A Well Regulated Militia

“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.”

Everybody knows those words. The Second Amendment to the Constitution, part of the Bill of Rights.

More lies have been told about that simple sentence than about anything else in American history with the possible exception of sex and gas mileage.

The most pernicious lie of all is that the 2nd Amendment somehow justifies the people in taking up arms against their government. The framers of the Constitution did not write in a clause that said it would be acceptable for the citizens to murder them while they went about the business of governing the new nation. Forget that.

As of when this screenshot was taken this tweet had been retweeted nearly 8,000 times.

Senator Rand Paul, of the governing Republican Party in the United States, sent this tweet: He claims that he was quoting her, but the format of the tweet doesn’t look that way to me. But it’s real: his account sent it. Real men don’t make excuses.

Steve Scalise is paying the price. Rand Paul, some Fox News TV “judge”, and a million other Conservatives, all stood together and held the gun that forever changed Steve Scalise’s life. His wounding is in their hands. Some dim bulb took Rand Paul’s word, and Rush Limbaugh’s word, and Alex Jones’s word, that he had a right to do it, and shot at his government. It’s called Stochastic Terrorism

In the first place, all that fancy talk about overthrowing tyrants isn’t in the Constitution. It’s in the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson meant those other tyrants in England. (Of course, Rand Paul meant those other tyrants the Democrats.) At no place did Jefferson mean to imply that the same rules would apply to the Good Guys, the United States Government that they were fighting a war to create, after the Revolution was over. To say so is the purest form of lie.

The blurring of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution undermines the stability of the nation. It is a serious failure of education and a powerful tool in propaganda. The Declaration of Independence is specifically a challenge to the validity of government by King and Parliament over 13 faraway colonies. The Declaration of Independence was written to justify the colonies’ overthrow of that government.

Not this government.

The Constitution was written to create, codify, and hopefully operate into perpetuity this government. The United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence does not apply to the duly constituted government created after the Revolution. I have had dozens (at least) of misinformed people tell me that the the 2nd Amendment was written specifically to permit the overthrow of the United States government by force of arms; that the Constitution says so. I think that these people, without exception, believed that they were telling the truth. Violent overthrow of the government, these people believe, would be not a side effect of the Second Amendment but literally the framers’ reason for creating it. We are to believe that the framers, in Philadephia in the summer of 1787, said to themselves “we’ll make this Amendment so that if we annoy the people between elections they can come with guns and kill us all.” I cannot express how absurd this is.

The American people have been told, over and over, that they have a Constitutional right to overthrow their government by force of arms. Rand Paul, a sitting Senator told them that, on his United States Senate Twitter account which exists for official communications with his constituents.

Why would an average American even think that his Senator was lying to him?

Many of the people who have told them this currently are the government. Most of the remainder support the current government in various media and financial ways. By a marvel of misdirection that same government, the Trump Regime working together with the Republican Congressional Coup (with propaganda support from most of commercial media) has flipped the 2nd Amendment propaganda upside down and backward: Now they are saying that the 2nd Amendment gives some portion of the American people the Constitutional right to enslave the rest, to conquer all the people who would otherwise vote against them, again by force of arms. People who call themselves (but are not) militias claim a Constitutional Right to march down the streets of our cities in their camouflage suits and bulletproof vests with their (maybe semi-) automatic rifles and their war paraphernalia and order us around and kill one or two of us.

The President of the United States, The United States Congress, and most of the United States’s allegedly free press sees that same redefined Constitutional right in flaming letters written across the sky and bows down before it.

The party controlling the government today and the people who own over 99% of the money and media outlets in this country have spent 40 years pushing that lie. We are, today, in grave danger.

I have claimed that there is no Constitutional right to overthrow the government or enslave other Americans by force of arms. Why, then, do we have the 2nd Amendment, and what is a militia, anyway?

The “well regulated Militia” referenced in the 2nd Amendment is not an abstract, otherwise undefined armed group. The militia is defined clearly in the base Constitution. The 2nd Amendment, written after the base document, has its foundation in the Constitutionally defined militia.

Under the Constitution the Militia is primarily a creature of Congress and the States. The first reference to it is in Article I Sec 8. Article I creates the Congress; Sec 8 spells out several of Congress’s specific powers and duties. Par 15 says,

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

The Militia works for Congress. There are no self-employed militias in the United States.

The very next paragraph continues to define Congress’s duties regarding the Militia:

“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;”

If Congress didn’t organize it it’s not a militia.

If Congress didn’t arm it it’s not a militia.

If Congress doesn’t discipline it it’s not a militia.

During such times that the militia might be activated for duty service to the country, Congress would directly govern the militia.

If the state of Virginia did not appoint officers for, and train, those thugs on the streets of Charlottesville, they were not a militia.

As envisioned under the Constitution, the United States of America did not have a standing Army. The only somewhat permanent army would be the Militia, organized by Congress but operated by States except in times of invasion or insurrection, when Congress (only) could call them up, after which the President would command them.

Article II of the Constitution creates and defines the Presidency. Section 2 defines his or her powers and obligations. The first paragraph of Article I Section 2 begins with

“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;…”

Notice that the President only commands the militia after Congress calls them up.

Why does some huge majority of Americans think that little bands of armed thugs are militias? Because virtually every reporter in my lifetime has told them so. The thugs in Charlottesville were reported to be one or more militias. The difference is not a semantic quibble. A militia is an armed force in service to one of, or all of, the United States. A militia is to serve and protect the United States. These bands of thugs are specifically threatening war against the United States. Some – the Bundy mob comes to mind – have taken up arms against the United States more than once. The difference is as significant as the difference between birth and death.

The groups on the streets of Charlottesville may have been called militias by every TV and radio station and every newspaper in the country. If not, it was close. They were not, by any definition of the term applicable in the United States, militia.

Those groups were one of the following:

  • Armed gangs
  • An insurrection

If in fact the United States had a militia – and some believe that the National Guard is exactly that, our Constitutional Militia – it would have been Congress’s duty to call them out to preserve the peace in Charlottesville. Again:

“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;”

The thugs on the streets of Charlottesville, VA, on the 11th and 12th of August, 2017, were not militia. They were an insurgency. Congress, every single member sworn on their honor to uphold and defend the Constitution, failed their duty and violated their oath.

Spread the word...Share on FacebookShare on Google+Tweet about this on TwitterShare on LinkedInEmail this to someonePrint this page

2 thoughts on “A Well Regulated Militia”

  1. I sent you an email regarding your comment on August 26th, to the address you entered.
    There are not so much “rules” as “how I feel.” I explain in the email. It leaves the door open to you, but I chose not to use your comment as it was for reasons you can read in the email.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *