What is the “Militia” of the Second Amendment and how did “the right to bear arms” get there? Thom Hartmann summarizes a different account of what we now know as the Second Amendment. Please chime in after you’ve read through the piece.
Yes. Fear is everywhere these days. I’m preaching on this Sunday. The story of the Gerasene Demoniac fetched from the ravages of fear to be “clothed and in his right mind.”
Hi, Gordon. Yes, this is a fraught issue. Those who cling to the Constitution, emphasizing the “original intent” of the founding fathers, have their work cut out for them, since the founding fathers were giving consent to muskets that shot once and were reloaded. I feel certain that the very most any of them could have imagined was the trusty old six-shooter. I cannot believe they would have countenanced the right of a civilian to carry a one hundred round magazine — they could not have imagined it, but even if they had, they had the sense to realize that too many citizens walking about with such weapons would cause unendurable tragedies. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has chosen to support the ridiculous idea that the founding fathers wasted words in the first clause of the 2nd amendment, and they proceeded straight to “the right of the citizens to bear arms shall not be abridged.”
I had not heard that this was included to satisfy the Southerners in the group, but unlike Chuck, I have no difficulty in believing that it was the principal reason for its inclusion. Why else would the original author have been obliged to change “free country” to “free state”?
I keep hoping that enough people were horrified enough at the slaughter of 20 young children that “our” representatives in Congress will be forced to vote for background checks, and outlaw magazines capable of more than 10 shots. It would be even better to outlaw automatics and semi-automatics, but there seems considerable doubt that that would get through.
Keep calling your Congresspersons; it’s all we can do.
There is another comment that came from another blogger in New Zealand that is worth reading, Carolyn. Tonight I’m hosting a public meeting on this topic and have been thinking about how I will handle matters if, as some predict, there are those who attend such meetings only to shut them down with their boisterousness. The President was here yesterday, as you know, which may add fuel to the fire of those who believe the President is out to take away their guns. In the local paper here in Chaska a Letter to the Editor contains these sentiments:
“Gun manufacturers have been swamped with orders and are working overtime to satisfy the demand. The message is clear: The people are fearful that the government intends to disarm them and wants to prevent them from defending themselves. What is it about the Second Amendment statement that the right of the people to bear arms ‘Shall not be abridged’ that Obama doesn’t understand?
Here’s my translation: “The message is clear: the (white) people are fearful that the N—-r intends to disarm them…. What is it that …that the N—-r doesn’t understand?” We are dealing not only with the question of the meaning of the Second Amendment but with that old doctrine of white supremacy. There is nothing more threatening to the male ego of a white supremacist than a black man who is better educated, more civilized, and more powerful than he. I pray for the President.
Tuesday, after the meeting at the church: I think that your paragraph above is terribly, tragically, …correct. I also think that we fail to recognize the massive damage done to Americans by PROPAGANDA OF FEAR AND HATE. Fully understanding that I DO NOT GET MY WAY… I am comfortable stating my opinion. I HAVE heard all of this before. My opinion is too late to modify the views of the gun delegation. I can’t be polite about it. Others, like Scott and Jim are the warmly polite voices.
I am not talking about hunting, and collecting elegant devices like my old cameras. I think that the “PEOPLE of the GUN” are the mainly innocent, unnaturally manipulated part of what Mrs. Clinton called a VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. That’s Mrs. Hillary Clinton the most admired woman in the world who said that. Is it possible to persuade government and president fearing people to modify their views? How horrible it must be to harbor such fear.
Good Morning. Robert. It’s early, 5:49 a.m., but I’ve been up for an hour-and-a-half digging my way through last night’s “Dialogue” – which was anything but a dialogue. Fear was all over the room. Fear trumps rational give-and-take. Yet Kay assures me that last night had value. It gave people a place to speak their minds and hearts. I woke up thinking again of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5) who was crying out among the tombs of the cemetery after his people had been conquered by the Roman armies (my interpretation of the text after years of study asking why a Latin word (“Legion”) appears in the Greek text. The Gerasene is a man possessed by grief and loss. “What is your name?” asks Jesus. He answers “My name is LEGION, for we are many.”
The genius of Jesus and the stories of Jesus is the recognition that the problem is not rational. It’s fear. How does one deal with fear? How do I deal with my fears? “Perfect love casts out fear.” Fear is the antithesis of love. And fear leads to hate, and hate leads to …. the crucifixion of “the other” and “the Other” who messes with my demons. Fear is rampant in our society. Talk radio and television stoke the fires of fear. And the victims? “Is it possible to persuade government and president fearing people to modify their views?” I don’t know. I DO know, as do you, that no one’s heart or mind (after Jesus called the demons out from the demon-possessed Gerasene, the text says that the man was “sitting and in his right mind”), is changed by reason or logic. Only compassion that goes to the very heart of the human soul has the power to heal us. I’m stumped as to how to proceed.
