"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."
The Second Amendment to our United States Constitution has become a source of controversy in the debate over gun control. But both sides in this debate focus in on gun control as the only issue that the 2nd Amendment has any importance. Instead, let's look at the historical context of the passage of the 2nd Amendment and try to find a deeper meaning.
Congress shall have the power to . . .
To declare War
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress
We'll start by looking at the rest of the Constitution and the powers granted to Congress concerning the army and the militia. Congress has the power and authority to create a professional army, but we can see several attempts at creating a system of checks and balances. Without getting into too much detail, the Founding Fathers had a suspicious view of standing professional armies during peacetime. I suggest the book "To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right" by Joyce Lee Malcolm for more details on the political traditions in England and America that saw professional armies as one of the greatest threats to liberty. The "military-industrial complex" has been a problem for much of American history.
The President of the United States, like the English monarch, was made commander-in-chief. But Congress has the power to raise and support armies. More importantly, the power to declare war was given to Congress, unlike the English system where the King delcares war. And to ensure that Congress keeps control of the standing army, the appropriation of money for the army cannot be for a period longer than two years, just as Congress is elected biannually.
The new United States government would also have greater power over the militia than under the older Articles of Confederation. This was done primary to offset the national government's dependency on a professional army. If the state militias were independent of the national government, the result would be a dependency on a larger than desired professional army run by the national government. The use of the militia was designed to reduce the size of the professional army. The ability to appoint officers, and the ability to set uniform standards for organization, arming, and disciplining, were vital in allowing Congress the option of using the militias instead of the army.
At the end of this brief summary of the Constitutional powers given to Congress in matters of defense, we might see that a clear statement that a militia of citizen-soldiers is better than a professional army is missing. Which brings us to the 2nd Amendment . . .
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.
There are two key phrases in the 2nd Amendment. We better understand now the purpose of the first phrase. The phrase "well-regulated" implied that the federal government had a responsibility to keep the militia in good order to secure a free State. A well-regulated militia reduced dependency on a professional army, which was a threat to a free State. Having a military force that was little more than hired mercenaries was a threat to the freedom of Americans.
Now how about that second phrase, the source of so much conflict. Is the Amendment talking about the collective right of the state militias to remain armed? Or an individual right for everyone to keep and bear arms?
Based on the use of the phrase "the people" the claim that the Amendment protects an individual right seems stronger. The First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments contain similar language. Being disarmed was an actual threat in the eyes of the Founders.
Discussion of gun control should shift away from the federal level to the state level. Or, if gun control advocates believe that only national legislation will be effective, the campaign on the national level should focus on a new constitutional amendment. Moving gun control out of the national political arena is actually a modest proposal compared to the implications of the rest of the 2nd Amendment. Is the huge standing army that the United States currently maintains justified? Should American troops be deployed overseas without a declaration of war? Should we not begin to emphasis the role of the organized Militia, the National Guard, and the unorganized Militia, the able bodied American men of age, in protecting the security of America? This should be the real debate over the 2nd Amendment.
Today the United States has a defense budget with a size equal to the combined spending of all other nations combined. We are a super power; a global leader. There is no argument there. But the question is should we be spending so much? Does it really take so many billions a year to keep America safe? As 9-11 showed our huge military is not enough to keep us safe, and it may be that our stationing of troops overseas contributes to a hatred of America.
There is an interesting proposal from the conservative-libertarian Cato Institute [PDF] that would reduce the military budget to about $200 billion in increments over five years and restructure the military to focus on a new force structure to meet the needs of one major theater war and taking advantage of air superiority. They argue that the focus should not be on defending other countries, something that should be the responsibility of themselves and not the United States, but defending the United States of America. We would still be able to operate as the balancer of last resort by assisting other nations in maintaining a balance of power in critical regions around the world. But the emphasis would be on multilateral intervention into regions, with the allied nations in the region providing ground troops while we provide air power.
