It’s Time To Recognize And Regulate The Militia
It’s Time To Recognize And Regulate The Militia
Let’s discuss the Second Amendment for a moment, and let us do so as though we are adults. We can acknowledge that the text is ambiguous enough to justify good faith arguments as to whether it supports individual liberty or collective security. More than 230 mass shootings this year, including the recent slaughter of 19 children in Uvalde, suggests that if the point of the amendment is to protect collective security, then it is failing to do that. However, I argue that there is a way to interpret the Second Amendment to ensure that it protects both individual liberty and collective security. Let’s go to the text:
“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.”
If we leap directly to “right of the people,” then it appears to support the right of people to keep and bear arms free from interference by the State. However, we must consider the amendment in its entirety, which includes what it deems “necessary to the security of a free State.” That would be a “well-regulated Militia.”
States don’t have militias today, at least, not in the form they did when the framers wrote those words; however, the concept remains. In 1787, militias consisted of a population of loosely affiliated men, who understood they could be called upon to defend the state by bearing arms. Today, each state contains a segment of mostly unaffiliated men and women, who take it upon themselves to keep and bear arms in defense of their homes, their families, and their persons. Although there is little modern precedent for the State to call upon this class of firearm owners, preferring instead to use the National Guard; in theory, the State could still call all those who keep and bear arms to its collective defense.
This firearm-owning segment, which, according to a PEW Research study conducted in July of 2021, comprises approximately 32% of the population, and 44% of households, could be seen as the militia that is “necessary to the security of a free State.” After all, many of them view themselves this way. They purchase and own firearms to defend themselves, and presumably the rest of us, against what they fear.
Their fears are not uniform, but individual. Some fear others of different races, religions and political persuasions. Some fear the State itself and keep arms specifically to check state power. But whether they believe they need to defend themselves against felons, foreigners, FEMA, or federal agents, the fact is that many are prepared to do so. This is the modern day militia, and we should classify them as such.
Our founders were very clear, when they worded the Second Amendment, that for this militia to provide defense in a way that is necessary for the security of the free state, they must be well regulated.
When Texas Governor, Greg Abbott, declares that by removing regulations he is protecting the Second Amendment his actions are not supported in the text.
The second amendment REQUIRES regulation.
What should these regulations be? It’s fair for different states and municipalities to regulate differently based on the demographics, density, and historical data of their populations. But there are a few regulations I think we can all agree on, which should be instituted at the federal level.
First, children should not have unsupervised access to firearms. How should we define “children”? Given that we recognize, through our laws, that the brain of an eighteen year old is not yet mature enough, not yet formed enough, to introduce its host to most controlled substances, we can agree that they are not yet mature enough to bear the solemn responsibility of owning a firearm.
Having once been an eighteen year old boy, surrounded by other eighteen year old boys, I can attest that, as a population, they are likely to be emotionally immature, reckless in their behavior, narcissistic in their thoughts, and slow to comprehend the consequences of their actions. Other than those who have joined the military, which in and of itself puts them under adult supervision, we should require a minimum age of twenty one, bare minimum, to take membership in the unaffiliated militia with the right to keep and bear arms.
Second, we should reinstate the ban, for ten years, on the domestic sale and distribution of high capacity magazines. We can’t ban possession of these magazines because they are already within the militia, and any attempt to ban possession – of magazines or firearms – would be seen as a provocative act confirming the worst fears of some that the government is coming for their guns. The ten year ban on domestic sales and distribution of these magazines will reduce the number within the population, encourage anyone who possesses them to lock them away in their homes, and give law enforcement an additional tool to reduce their prevalence in the civilian population.
Third, we need to treat these mass shootings as the public health crisis they are, unique to the United States, which means we need to study the phenomenon. To study it we need data. By law, we should require all sellers, in addition to conducting background checks, to collect certain demographic and geographic data about the buyer, as well as data about the firearm. This data should be gathered, submitted, and stored in disparate databases distributed across separate federal agencies, which can be accessed, on an anonymized basis, to protect the privacy of the militia, through a permissions-based process, by social scientists and policy experts, so they can discern patterns, model scenarios, and make policy recommendations to reduce these mass casualty events.
The perfect shouldn’t be the enemy of the good.
While we may not be able to eliminate mass shootings, we can reduce them. Let us recognize firearm owners as a special class and accept them as the modern day militia. If we trust the wisdom of the founding fathers, if we have the integrity to interpret the full text of the second amendment, and the courage to ensure that the militia is well regulated, then we can build a future that includes individual liberty and collective security for all.
One of our country’s most important freedoms is that of free speech.
Agree with this essay? Disagree? Join the debate by writing to DailyClout HERE.