As an non-American observer, I have always wondered at the interpretation of the second amendment. Leaving specific purposes aside, it had always read to me as preserving the right to states to raise a militia. The question of who can raise an army is an important constitutional question that goes back to the Magna Carta.
The jump to an individual’s right to own a weapon of their choice for any purpose of their choice seems very tenuous to me, not matter how eloquently I have heard it argued by a number of people.
My casual understanding had been that the State militia were raised to defend against general lawlessness in what was a frontier society. Their use as slave patrols is new information.
I wonder then if the real questions are still about what are the real and the perceived threats to society? Whose responsibility is it to deal with them? And what are the means you have to resolve them in ways that are both safe in the short term and build a more peaceful society in the long-term? And these are only questions Americans can answer for Americans.
David, these are great questions to ponder. They are not easily answered. People of good conscience come to different conclusions to these questions. Among “The Preliminary Principles of Church Order” adopted by the first General Assembly (1789) of the Presbyterian Church in this country are two statements that I try to remember. The very first line of this short document is “That God alone is Lord of the conscience….” A later principle holds that there are matters about which “people of good character and conscience may disagree, and that in all such matters it is the duty of Christians to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.
The call to mutual forbearance is a tough one. Patience comes hard. Listening is hard. Always. Tonight here in Chaska I hope and pray we might have that kind of respectful speaking and listening, though the differences of opinion be wide apart. It’s always useful to hear the questions of those from other nations and cultures, and your final statement is both true and daunting: only we Americans can answer these questions for ourselves.
Gordon, Interesting article and yes, I agree from reading elswhere also, that one of the reasons the second amendment was included was to control slavery uprisings but to suggest that it was the only and/or major reason in my opinion is unreasonable.
Chuck, Thanks for chiming in on this. This was new information to me. It cast a new light on the meaning of “Militia” and raises questions, it seems to me, about whether the Second Amendment ever meant individual gun ownership. A Militia, according to the Hartmann article, would be an organized State-sanctioned police force. Do you see it differently? Interesting questions that we’re diving right into the midst of. And the more I get into trying to bring the two sides of the gun debate together, the harder it gets. In trying to arrange the face-to-face “respectful conversation between proponents and opponents of increased gun control proposals, each side is wary of being on the same program with the other because the “other” is “an extremist.” It’s been a tough day along those lines.
Views from the Edge 
‘God has not given us a spirit of fear ….but….of a sound mind.’
LikeLike
Yes. Fear is everywhere these days. I’m preaching on this Sunday. The story of the Gerasene Demoniac fetched from the ravages of fear to be “clothed and in his right mind.”
LikeLike
Hi, Gordon. Yes, this is a fraught issue. Those who cling to the Constitution, emphasizing the “original intent” of the founding fathers, have their work cut out for them, since the founding fathers were giving consent to muskets that shot once and were reloaded. I feel certain that the very most any of them could have imagined was the trusty old six-shooter. I cannot believe they would have countenanced the right of a civilian to carry a one hundred round magazine — they could not have imagined it, but even if they had, they had the sense to realize that too many citizens walking about with such weapons would cause unendurable tragedies. Unfortunately, but not surprisingly, the Supreme Court has chosen to support the ridiculous idea that the founding fathers wasted words in the first clause of the 2nd amendment, and they proceeded straight to “the right of the citizens to bear arms shall not be abridged.”
I had not heard that this was included to satisfy the Southerners in the group, but unlike Chuck, I have no difficulty in believing that it was the principal reason for its inclusion. Why else would the original author have been obliged to change “free country” to “free state”?
I keep hoping that enough people were horrified enough at the slaughter of 20 young children that “our” representatives in Congress will be forced to vote for background checks, and outlaw magazines capable of more than 10 shots. It would be even better to outlaw automatics and semi-automatics, but there seems considerable doubt that that would get through.
Keep calling your Congresspersons; it’s all we can do.
Stay well, my friend.
LikeLike
There is another comment that came from another blogger in New Zealand that is worth reading, Carolyn. Tonight I’m hosting a public meeting on this topic and have been thinking about how I will handle matters if, as some predict, there are those who attend such meetings only to shut them down with their boisterousness. The President was here yesterday, as you know, which may add fuel to the fire of those who believe the President is out to take away their guns. In the local paper here in Chaska a Letter to the Editor contains these sentiments:
“Gun manufacturers have been swamped with orders and are working overtime to satisfy the demand. The message is clear: The people are fearful that the government intends to disarm them and wants to prevent them from defending themselves. What is it about the Second Amendment statement that the right of the people to bear arms ‘Shall not be abridged’ that Obama doesn’t understand?
Here’s my translation: “The message is clear: the (white) people are fearful that the N—-r intends to disarm them…. What is it that …that the N—-r doesn’t understand?” We are dealing not only with the question of the meaning of the Second Amendment but with that old doctrine of white supremacy. There is nothing more threatening to the male ego of a white supremacist than a black man who is better educated, more civilized, and more powerful than he. I pray for the President.
LikeLike
Tuesday, after the meeting at the church: I think that your paragraph above is terribly, tragically, …correct. I also think that we fail to recognize the massive damage done to Americans by PROPAGANDA OF FEAR AND HATE. Fully understanding that I DO NOT GET MY WAY… I am comfortable stating my opinion. I HAVE heard all of this before. My opinion is too late to modify the views of the gun delegation. I can’t be polite about it. Others, like Scott and Jim are the warmly polite voices.
I am not talking about hunting, and collecting elegant devices like my old cameras. I think that the “PEOPLE of the GUN” are the mainly innocent, unnaturally manipulated part of what Mrs. Clinton called a VAST RIGHT WING CONSPIRACY. That’s Mrs. Hillary Clinton the most admired woman in the world who said that. Is it possible to persuade government and president fearing people to modify their views? How horrible it must be to harbor such fear.
LikeLike
Good Morning. Robert. It’s early, 5:49 a.m., but I’ve been up for an hour-and-a-half digging my way through last night’s “Dialogue” – which was anything but a dialogue. Fear was all over the room. Fear trumps rational give-and-take. Yet Kay assures me that last night had value. It gave people a place to speak their minds and hearts. I woke up thinking again of the Gerasene demoniac (Mark 5) who was crying out among the tombs of the cemetery after his people had been conquered by the Roman armies (my interpretation of the text after years of study asking why a Latin word (“Legion”) appears in the Greek text. The Gerasene is a man possessed by grief and loss. “What is your name?” asks Jesus. He answers “My name is LEGION, for we are many.”
The genius of Jesus and the stories of Jesus is the recognition that the problem is not rational. It’s fear. How does one deal with fear? How do I deal with my fears? “Perfect love casts out fear.” Fear is the antithesis of love. And fear leads to hate, and hate leads to …. the crucifixion of “the other” and “the Other” who messes with my demons. Fear is rampant in our society. Talk radio and television stoke the fires of fear. And the victims? “Is it possible to persuade government and president fearing people to modify their views?” I don’t know. I DO know, as do you, that no one’s heart or mind (after Jesus called the demons out from the demon-possessed Gerasene, the text says that the man was “sitting and in his right mind”), is changed by reason or logic. Only compassion that goes to the very heart of the human soul has the power to heal us. I’m stumped as to how to proceed.
LikeLike
As an non-American observer, I have always wondered at the interpretation of the second amendment. Leaving specific purposes aside, it had always read to me as preserving the right to states to raise a militia. The question of who can raise an army is an important constitutional question that goes back to the Magna Carta.
The jump to an individual’s right to own a weapon of their choice for any purpose of their choice seems very tenuous to me, not matter how eloquently I have heard it argued by a number of people.
My casual understanding had been that the State militia were raised to defend against general lawlessness in what was a frontier society. Their use as slave patrols is new information.
I wonder then if the real questions are still about what are the real and the perceived threats to society? Whose responsibility is it to deal with them? And what are the means you have to resolve them in ways that are both safe in the short term and build a more peaceful society in the long-term? And these are only questions Americans can answer for Americans.
LikeLike
David, these are great questions to ponder. They are not easily answered. People of good conscience come to different conclusions to these questions. Among “The Preliminary Principles of Church Order” adopted by the first General Assembly (1789) of the Presbyterian Church in this country are two statements that I try to remember. The very first line of this short document is “That God alone is Lord of the conscience….” A later principle holds that there are matters about which “people of good character and conscience may disagree, and that in all such matters it is the duty of Christians to exercise mutual forbearance toward each other.
The call to mutual forbearance is a tough one. Patience comes hard. Listening is hard. Always. Tonight here in Chaska I hope and pray we might have that kind of respectful speaking and listening, though the differences of opinion be wide apart. It’s always useful to hear the questions of those from other nations and cultures, and your final statement is both true and daunting: only we Americans can answer these questions for ourselves.
LikeLike
Gordon, Interesting article and yes, I agree from reading elswhere also, that one of the reasons the second amendment was included was to control slavery uprisings but to suggest that it was the only and/or major reason in my opinion is unreasonable.
LikeLike
Chuck, Thanks for chiming in on this. This was new information to me. It cast a new light on the meaning of “Militia” and raises questions, it seems to me, about whether the Second Amendment ever meant individual gun ownership. A Militia, according to the Hartmann article, would be an organized State-sanctioned police force. Do you see it differently? Interesting questions that we’re diving right into the midst of. And the more I get into trying to bring the two sides of the gun debate together, the harder it gets. In trying to arrange the face-to-face “respectful conversation between proponents and opponents of increased gun control proposals, each side is wary of being on the same program with the other because the “other” is “an extremist.” It’s been a tough day along those lines.
LikeLike