You and What Army?

Some time back, I had the opportunity to discuss the First Amendment to the Constitution. Inasmuch as I support Constitutional Rights, I hope to discuss all of them outlined in the Bill of Rights in due time. That being the case, please forgive the delay as I am quite alarmingly overdue to discuss the Second Amendment. You’ll find it here, but the relevant text is:

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.

This poor sentence has been subjected to so much scrutiny and twisting, so much debate and rhetoric. Some people say it means we all have the right to have any kind of gun we like. Others say it only means the military has a right to guns, an idea which seems redundant. Still others say the whole thing is outdated and needs to be reigned in with regulations, a tricky arrangement unless the whole thing is repealed.

When interpreting the sentence in question, it is useful to remember its context. So I direct you to the top of the page, where the Preamble to the Bill of Rights begins:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

So let’s keep in mind as we read that the purpose of this sentence and the entire Bill of Rights is “to prevent misconstruction or abuse of [the Government’s] powers.” Indeed, “During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a “bill of rights” that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.”

I have often condensed this line of reasoning as “Remember that the Bill of Rights was written by people who overthrew the legal British Colonial Government.”

So let’s begin with the concept of the well regulated militia. Militia is easily understood. Well regulated is another story, because in my opinion it means multiple things. Remember the story of Paul Revere? He rode through the countryside, raising the alarm that the British were planning an attack. This warning allowed Colonial citizens to band together as a militia and repel the attack. Of course his deeds are exaggerated in the famous poem, but Wikipedia informs us that “He used his numerous contacts in eastern Massachusetts to devise a system for the rapid call up of the militias to oppose the British. Although several messengers rode longer and alerted more soldiers than Revere that night, they were part of the organization that Revere created and implemented in eastern New England. Some claim that Paul Revere became famous while Dawes and Prescott did not because Revere was better known and trusted by those who knew him.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Revere illustrates multiple ways that we can have a “well regulated militia.” The militia in question was a group of more-or-less average fellows who stood up to the trained British regiment. However, they weren’t exactly beating Redcoats over the head with copper-bottomed pots! They had guns, and they knew how to use them. Granted, the modern Army no longer makes soldiers bring their own guns; it provides arms to soldiers, and trains them too. But imagine how much faster a country can mobilize against invasion if there are already people who know how to use basic firearms! General Washington must have been very glad he and so many other lads learned to hunt as a boy.

It is easy to see how the right to bear arms might result in the rapid recruitment and deployment of a militia. But don’t forget the other half of the story. The Minutemen were able to inflict “many casualties” on the well trained, well armed British troops. A “well regulated militia” can also mean that if the need arises, citizens can defend themselves against the troops of their own governement.

Both interpretations are absolutely necessary to the security of a free state, the next phrase of the sentence. To have a a continuing “free state,” we must have security from threats. These threats can be external — like an invading army. Or they can be internal — like an occupying army or Old West Outlaws or a military coup.

That’s a lot of philosophical baggage, and we haven’t even gotten to the main clause of the sentence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. It is worth noting that the right is granted to people. Not men, not adults over the age of 21, not people who are not slaves, not citizens, not even people of sound mind. People. People like you and me and that guy you don’t like over there. Not only do ordinary people have the right “keep arms,” they have the right to “bear” them.

Make no mistake, I think there is plenty of middle ground for common sense regulation that does not “infringe” on the rights in question. I think we can all agree that we don’t want the mentally ill or known criminals carrying guns (with the caveat that we cannot count on known criminals to follow the law). And I don’t really think anybody wants people taking their guns with them to the bank or to school. Furthermore, I do not support “concealed carry” laws; if somebody wants to carry a gun in public, it belongs out in the open so everybody can see it and act accordingly.

I support the right of Joe and Jane Average to have guns; I hope I never feel like I need to have one.

In closing, Lou Dobbs on “The Bush White House and its lackeys in the Senate have reached a new low in their quest to bestow amnesty on 11 million to 20 million illegal immigrants, while doing as little as possible to secure our nation’s borders and ports.” I bet you didn’t even know there was such a thing as Japan’s National Unified Otaku Certification Test. Are the Top Ten College Majors also the next decade’s top ten most glutted professions? Ok, so the problem is that “biases and distortions in the current system had created financial incentives for hospitals to treat certain patients, on whom they could make money, and to avoid others, who were less profitable.” So the solution is to “cut payments by 20 percent to 30 percent for many complex treatments and new technologies.” For reference, “record hospital profit margins” are 5.2%, and that in a year that 25% of hospitals lost money. Here’s two experts on opposite sides of the “Net Neutrality” debate. And finally, Robert Rubin treads lightly as he points out the fact that the growing inequalities in the American economy have possible consequences in the long term, perhaps.