Democratic Socialism, Guns, and the Failure of the Constitution

[darrenlobo]

This one was just too good to pass up. An acquaintance on the left sent me the Democratic Socialists of America article "There Is No Second Amendment Right To A Gun". It reinforces everything the anti-federalists said about the Constitution back when and everything libertarians like Lysander Spooner have been warning us about since then.

Read the rest at: http://theinternationallibertarian.b...d-failure.html

[internet troll]

My favorite and the most telling part from the article...

"In asserting the link between the right to bear arms and military service, we should not be distracted by the 2008 Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) that discounted the militia clause of the Second Amendment. The five justices who voted for it were all Reagan and George Bush appointees, and the decision is no more worthy of respect than such subsequently repudiated decisions as those declaring African Americans ineligible for citizenship, or upholding the Japanese Internment Act."

Hey, just ignore the Supreme Court decision because we don't like the people on it, so their decisions don't matter. Now that we've just used a totally illogical and childlike argument to discount the facts, here are our illogical facts to replace them.

Thanks, I think I just got a headache from the face palm I gave myself

[darrenlobo]

Thanks, I think I just got a headache from the face palm I gave myself

LOL, I like a strong reaction to my article but please don't hurt yourself. Thanks for the comment.

[Solaran_X]

Copy of the linked DSA article, so no one else has to give traffic to those bastards.

We are posting this commentary in the wake of yet another school shooting, at Arapahoe High School in Centennial, Col. and in memory of the Sandy Hook tragedy. – Editors

I have long admired abolitionist leader Frederick Douglass and his colleagues in the Liberty Party for their clear-sighted view that the US Constitution was a “glorious liberty document,” that did not condone slavery. William Lloyd Garrison had condemned the Constitution as an “agreement with Hell,” going so far as to publically burn a copy. Douglass, to the contrary, understood the importance of basing abolitionist principles on the Constitution, and of not conferring its legitimacy upon the enemies of liberty. Today, progressives must claim the legitimacy of the Constitution in advocating gun control, and not let it be further hijacked by the Right.

Everyone agrees with the gun lobby that the Constitution guarantees the right to own guns. Having given away the argument, we then ask, “But must there be quite so many bullets in the magazine?” It is time to take the strongest position. There is no individual right to own a gun. The Second Amendment guaranteed the right to have state militias. The gun ownership clause was there to make the militia possible. There have been no state militias since 1903, and there is no longer a constitutional right to gun ownership. It doesn’t exist!

The congressional debate over the Second Amendment is most instructive. The overall context was this: The Constitution (1787) had created two institutions new to the United States, a standing army and a president who was also commander in chief. In this combination, many feared European despotism. What if the president made himself a king and used the army against the people? The answer was close at hand. The governors of the states would call out the militia to restore democracy. But in those days, every militiaman was required to bring his own gun. The states didn’t have any. What if the president first took away all the guns? Well, the Constitution would have to say that he can’t, hence the Second Amendment.

As always, nothing is simple. The Federalists (Hamilton) wanted a strong national standing army and hoped that by guaranteeing the state militias they could overcome popular objection. Many among the Jeffersonian Republicans didn’t even trust the militia, and wanted to guarantee individual gun ownership without reference to militia service. Both sides agreed that the main threat in contention was the army of the United States, and the debate was over how citizens could best defeat the army.

Here is Madison’s first draft of what became the Second Amendment:

“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.“

To get his provision through Congress, Madison had linked together both concepts – armed citizens and militia service. Note that because of that linkage, the amendment ends with a contentious objector clause for Quakers, Moravians and others. The bill was sent to committee and came back with an interesting addition:

“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.”

The phrase “composed of the body of the people,” (which in 1789 meant white men) reflected another debate of that era. Some thought that militia service should be a universal requirement. This language paralleled existing militia laws in many states, and was in keeping with colonial tradition that had required all able-bodied men to serve and to bring their own guns. Alexander Hamilton had argued against this view in Federalist Paper 29, saying that so large a body could not possibly be “well regulated,” meaning well drilled and disciplined. Federalists tended to support a smaller “select” militia. These two views were reflected in the congressional debate between Federalists and anti-Federalists over this clause.

The bill went back and fourth between the two houses of Congress. The Federalist Senate took out the universal service clause along with the conscientious objection. In those days it was well remembered that England had tried to use colonial era conscientious objection provisions as an excuse to disband the revolutionary militias. (All religions oppose war, therefore go home.) During the debate, the anti-Federalists attempted to add amendments abolishing a peace-time standing army, but these were defeated..* The final version read:

“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.”

Clearly, the right to bear arms was connected to militia service. There were not the votes in either house to pass a stand-alone right to gun ownership.

The year after ratification, Congress passed the Militia Acts of 1792. We need not go into the wicked purposes to which the militia was put under federal direction. For the sake of this argument it is sufficient to note that once again the idea of universal gun ownership was linked to universal military service. Under the Second Militia Act, all (free white) men of military age were conscripted into the militia, and every such man was required, at his own expense, to go out and buy a gun along with prescribed quantities of shot and powder, a bayonet and other equipment.

In asserting the link between the right to bear arms and military service, we should not be distracted by the 2008 Supreme Court decision (District of Columbia v. Heller) that discounted the militia clause of the Second Amendment. The five justices who voted for it were all Reagan and George Bush appointees, and the decision is no more worthy of respect than such subsequently repudiated decisions as those declaring African Americans ineligible for citizenship, or upholding the Japanese Internment Act.

The lesson of this history is clear. The Second Amendment was rooted in the then living memory of the militia-fought battles of Concord, Lexington and Bunker Hill. A modern day equivalent of those battles would turn America into Syria or worse. We need to start saying loudly and strongly that if you want a military gun, go join the National Guard – they have one for you to use. Otherwise, government at all levels has the right to limit guns just as it does drugs, tobacco, gambling, alcohol, tainted meat and a host of other evils. There is simply no constitutional right to individual gun ownership.

______________________

*Strictly speaking, the terms Federalist and Republican weren’t organized parties until 1795. At this time (1789) they were less formal points of view in Congress, and were known as the pro- and anti-administration factions.

Steve Max is a vice-chair of DSA, a life-long community organizer and a founder of the Midwest Academy and the Campaign for America’s Future.

[LenP]

That article makes absolutely zero sense. It first recognizes that the origins of the second amendment was to insure that a militia composed of all able bodied people was possible, and then somehow jumps to the conclusion that since we do not have an active militia composed of all able bodied people that the second amendment is not valid. The amendment makes the universal militia possible, it does not require one for it's validity. Reading stuff like this depresses me as I begin to think we are doomed.

[cdi]

I am soooo tired of the socialist/communist workers party (or whatever the F they call themselves these days).

It has long been my opinion- and just an opinion-
That socialist and communist leadership represents a reasonably significant threat to my western culture and views.

Except for the fact that under most circumstances it would be (illegal).
I would advocate for dispatching the leadership of these silly organizations by whatever means handy when they are encountered.

[dannyb]

George Mason, whose writings form a philosophical underpinning of the Bill of Rights, felt that there is an unorganized militia in having a generally armed population. The militia did not issue arms when it organized; its members were expected to supply their own arms. That in itself presupposes that there is general gun ownership.

[Pilot321]

We're all in the Militia. There doesn't have to be a current war to fight. If the 2A were really enforced, we'd all have a select fire M4 hanging over our fireplace.

While I do think fully auto weapons are overrated, it is the spirit that bothers me. The Constitution was written to protect us from foreign invaders AND our own tyrannical government.

[TaePo]

We don't have a standing army because Congress must appropriate funds every two years per the original Constitution. Militias can be absorbed into Federal service per the Constitution so that becomes a fog of war scenario.

It only makes sense that to secure individual safety and liberty, force of arms must be reserved to the lowest level as well in order to effectively defend against the mob (democracy which equates to majority rule). As slavery points out, majority rule is not always the moral high ground (or right/just).

The Constitution doesn't fail us, we fail the Constitution by not educating ourselves in order to understand it in context and by failing to exercise our rights that are enumerated by it.

Fail goes all around. If you don't want to carry or keep arms because of religious or other convictions, then don't (thus that phrase is dropped due to redundancy). But don't try to control or deny rights to others due to your narrow world view.

Jay-walking at its best.

[Jhaydeno]

I've used the 9A argument in the past, but I've never thought of arguing from this vantage point, using the 'peaceful people' against anti-gunners:

It is immoral to initiate the use of force or the threat of force against peaceful people. In other words, a person has to be actually engaging in aggression or credibly threatening to do so before it is morally justifiable to use force in retaliation. What does that have to do with guns? The mere possession of an inanimate object such a gun aggresses against no one. There is no moral justification for taking guns away from people who adhere to the non-aggression principle since this involves initiating the use of force to separate them from their weapons.