Faux Patriotism
This is one of those topics that seems to be hitting me a lot lately. It is especially acute when holidays like Independence Day come rolling around. People fly their flags and you can see all kinds of posts and personal messages about how much they love freedom, their religion, and their guns. Heck, I love two out of three of those. I’ve talked about the first two, so it is time to address the last one.
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.
Technically speaking I’m not an English teacher. I primarily support English teachers and I did teach it for three years, but I would be remiss to call myself an expert on grammar. At one grammar workshop, the instrusctor admitted that the two weeks we had was not nearly enough time. I’ve always been an intuitive writer, so diagraming sentences is not my strength. That being said, I will give the second amendment my best shot.
It is made up of a dependent clause and an independent clause. The technical term for this is a complex sentence. In this case, the independent clause relies on the dependent clause. In plain English, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is dependent on a well-regulated militia befing necessary for the security of a free state. Obviously, one cannot know precisely whether a majority intended for guns to be necessary in the absence of a well-regulated militia. It should be noted that case law is at the very best divided on this as well.
Ignorance of the law bothers me, but it is understandable. Ignorance of history is also understandable. That bothers me even more as a historian. Blatantly flauting both the law and history in a faux expression of patiotism is enough to make me lose my lunch. The same people that are so gung ho to respect and appreciate the original intent of the framers have no idea how offbase they are.
If we look at the Bill of Rights we see that both the second and third amendments address large standing armies directly. This was the forefathers biggest fear. They addressed it in multiple amendments and one of them is seen as a throwaway now. Students always asked me why it was even there. Admittedly, the idea of how the framers felt about private gun ownership of guns on their own is murky at best. It is hard to separate people from the realities they exist in.
In addition to large standing armies encroaching on people’s freedoms, they were virtually useless in defending private citizens. So, guns were in fact necessary. Yet, today we have the largest standing army (counting advanced technology) in the history of the planet. So, we are supposed to follow the letter of the law and the original intent of the framers on guns and yet we should ignore it on large standing armies. Furthermore, how would the framers have felt about the state of policing we have now?
So, it is wrong to infringe on the rights of private citizens to own and operate guns, but it is perfectly fine to trample all of the framers and their desire to limit large standing armies. The same folks that argue for private gun ownership and against limits on the same also argue for more defense spending and are first in line to argue for more policing and against police reform. Interesting isn’t it?
There is nothing worse than hypocrisy. If one wants to be an originalist they need to be an originalist. If one wants to pick and choose what precepts they want to follow they need to be up front about that. That’s the world most of us live in. We allow circumstances to mold our beliefs on any number of issues. As long as we admit that we can have discussions in good faith. It should be added that case law is consistent on legislatures rights to regulate gun ownership. If we can stop wrapping ourselves in the flag long enough maybe we can finally have some frank conversations about private gun ownership.
It’s Golden Calf Patriotism: rather than worship the underlying reality, they worship a physical symbol.
1We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid.
~ Benjamin Franklin
The fact that an opinion has been widely held is no evidence whatever that it is not utterly absurd; indeed in view of the silliness of the majority of mankind, a widely spread belief is more likely to be foolish than sensible.
~ Bertrand Russell
2The Constitution didn’t mention cars; I had to take a test on driving laws, show a complete stranger that I could parallel park, get a license and insurance before I could get a car – why? Because I could kill someone with it. It’s common sense. So why don’t we do the same thing with guns, adding a second requirement about mental health?
3Someone wishes to personify your tags, Nick,
‘Get the hell out of our great country’: Marjorie Taylor Greene claims rage-filled rant speaks for all Americans
4Own guns if you wish, but keep them on your property. No open carry, and concealed carry only with a permit and periodic testing.
And I really like San Jose’s required contribution to first response for gun owners.
Oh, and five round maximum. If you can’t do the job with five shots you shouldn’t be using a firearm.
5For a second opinion about the 2nd Amendment:
The Second-Race and Guns In A Fatally Unequal America by Carol Anderson. Bloomsbury Publishing ISBN:HB: 978-1-63557-425-8.
(This probably will not be taught in a critical race theory environment.)
6This is well documented.
The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. – Warren Burger, Conservative Supreme Court Chief Justice
http://www.milwaukeeindependent.com/syndicated/warren-burger-and-nra-gun-lobbys-big-fraud-on-second-amendment/
7This is your brain on bigoted Conservative Extremism …
Joe The Plumber: ‘Your Dead Kids Don’t Trump My Constitutional Rights To Have Guns.’
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/joe-the-plumber-guns_n_5397981
Again …
‘What Conservatives Really Want’
George Lakoff
“Freedom is defined as being your own strict father — with individual not social responsibility, and without any government authority telling you what you can and cannot do. To defend that freedom as an individual, YOU WILL OF COURSE NEED A GUN.
This is the America that conservatives really want. Budget deficits (etc, etc.) are convenient ruses for destroying American democracy and replacing it with conservative rule in all areas of life.”
8https://georgelakoff.com/2011/02/19/what-conservatives-really-want/
I agree the constitution says you can own a gun….FINE!!…but the only type of gun allowed are those that existed at the writing of the constitution!!!!
9OT – F.Y.I FL especially Gulf Coast residents- Elsa is making its way north: heavy rains and street flooding ~
Park in a high area if you rent before you hunker in your bunker to avoid water damage in your vehicles. Be safe.
The Terminal- stream – 2:08:47 – 2004
10Tom Hanks ~ “Would you like eat-to-bite?”
**********************************
*Diego Luna *Chi McBride *Stanley Tucci *Catherine Zeta-Jones *Steven Spielberg
***********************************
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzrEBd9ks58
L.Long, I actually shut up a second amendment apostle briefly. Briefly.
11By asking if he thought the Framers, when crafting the Second Amendment had MAC-10’s in mind at the time.
megasoid, don’t forget about making sure all phones, phone charging batteries, etc. are fully charged. During Harvey I was reminded of how I didn’t want to have to kill power in the house before water reached the level of the wall outlets we plug our appliances into.
12Because doing so when the water was just below that level in the house would mean doing so while standing in thigh deep water at the breaker box in the backyard.
Stay safe.
P.P. @ 12 Thanks for the info, I’m not getting any network coverage they must have commandeered the cell service. This smells like DeSantis trying to garner some headlines for his run for martinet.
13Your quote is not exactly correct. You missed the comma right after militia, which is the source of this whole thing. If it were written as you wrote it, I won’t say there wouldn’t be any problem, but I would say it would be less likely there would be a problem.
14“The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state.” Against what, or who? Mobs? January 6th types? Or slave rebellions? Guess.
15