2nd Amendment Featured Letter
Posted by Jeff Pruitt - 3/24/08 @ 3:35 pm - Filed Under National Politics
A good friend of mine wrote today’s featured letter to the editor in the Journal Gazette. He’s more knowledgeable than myself on this topic and is usually the person I go to if I want to talk about the politics behind the 2nd amendment or anything firearm related. Just thought I would highlight it here in case readers missed it. Unfortunately the JG didn’t see fit to include it on their website but he sent me a copy of the original:
Helmke Needs a History Lesson
In his speech at Indiana Tech entitled “Guns, Politics and the 2nd Amendment”, Paul Helmke presented a flawed interpretation of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, ignoring the historical basis.
With a negative view of the 2nd Amendment, he focused on the prefatory clause, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” since the operative clause, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”, does not lend itself to contention. Helmke asserts that the introduction restricts the right of the people stated in the operative language. This is incorrect.
Even if the militia clause was meant to modify the right, the militia was and still is considered the body of citizens. George Mason put it quite plainly, “I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials.” Today United States Code Title 10 section 311 states: The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and…under 45 years of age.
Helmke flippantly remarked that this is the only amendment containing the word “regulated”. In Federalist Paper No. 29 Alexander Hamilton clarifies that “well-regulated” does not mean restricted, but rather well trained, armed, and equipped. Hamilton also distinguishes the militia consisting of “a large body of citizens” from what we now call the National Guard.
I expected a biased point of view from the president of the Brady Campaign, but Helmke disrespects his audience by promoting his agenda with hollow arguments while ignoring historical facts.
Jeramiah Zimmermann
Comments
5 Responses to “2nd Amendment Featured Letter”
Leave a Reply
I am grateful to have that bit about what Hamilton wrote in Federalist Paper #29. Thank you. There is a lot of talk lately about militia or not militia when it comes to the Second Amendment, but nobody is really getting to the point when it comes to preserving liberty.
That with rights come responsibilities is widely if not universally accepted. So what is the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms? It’s in the opening phrase of the Second Amendment. “Owning guns and complaining to your representatives being sufficient to the security of a free state,…” Right? Well that’s what most gun owners seem to think.
For any who wish to take seriously the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms, I’d like to invite you to explore today’s militia at http://www.awrm.org. We might surprise you, especially if you still believe what the mainstream media and groups like the SPLC say about us.
Peace.
and here’s the rest of the helmke story- the paul helmke I know, and have compiled a rather extensive dossier on:
http://x-wire.blogspot.com/2008/03/paul-helmke-adulterer-white-collar.html
knowledge is power. political intelligence is more powerful. spreading it to every blog, and newspaper, and pro-gun rights in the world wide web? priceless!
i happen to be the proud owner of a book printed in 1894 -last reprint date showing in the front- “gaskells compendium of forms”,(penciled on the front page is “homer keenan 1905″). very cool book of facts from that time frame. kinda like the home medical journals everyone had in their home back before hmo’s and co-pay businesses were standard practice.
covers everything from professional forms, proper penmanship, hygene to health care, to the then-current view of other countries. fun to leaf thru it and take a step back in time! part of the book gives information about each state and territory–populations, largest cities, who is allowed to vote, chattel rights…and militia obligations.
militia members were accountable to the state/territory of their residence, plus the federal government according to the book. they were obligated to be available any time their state/fed called upon them for service. they had to reside in that state/territory for specified periods of time to be part of the militia, think states varied anywhere from a couple months to 4 or so years.
the book states the president is commander in chief of the army, the navy, and the militia.
seems to support my own idea that the militia is a regulated body accountable to the government federally and within their state/territory. we have to keep in mind when discussing the intent of this amendment the national and localized populations, the vast areas still being explored as we overtook the country from the native indians and relatively sparsley populated states with little availability of regulatory means.
and fyi according to this book, fort wayne population was 35,349 and the citys businesses were primarily wood manufacturing. those permitted to vote were male adults of full age, 6 months residence in state, 60 days in the town, 30 days in ward or precinct. (all places blacks or indians are not permitted to vote, or only certain ones are, it is specifically noted–not referenced for indiana). says the term “hoosier” state is noted to be a corruption of the word “bully” ;-) news to me!
Deb, that sounds like a book I could spend hours with! I’m aware that the militia is bound by regulation to obey the president and their state governor, but I wonder how that would work in the case of secession. Actually, we have a good example in the Civil War. The militias were almost entirely loyal to the state rather than to fedgov.
One of the lawful purposes of the militia is to “execute the laws of the union.” But how would this work if the president were the problem? To what or whom should a militia be loyal? We must be loyal first and foremost to individual liberty, which is currently codified in the Constitution. Another purpose of the militia is to guard against tyranny rising from within America. I guess on that count we have failed miserably. Ours is just a “kinder and gentler” police state…for now.
In the early to mid 1770s in the Massachusetts Bay colony, the people who lived outside of Boston were referred to as “provincials,” i.e., ignorant rednecks in today’s parlance. But those provincials as well as many in Boston saw the writing on the wall. The militias outside Boston made an overt concerted and nearly simultaneous move to vote out their loyalist militia leaders and replace them with people known to be “patriots.” Officially, the militias were under the authority of officers of the Crown, but when the officers of the Crown became the problem, the militias did what they had to do. They were loyal not to the officials, or even to some detrimental law, but to individual liberty. They were able to think for themselves and discern the events of their time.
Today, the states neglect their constitutional responsibility of maintaining a militia, so it falls the the militia itself to execute the laws of the union, in this case forming themselves into militias and training regularly (being well regulated in the 18th century meaning). I can tell you that today’s militias are loyal to individual liberty, not some crazy ideology based on race, religion, greed, or power. Although, today, the ideology of America’s founders is thought by many Americans to be crazy, but that’s only because we’ve moved so far from the foundation they laid.
Woops, now I’m rambling. I’ll stop here.
Peace.
Kind of reminds me about the old saying that if the Second Amendment were given the same interpretation as the First, we’d all be walking around with nuclear warheads.