I think there's a grave danger in going too far into isolationism. Pulling out of the UN, as some conservatives advocate, would be a dangerous action. But multilateral intervention into regions to maintain a balance of power would still be part of America's foreign policy and the best way to create a coalition of countries is through the UN. We would use our position in the Security Council to press for prudence and oppose rushing to war (for once!), but we would be willing to work with the UN and through the UN for the maintenance of an international balance of power.
There was an old Mother Jones article from 2003 about the need for a new liberal foreign policy. I can't find it now online, but it says "A truly liberal foreign policy starts with the idea that the things American liberals want for themselves-liberty and equality ensured by collective action-should be America's goal for the rest of the world as well." The article also says "Multilateral action with other democracies should be at the core of a liberal foreign policy." Unlike an empire that acts regardless of international support, America should become a republic that acts with other nations to achieve a goal shared by many. In working with other countries, we will reduce our dependency on our own bloated military-industrial complex.
The stance of the Democratic Party should be to take the same liberal foreign policy goals we've always had but achieve them through reducing our military presence overseas and working through international organizations instead of against them. Having decided our foreign policy goal, and the ways to reach that goal, we have concluded that a reduced military would be a proper move. But now we must ask if reducing the military should also bring about reforming our current dependency on a professional army as opposed to the National Guard, reservists, and other forms of citizen-soldiers. After all, our Constitution and the 2nd Amendment focus not only on restraining the professional army, but encouraging citizen-soldiers.
The first area for the militia to expand its role is homeland defense, where the Posse Comitatus Act prevents the American military from playing a major role. Former Senator Gary Hart talked about this in 2003 when he was still considering a run for the White House and I was deeply impressed by his ideas. I suggest reading his books "Restoration of the Republic: The Jeffersonian Ideal in 21st-Century America" and "The Fourth Power: A Grand Strategy for the United States in the Twenty-First Century." Here is what he has to say from a speech he gave:
But who, in addition to our public safety agencies, our police and fire departments and emergency responders, should help respond to an attack and keep the peace and restore order? Might there not be the need for some kind of military capability? Once again, based upon their understanding of classical history, our founders anticipated the future. They created such an army and called it the militia; citizen-soldiers under the immediate command of the various States that can be deployed in times of emergency. Since the late 19th century these militia have been known as the National Guard and they were created and given Constitutional status as the first responders and the first line of defense in the case of an attack on our homeland.
The professional army itself could be improved if it were to include a greater dependency on citizen soldiers. One of the greatest traits of the American military is that it is an all-volunteer force, and this is a cornerstone of our defense that should never be changed. Forcing a citizen to serve in the military is the antithesis of our republican virtues, even though we believe that service to the country is one of the highest duties a citizen has. You can't force someone to be virtuous. Therefore, we should encourage citizens to serve in the military for short periods of time, receiving training and preparing them for a day in which their country may need them. Not only can we encourage involvement in the military, but the broader issue of national service includes involvement in the Peace Corps and AmeriCorps. I think that national service was one of the greatest ideas that came from Clinton during his Presidency and I hope that Democrats in 2006 and 2008 continue to push on this issue.
These are two major ways for America to involve citizens in defending our country. By reducing our military presence overseas and reducing overall waste in the military budget we could easily reduce spending down to $200 billion. However reducing the waste isn't enough if we are left with the same type of military as before, a professional army of career warriors. Reforms would be needed to increase the role of the National Guard, the militia, in the defense of the homeland as first responders, and also open up the military to citizen soldiers that wish to serve their country for a short period in their life. In this way the military for the 21st century would not just be a high tech version of the 20th century military, but a new fusion of citizen soldiers and the militia with a purpose of defending a republic, not maintaining an empire.
We can have a professional army that operates independent of the citizenry and is the strong arm of an empire, or we can have a citizen militia that operates as part of the citizenry and is the first line of defense for a republic. What would you prefer?