"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
( Read more... )
Remember that at the time the Constitution was written, the "militia" had two branches--the organized and unorganized militias. THe organized militia was those guys who drilled on the town commons every Sunday, but the _unorganized_ militia was every able-bodied male citizen between the ages of X and Y, depending on your state. In Massachusetts, I think it was 17 and 60...
[Digression for a fantastic story: during the Battles of Lexington and Concord (the beginning of the Revolution--sparked, ironically, when British troops from the Boston garrison tried to seize weapons held by the colonials to preempt an armed revolt), Hugh Percy, later the Duke of Northumberland, was sent with a large force of infantry and Royal Marines to rescue the British forces, now under irresistable seige by a rapidly growing force of colonial militiamen and on the verge of surrender. To speed their progress, Percy set out with only the ammunition his men and artillery crews could carry, leaving a pair of ammunition wagons with orders to catch up with them as quickly as they could.
A group of old Massachusetts men who hadn't been allowed to muster with the militia due to their age got together anyway with their privately owned muskets and ambushed the ammunition convoy, killing and capturing its guards, leaving Percy's men to fight their way to the besieged British forces and all the way back to occupied Boston through the thousands-strong (and still growing, as citizens from further and further towns arrived on the scene) colonial militia with only 36 rounds each. They ultimately made it, but with devastating losses and their tails between their legs. The colonials' spectacular and completely unexpected victory in their very first engagement with the finest military in the world emboldened revolutionaries in the other colonies, leading them to rise up together. We may very well owe the existence of our nation to crotchety old men with privately owned arms.]
The justification for "militia-only" restrictions on gun rights generally follow the idea that, because the US consolidated the state militias into the various state National Guard baracks in the early 20th century, that means that the rights of a "militia" now apply only to those currently serving in the national guard.
This is insanity, obviously. Could Congress pass a law defining "religion" as meaning "evangelical Christianity", and then claim that the First Amendment doesn't protect Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and Pagans?
[Digression for a fantastic story: during the Battles of Lexington and Concord (the beginning of the Revolution--sparked, ironically, when British troops from the Boston garrison tried to seize weapons held by the colonials to preempt an armed revolt), Hugh Percy, later the Duke of Northumberland, was sent with a large force of infantry and Royal Marines to rescue the British forces, now under irresistable seige by a rapidly growing force of colonial militiamen and on the verge of surrender. To speed their progress, Percy set out with only the ammunition his men and artillery crews could carry, leaving a pair of ammunition wagons with orders to catch up with them as quickly as they could.
A group of old Massachusetts men who hadn't been allowed to muster with the militia due to their age got together anyway with their privately owned muskets and ambushed the ammunition convoy, killing and capturing its guards, leaving Percy's men to fight their way to the besieged British forces and all the way back to occupied Boston through the thousands-strong (and still growing, as citizens from further and further towns arrived on the scene) colonial militia with only 36 rounds each. They ultimately made it, but with devastating losses and their tails between their legs. The colonials' spectacular and completely unexpected victory in their very first engagement with the finest military in the world emboldened revolutionaries in the other colonies, leading them to rise up together. We may very well owe the existence of our nation to crotchety old men with privately owned arms.]
The justification for "militia-only" restrictions on gun rights generally follow the idea that, because the US consolidated the state militias into the various state National Guard baracks in the early 20th century, that means that the rights of a "militia" now apply only to those currently serving in the national guard.
This is insanity, obviously. Could Congress pass a law defining "religion" as meaning "evangelical Christianity", and then claim that the First Amendment doesn't protect Jews, Catholics, Muslims, and Pagans?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment