Let’s discuss the Second Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, shall we?
The Second Amendment has been the one part of the social contract between the government and the governed which has been largely misinterpreted. And, if I may be so bold as to say so, much of that misinterpretation has been deliberate. Certain individuals and organizations have an agenda, and part of that agenda depends upon whipping up the emotions of unsuspecting citizens. They spew propaganda endlessly, twist facts and statistics to suit their purposes, and denounce anyone who dares to criticize and/or contradict them. Their justification for existence and the contributions they receive are on the line, always.
I’m writing about the National Rifle Association, aren’t I, dear reader?
Before I get to the heart of the matter, I must make a confession. In my younger and more naïve days, I was a card-carrying member of the Illinois Rifle Association (the state adjunct of the NRA). I had visited an auto expo in Chicago and encountered the booth set up by the IRA. The man in charge was yelling at anyone who would listen that “they’re trying to take away your guns!” I signed up, even though I did not at the time own any firearms, though I did later on. In December 1968, I underwent an apotheosis, and my philosophy and my politics were radicalized. I became the person who now writes these words.
The Second Amendment states quite succinctly that “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.”
Read those words carefully, dear reader. If you please, say them out loud. Repeat if necessary. Let the words sink into your consciousness.
One of the notions that the NRA and its allies have promoted over the years is a conspiracy theory involving insurrection. According to this theory, government is inherently evil and must be opposed at every turn if “liberty” is to be preserved. Hence, the repeated, ad infinitum, warning: “They’re trying to take away your guns!” An armed populace is needed in order to counter government, and the Second Amendment, so the theory goes, was written to provide a legal basis for insurrection should government overstep its bounds. I should point out that, if government were truly evil, the Second Amendment wouldn’t have been included in the U.S. Constitution in the first place. As readers of this publication well know, writer John Whitehead yammers on and on about the “American police state.” In some respects, he is correct; in others, he is not. But, he has never once suggested that the Second Amendment stands as a bulwark against a tyrannical government. And, in point of fact, it does not.
Read it again, dear reader. Is there anything in it which points to a legal framework for insurrection? No, not one word. The NRA lies through its collective teeth and bullies an unsuspecting populace into believing a falsehood.
The Founding Fathers abhorred a standing army. They had many examples of the abuses a standing army could be put to in contemporary Europe. They desired, nearly as much as the freedoms contained in the First Amendment, a “citizens’ militia” which could be called up at a moment’s notice to meet a national emergency, be it a disturbance of the peace or protection against an invasion by a foreign power. When the emergency had been dealt with, the militia could be disbanded and put on stand-by until its need arose again. The Second Amendment was the authorization for such a militia. The language allows for no other purpose whatsoever, NRA propaganda to the contrary notwithstanding.
Sadly, in 1794, the Congress created a European-style standing army which president George Washington used to put down the so-called “Whiskey Rebellion” in western New York State. This force was not disbanded and became the core of the United States Army with ranks and uniforms and bureaucracy. No one protested. Subsequent history demonstrates, our standing army has been as abusive as any of the colonial powers.
It is true that there is a “gun culture” in these United States, and it must be addressed rationally. We must understand that (1) not everyone should be allowed to own a firearm, (2) no one should be allowed to own military-style weapons, and (3) no one should be allowed to stockpile a private arsenal. Beyond that, the right to keep and bear arms should not be infringed. The Chas never has been anti-gun; in point of fact, the historian in him has had a certain fascination for antique weapons. But we need some common sense here, folks.
If America had had no standing army, only the National Guard, our history would have been a lot less bloody. We would have had no fear that a tyrannical government or an American police state would have come into being. And we would not have had to put up with the likes of the National Rifle Association.
Just a thought.