http://www.chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=12299

There is Always a Kernel of Truth in Any Good Propaganda

Today’s “progressive” interpretation of the Second Amendment contends that the militia was intended by the Founders to mean organized state armies. For clarification, let us examine the writings of Alexander Hamilton, one of the leaders of the Federalist movement during the debates that created our Constitution. In his writings, which became codified as The Federalist Papers, Hamilton discussed the need for military regulation and organization:

The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects… This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS. (2)

If one stopped reading at this point, one could misinterpret Hamilton’s vision of the militia to mean a government-organized force under the command of state-selected officers, somewhat similar to today’s National Guard. However, he continues:

If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the same body ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. (3)

Only The Whole Truth Will Make You Free

Hamilton suddenly seems to veer from his supposed discussion about the National Guard and standing armies. Beyond differentiating between standing armies and militia, he defines the militia as an active safeguard against forced tyranny. He continues to differentiate between professional military and militia, even specifying that limits of power must be enforced upon professional troops:

It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. (4)

With the focus that qualified him to be the first Treasury Secretary, Hamilton declares that the militia is indeed the people by describing the economic damage wrought if this militia were expected to train and remain at arms like a standing army:

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. (5)

He concludes his discussion and differentiation of the two forces in the form of a repeated warning against tyranny, and the ability of the militia to protect against it:

This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. (6)

Conclusion

Thus we have the foundation for the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights:

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.

The militia, being regulated sufficiently to answer the call to arms in times of security threat, serves a second purpose as well: to protect against the threat of a power-hungry government using a standing army for its own ends.

Hamilton delineates his vision not only of a free people bearing arms for the common defense, but also for the protection of liberty. It was intended by the framers of our Constitution that a free people be armed. Therefore, it follows that those who wish the people disarmed also wish them enslaved.

Footnotes

(1)   Whether the Second Amendment Secures an Individual Right, U.S. Department of Justice Memorandum, August 24, 2004, Introduction. http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm       

(2)   The Federalist Papers, page 178, edited by Clinton Rossiter, copyright 1961.

(3)   Ibid, pages 178-179.

(4)   Ibid, page 180.

(5)   Ibid, page 180.

(6)   Ibid, page 181.

A copy of the Federalist Papers is online at The Federalist Patriot: http://federalistpatriot.us/fedpapers/fedpapers.html 

About the Writer: Howard Nemerov is a Bay Area freelance writer who has a special interest in the preservation of the Second Amendment. Howard receives e-mail at hnemerov@netvista.net