![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
winterbadger"Let me be very clear. I support the Second Amendment. I've been a hunter all my life," Kerry said. "But I don't think we need to make the job of terrorists any easier."
from an article in the Washington Post
Let me start off by saying that I think Sen. Kerry is taking exactly the right tack on this issue. I don't expect him to take my position on gun control; in fact, I would be upset if he did because I think it would harm his candidacy far out of proportion to any positive effect it would have, either on his chances for election or for the debate over gun rights in the United States. Right now it is too critical to get him into office and remove the Bush-Cheney team than to try to make progress on demolishing the gun lobby. Let's work on one Big Lie at a time, and the Bush-Cheney national security state is a far more crucial Big Lie to take down.
But after admitting that, let's look at his statement. It's perfectly consistent with the debate over gun rights as the firearm lobby has framed it in the last few decades.
Kerry attempts to demonstrate his support for the Second Amendment by citing his lifelong practice of hunting.
But the Second Amendment has nothing to do with hunting. The SA does not exist to protect people's right to a deer rifle, or a 9mm pistol to deter burglars or muggers. The Second Amendment says: "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 SA is about preserving the armed power of the militia. That power existed for three reasons. To protect the state and the federal nation from foreign foes, as a supplement to the army and navy of the federal nation. To protect the state against the armed power of other states. To protect the state against the armed power of the federal nation itself.
The SA exists to allow people to carry arms as part of a militia, a public or private entity created and organized for the common defense. That role today is filled by the National Guard. In many states, it is further supplemented by a state self defense force or something actually called the state militia. In the past, such organizations have been privately organizaed and funded and licensed by the state government; I'm sure if states wanted to handle things that way, they still could.
Militias are not, have not been, the modern survivalist ideal touted by many extreme libertarians, every man for himself against whatever evil government exists. If those who favour a broad interpretation of the SA want to reach back into the 18th century mythology of the citizen soldier grabbing his rifle or fowling piece off the wall and hurrying to the village green, they must also remember that those sorts of militias were either whole-community endeavours in which every able-bodied man was *required* to own and maintain weapons (though often these weapons were centrally stored) and *required* by law to attend drill sessions and musters on a regualr basis (though plenty of scofflawing went on, with the same equipment being handed from one neighbor to another or one person taking anothers' place). Self-selecting volunteer militas, and privately financed militias, appeared later, in the 19th century, but those too were licensed and regulated by state government.
At some point in my lifetime, I would love to see an honest, historically based destruction of the gun lobby and their pretense that the Second Amendment exists to protect sport shooters and vigilantes. It doesn't. Let's have a public debate about the ideas that the authors of the Bill of Rights *really* addressed and what those mean for us today, and stop pretending that their words mean something they don't.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-13 09:57 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-13 11:36 pm (UTC)He wasn't a bear, though he managed to bear being in the whale for quite a while. I bet he was feeling a bit grizzly by the time he came out. I don't know how the whale could stomach it. You know how the miners like to sing in whales? It doesn't do much for the digestion.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 02:29 pm (UTC)http://ourgodreigns.net/holy-bears-christian-church2.htm
as for singing Welsh minors, do they have a national children's chorus?
no subject
Date: 2004-09-14 06:14 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mynah
They seem much more tropical. I know that they have palm trees in Torquay, and I've been told by officious hoteliers that they call that area the British Riviera, but that's on the whole opposite side of the Severn. And I'm assured by beautiful blonde women who should know that there's really quite a lot to the Severn that requires detailed explanation, so I'm guessing that being north of it doesn't bode well for Wales's tropicality.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 10:30 am (UTC)Plural? Lucky devil! Though being assured by one in particular is all I need.
I'd just like to point out that it's getting rather cramped down here. Anyone who replies to this reply will find it difficult to breathe in the remaining comumn space. It reminds me of the mouse's tale from Alice's Adventures in Wonderland. In fact, I'd better start using shorter words.
Just a minor point.
;-)
no subject
Date: 2004-09-15 11:35 am (UTC)to make things
plural so as not
to implicate one
person in
particular. :-)
And I see what
you mean
about
the
ro-
om
.