't up to the demands of modern warfare, I think. While there were state units in the Civil War, there is little mention of the militia in the 18th century form. It also may not be a particularly workable concept when the country is so politically fragmented as it is now. Then, too, there is no particular threat at the moment as there has been in the past for which the militia would have been called out, but that's probably an arguable point. I've mentioned in some long dead threads some uses for a modern day militia but if it didn't generate interest here, it probably wouldn't anywhere else. Only Canada has a working militia concept on it's northern frontier, but the Swiss is close. The biggest difference is that the Swiss is not voluntary, while the Canada model is entirely voluntary. And moreover, I don't think the Swiss see the existance of a threat like they did 40 years ago.

Otherwise, I agree 100%.

[ADB]

Everything else you said is pretty good. But then there's the tax thing again. They never go away, do they? And it wasn't even income tax! I think you'd have to say that taxes (and related issues, like representation in parliment) were the basic cause of the revolution, just as slavery was the basic cause of the Civil War. To say slavery had nothing to do with the Civil War is rewriting history. But none of those things started the wars. In the revolution, it was the British attempting to confiscate arms, in the Civil War, frankly it was Lincoln's election. Some time passed in both cases before things got really bad but in any case, you know the rest of the story.

But taxes didn't play the same role in the American Revolution as slavery did in the Civil War. Taxes and tax protests were the symptom, not the problem: the problem was British usurpation of colonial government. Read the Wikipedia article on the Intolerable Acts. A more true to life analogy would be to equate tax protests in the American Revolution to the "Bleeding Kansas" civil strife of the 1850s: the first signs of a problem growing out of control.