An interesting argument, but hardly as airtight as the author would like us to believe. The spin point is, of course, the word “militia.” The armed citizen, soldier if and only if the freedom of the land is in dire danger.
The author works from the standing assumption (common to the collectivist fauxLiberal ) that the “militia” is or should be incorporated into the same governmental chain of command which controls the standing army. That assumption is, of course, totally predicated on another major and irrational assumption common to the fauxLiberal, to wit that it is impossible for the prevailing government of the land to be or become the very threat demanding the citizen soldier stand to arms in defense of freedom.
Since the entire tone and premise of the founding fathers was to establish a democracy of checks and balances, and since the only check and balance possible on an army controlled by a corrupt government is a second force of arms which is NOT controlled by the presumed-to-be-corrupt government it then must follow that the founding fathers had no intention of the “well regulated militia” being a functionary of the established government. After all, the established government of their times was the King of England, and the only hope of freedom for the people was their quite independent and very rebellious citizen militia.
From all of the above I would say the American citizen does not have the Constitutional right to own and bear arms, I’d say the American citizen has the Constitutional Responsibility to own and bear arms, and more, the responsibility to know when said arms should remain silent and when they should come out of the closet to speak with overwhelming force in defense of the freedoms required to exercise and properly discharge that very responsibility.
The argument spins both ways, strangely the other possibility of that passage is never mentioned by either side in the modern debate, which casts a great deal of doubt over the ultimate motives and allegiance of both polarities.
June 6, 2022 @ 4:01 pm
An interesting argument, but hardly as airtight as the author would like us to believe. The spin point is, of course, the word “militia.” The armed citizen, soldier if and only if the freedom of the land is in dire danger.
The author works from the standing assumption (common to the collectivist fauxLiberal ) that the “militia” is or should be incorporated into the same governmental chain of command which controls the standing army. That assumption is, of course, totally predicated on another major and irrational assumption common to the fauxLiberal, to wit that it is impossible for the prevailing government of the land to be or become the very threat demanding the citizen soldier stand to arms in defense of freedom.
Since the entire tone and premise of the founding fathers was to establish a democracy of checks and balances, and since the only check and balance possible on an army controlled by a corrupt government is a second force of arms which is NOT controlled by the presumed-to-be-corrupt government it then must follow that the founding fathers had no intention of the “well regulated militia” being a functionary of the established government. After all, the established government of their times was the King of England, and the only hope of freedom for the people was their quite independent and very rebellious citizen militia.
From all of the above I would say the American citizen does not have the Constitutional right to own and bear arms, I’d say the American citizen has the Constitutional Responsibility to own and bear arms, and more, the responsibility to know when said arms should remain silent and when they should come out of the closet to speak with overwhelming force in defense of the freedoms required to exercise and properly discharge that very responsibility.
The argument spins both ways, strangely the other possibility of that passage is never mentioned by either side in the modern debate, which casts a great deal of doubt over the ultimate motives and allegiance of both polarities.