Institute for Legal, Legislative and Educational Action
By Sgt. Patrick Hayes - In a recent TTAG thread I watched as a debate ensued over the words “well regulated” and their meaning in the Second Amendment. I read an article recently from a deluded anti-gun liberal who pushed the idea that Madison, Jefferson and Washington were nothing but rich, white landowners who wanted a militia to put down revolts. He stated that all pro-gun folks were crazy to think otherwise. The reason we think otherwise is because history tells us otherwise . . .
The Amendments were written to amend the Constitution because the state delegates demanded that it be done. That is why we call them the Bill of Rights. They are rights that the people demanded be written to ensure the Federal government could not abuse them.
As we all know, the Second Amendment states:
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.
Those of us who have spent decades fighting for gun rights have often cursed the “militia” clause. It was, before Heller, the favorite attack point of the liberal anti-gun crowd. They claimed it meant the National Guard and no individual had a right to own a firearm.
That is not what the framers said, that is not what they wrote and we have enough to say that is not even what they thought. They had just finished a war for independence. They feared large authoritarian governments. They were the revolutionaries. This was fresh in their minds when they wrote the Bill of Rights.
The entire Bill of Rights enshrined individual protections from government intrusion. They applied to the people. Why would the Second Amendment not do so as the anti-gun crowd claims?
James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788
Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.
Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.
Noah Webster, 1787
Liberal propaganda aside, it’s very clear what the authors of the Second Amendment meant by “well regulated” They meant all those who could carry arms, organized when needed, to fight a corrupt federal government. So…who needs a select fire M-4 carbine? Every citizen who’s able to bear arms. That was the intent.
For the last century or so this meaning has been lost on our citizens. Most do not and never have considered the possibility of taking up arms against their own government. They watch governments around the world abuse and kill their citizens as they sit comfortably in their homes, secure in the belief that it will never happen here. Let’s hope not.
The founders never addressed hunting or self defense. These concepts were understood to be unalienable rights that no government could touch. They were above the Second Amendment’s intent. They were natural rights. If folks had the guns anyway, they could use them to protect their homes as well.
Samuel Adams
Next time an anti-gunner wants to lecture you on what the authors of the Second Amendment meant, explain what a militia is and cite my examples. It may scare the to death.
In closing:
Cockrum v State, 24Tex394 (1859)
Sgt. Hayes is a police officer in the southeastern United States.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2014/09/daniel-zimmerman/second-amendment-founders/