The Founding Fathers thought a Militia would be essential to a free state, but rapidly discovered that it sucked.
The Founding Fathers felt that a well-regulated militia was essential to the success of their nation - a militia with elected leaders, training, regiments, and clear purpose - but they had no idea how to reliably maintain such a thing.
They also felt it was crucial that for the idea to work, the government be the source of both armament and training.
In the end, none of these are indicative of their support for the second amendment giving people the rights to buy, own, sell, or trade armaments. None imply that private ownership or sportsmanship is a consideration in the protection of liberty.
The purpose of the second amendment is to protect the ability of the people to form a militia. “Arms” are maintained as the means to arm a militia. The purpose of the right is solely to ensure that killing weapons are in the hands of trained militia that might serve as local protection and aid the army under the command of a general, or other official, when in times of trouble.
"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots & tyrants. It is it's natural manure. Our Convention has been too much impressed
by the insurrection of Massachusetts: and in the spur of the moment they are
setting up a kite to keep the hen-yard in order."
He was explaining that a few people rebelling in Shay's
Rebellion in Massachusetts was not a justification to raise a standing army to
send in. It was enough, as he says "to set them right as to facts, pardon
and pacify" them - he was saying they were not a real threat to the union.
The blood of patriots and tyrants he was referring to? The
blood of those that rebelled, not the blood of the leaders being overthrown by
the angry masses.
He is pointing out that the armed people in the rebellion
were simply not a significant threat - far from suggesting that the government
had better watch out for the armed populace – it was the total opposite.
Without context:
“Little more can
reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them
properly armed and equipped"
Another paraphrasing, here is the context:
"The
project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it
would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A
tolerable expertness of military movements is a business that requires time and
practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for
the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other
classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through
military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire
the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a
well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious
public inconvenience and loss... Little more can reasonably be
aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed
and equipped;"
Again, if you observe the context, he is saying that a
militia cannot possibly serve to protect the Union in the place of an army.
They are nowhere near necessary for protection, and were totally ineffective
and "futile."
The only thing the government could even hope to do would be
to arm them - nothing else would even be feasible to make them a functional
army.
Without context: "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."
Is almost completely accurate - he was a large proponent for
a Federally controlled standing army,
and wanted the populace to be armed in
case the army got too big and some general decided to take over.
The parts that are generally removed from the quote:
"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the
Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence
of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the
militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of
ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form
can admit of."
As you can see, he was suggesting our advantages lay in our
"well-regulated militia," officers, and governments directing them - not just random, miscellaneous armed men.
Another thing to note is that there were no police forces to
speak of at the time, so the militia he refers to are quite similar to our
modern police forces, where we elect commissioners and chiefs.
Without context:
"to disarm the people; that it was the
best and most effectual way to enslave them”
With context:
“Parliament
was advised by an artful man, 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.”
It was, in fact, the destruction of the organization of the
militia that rendered the people enslaved.
His whole discussion is largely in favor of training the
militia:
"But we need not give them power to abolish our
militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper
discipline, they will be of no use. I am not acquainted with
the military profession. I beg to be excused for any errors I may commit with
respect to it. But I stand on the general principles of freedom, whereon I dare
to meet any one. I wish that, in case the general government
should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an
express declaration that the state governments might arm and
discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this
part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power."
He states that if the government fails to maintain strict
training and arming requirements for the militia, they will be useless in the
function they serve to protect liberty.
He is saying that if you didn't get government (or at least
state) training in combat and tactics, you have effectively been
"disarmed" and no longer can effectively be a bastion of defense for
the union.
He clearly suggests that the way
things are now are in no way ideal.
The Second Amendment was certainly to protect the rights of
the people to form militia - but it was in no way expected to, or designed to
protect people from their own government.
Alexander Hamilton: Part II:
"In times of insurrection, or invasion,
it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to
resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction
or sedition."
He goes on to say “If the power of affording it be placed
under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and
listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor…”
He is specifically suggesting that the usefulness of a
militia would be to put down an insurgency. A "rebellion"
- or depending on perspective, a group of people rising up against tyranny, and
the direction of this militia should come from the Union, not the individual
states, who may not rush to the defense of their neighbors until it is too
late.
George Washington’s letter to the continental congress
bemoans the uselessness of the militia, and the necessity of a standing army
trained to that purpose.
Even George Washington described the militia (all citizens)
as "dismayed, intractable and impatient to return home. Great numbers have
gone off, in some instances by whole regiments."
They would routinely abandon their posts or flee. Strategic
studies of the time show that militia were often pinned in between ranks of
conscripted soldiers so they could not easily run.
None of the founding fathers would think, after that display
during the revolutionary war, that they posed a real threat to the conscripted
army. They had proposed the idea early on and kept it - though it was debated
and only made it as an amendment.
No comments:
Post a Comment