I respectfully disagree. The 2nd Amendment is very easy to understand if you study how the Founders and Framer in their own writings would write their opinions. Preambles were very common at that point in time wherein it was common to begin a sentence or statement with the “reason” for the “Right” in the second half of the statement. “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” this part states the reason why “The People” had “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, “ and then concluded the statement that the government can not take any action to diminish that “Right” “shall not be infringed.”
The writer chose to focus on the word “ regulated” or two words “ well regulated.” “Well regulated” does not mean what you claim it to be. George Washington in his writings referred to it and is was accepted at that time to mean that the militia would work like a well working watch” or using a word today it would be an efficiently working organization. It was expected at the time if called upon any man between the ages of 18 and the early 60’s would be called upon by the state to be part of the “militia.” They would be required to bring their own firearms or “arms.”
Again the first two statements separated by commas is the reason the citizens have the un-fringable “Right” to “keep and bear Arms.” Regulated does not mean the state can dictate what types of firearms the citizens can own – not to defend and protect themselves from a lawbreakers but rather to defend themselves from a tyrannical form of government. Re-read the Declaration of Independence which is also the first set of laws adopted by the United States government. The Declaration outlines the need for the citizens to “keep and bear Arms.”
My 4th great grandfather, Richard Gideon, was shot in the thigh by a British soldier at the SC Revolutionary War battlefield, Ninety Six. He was 15 years old when he fought for our independence, and had served in the mountain militia for a couple of years prior. After Mr. Gideon healed, he went back to join the fight. As an old man, he died with that British rifle ball still in his thigh.
In fact, there were a number of what we call “boys” today, who fought shoulder to shoulder with other men during the Revolutionary War. Thank God.
Amen, you smart man!! I’m astounded at the stupidity of anyone with half a brain to interpret “well regulated” as regulating firearms. Thank God for intelligent people like you!
Mr. Gardner,
Assuming you recognize that the Right to keep and bear arms is a check against an unbridled government attacking its own citizens, how can you assume said government should be the agency regulating those militia whose design it was to suppress the totalitarian leanings of said government? That would be oxymoronic.
As Mr.. Allen so capably explained, the meaning of “regulated” known to the 18th century man was that of functionally operating, like a clock keeping good time. That meaning of regulated still exists.
Please abandon the self-contradictory concept that the very institution -government – for which the Amendment was designed to restrain should be the institution that regulates the militia is on its face absurd!
My “smart man” comment was for Scott Allen, not author of blog- just to be clear.
thank you Mr Scott Allen1776
I create eighty five greenbacks every hour for operating a web job at hof. I ne’er thought I may have it off however my relief makes ten thousand bucks monthly working this job and she or he suggested Pine Tree State to be told additional regarding it. The potential with this can be endless.
For more detail ……. Workset9.gq
I have to agree with Scott Allen. I disagree with the author in that 18 year old’s are immature. So with that said, what about all the 18 -19 year old “Children” that enlist in the military? Teenagers that are holding down part time jobs and others that are contributing to their households? are they immature? That is an open question isn’t it?
Then why ban anything? But rather ENFORCE present laws. The people who push for confiscation , banning and all the rest, really have no idea of what an “Assault” weapon really is. Ahh- – – the “Black Rifle” just scares me! Really?
I’m all for looking at the mental health issues considering the ones who perpetrated the recent shootings have been deems as having those issues. But I suppose all the gang land shootings in Chicago,, Detroit and other democratic controlled cities where they also have initiated the “Defund the Police” concepts? There are issues I grant you that, but lets not put the cart in front of the horse.
ScottAllen is right. “Well regulated” meant something different at the time it was originally written. We’ve already been infringed way beyond what the founders intended– and indeed they did intend for the general population to have arms equal to whatever standing army would have– a footsoldier that is (please let’s not bring up nukes and F15s). The 2A is meant to constantly allow a veiled thread against those who would usurp power. I firmly believe Australia and China are in the mess they have primarily because they general populus is NOT armed as we are in the US. I will say we could do FAR better in the “well regulated” arena to educate and train our population to respect and handle firearms– more towards the Swiss model. However the Feds have far too much power these days and need to be held in check– if only by the fear that we can still resist them. No politician wants to admit that, but when the gov fears the people there is liberty and not the reverse.
Unfortunately, the author doesn’t recognize the difference between a “criminal” and the vast bulk of decent, honest citizens across the country. He might as well say that people should all ride bikes instead of drive cars, because someone will get drunk and cause an accident.
The 2nd Amendment does NOT give American’s a right to “bear arms”. It PREVENTS the government from infringing on their rights to bear arms. As a 30 year veteran police officer (retired), I would be happy if every honest citizen owned a weapon – because crime would slow down immediately. And even far more important, as we have watched government after government across the world deprive people of even their most basic rights because of the lie of Covid-19, it becomes critical that citizens have the ability to protect themselves from the overreach of tyrannical governments.