The following discussion was prompted by some moron at the farmer’s market babbling about Second Amendment rights. What I found particularly disturbing about this dullard’s opinion is that he went beyond the usual paranoid assertions about needing firearms to protect himself. Unaware of the blatant absurdity of his argument, he insisted that what the Second Amendment means by “a well regulated militia” are unregulated para military groups controlled by private citizens. He was unfazed by my comment that what he described are the same type of para-military groups that were in Germany during the nineteen twenties, before one of them, the NAZIES, took over the government and suppressed the other, “militia,” groups.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution
“The Congress shall have power --
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;”
Amendment II
“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 is no language in the Second amendment that repeals any or all of Article I, Section 8 of the constitution. Furthermore, Article II Section 2 states that the President of the United States is the Commander in Chief “of the militia of the several states.” What this means is that a “well regulated militia” is one that is under the regulation and control of congress and the President. Contrary to the lies of the NRA, a “well regulation militia” as provided for by the constitution is not Billy Bob and his beer drinking buddies playing with assault rifles and babbling about the imagined threats of government tyranny. Indeed, Section 8 specifically says that “congress” has the power to provide for the use of the militia to “execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions[!]”
If I were to hazard a guess as to the reason behind the Second Amendment, I would say it was a sop to people on the frontier who joined the rebellion against Britain because Britain was trying to adhere to its treaties with indigenous people. In other words, it was a wink and nod indicating that settlers could form militias to fend off attacks from Indians who were trying to defend their lands from encroachments by the white settlers. This muddies the water a bit, but regardless of the reason for the Second Amendment, that amendment does not change the definition of a well regulated militia, nor does it reduce in any way the power of congress to form or regulate militias.
This brings me to the subject of gun ownership and gun regulations. Tying the right to keep and bear arms to well regulated militia, as is done in Article I Section 2 of the constitution and the Second Amendment, indicates that the government may restrict or specify which weapons or arms citizens are allowed to keep and bear, as well as the circumstances under which citizens are allowed to bear or carry those arms. For the most part, the courts have been dancing around a perceived inconsistency in regard to the power the constitution gives the government to regulate militia and the second amendment saying that “... the right of the people to keep and bear arms ,shall not be infringed.” But regardless of the ambiguity of the Second Amendment, it should be noted that most of the legal precedents quite correctly uphold the power of the government to restrict and control firearms. Unfortunately Moscow Mitch's politicized abomination (aka SCOTUS) does not conform to precedents and has now come down on the side of the fascists and the greedy arms manufacturers, thus increasing the danger easy access to military grade firearms pose to us as individuals and to our democracy!