A Well-Regulated Militia (Blog)
- A Well Regulated Militia
What were people thinking 222 years ago in 1791 when the Second Amendment was added to our 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.”
In 1791 there were only 900 active military personnel protecting our country. Realizing that our country was vulnerable to foreign invasion, “The Militia Act of 1792” paired with the 2nd Amendment, enabled the government to call upon citizens to help defend our country from both foreign and domestic enemies. George Washington actually had to utilize this as early as 1794 when 13,000 militia were assembled from 4 states and were used to quell 500 armed citizens not willing to pay their taxes during the Whiskey Rebellion.
Some scholars actually believe that the 2nd Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights to appease southern states in order to get their ratification in 1791. Law professor Carl T. Bogus reportedly found in James Madison’s writings, information to support the theory that the 2nd Amendment, “remained the principal way of preserving white control over an enormous black population.” This then provided a way to maintain slave patrol militias protecting citizens from slave revolts or insurrections.
Regardless of what you believe, things have thankfully changed since 1791. Today the active and reserve military protecting us includes approximately 2.5 million people. Our local, state, and federal law enforcement officers protecting us are almost one million strong. The Iowa Army National Guard maintains 56 armories in 53 different Iowa communities. The amount our country spends on our military exceeds the amount of the next 13 largest military spending countries combined. But unbelievably, there are still more than 300 million privately owned guns in this country.
The cold facts are that there are now consistently over 32,000 gun related deaths and 200,000 gun injuries in the U.S. each year. Regardless of whether they are classified as homicides, suicides or accidents, the amount of deaths has steadily increased since 2003 with 32,163 gun related deaths in 2011. In just the last two years in the U.S. there have been more gun related deaths and injuries than all the military personnel killed or wounded during our 15 year involvement in the Vietnam War and around 10 times the amount of both the Iraq and Afghanistan Wars combined. Studies by Bloomberg show that the deaths by guns will probably surpass traffic fatalities by 2015. Because of extensive car and driver regulations it gets safer to drive cars--7 times more safe than in 1952.
Despite these horrific gun statistics, Republican State Representative Matt Windschitl and Iowa House Republicans plan to revive a gun rights bill that was actually passed last year by the House, to eliminate all regulations on guns. Reacting to President Obama’s recently proposed anti-gun legislation after the massacre of 26 teachers and children at Newtown, Connecticut, Windschitl said, “I think it is an assault on the Second Amendment….” These Iowa politicians need to study the 2nd Amendment in its historical context. Even Iowa City suffered a mass shooting incident several years ago.
I was a military policeman in Vietnam and we had extensive training and experience in the handling and shooting of pistols and fully automatic weapons. I also grew up in a hunting family. When in Vietnam I encountered situations under enemy fire, but I was most frightened when my own men misfired weapons at point blank range. In Iowa now it only takes 60 minutes on the internet with a 20 question quiz and NO range training to get a concealed weapon permit.
Access to these guns by children is a serious issue. I am a retired teacher from the Waterloo Schools, and prior to 2002 on two separate occasions I saw a 4th grader and a 7th grader bring a handgun from their home to school with deadly intent. In just the last two years since Iowa has changed their regulations for concealed weapons permits from a “may issue” to a “shall issue,” there have been over 140,000 new permits issued. All these additional people handling guns in their homes on a daily basis with little training is not a comforting thought.
Some people think they are safer carrying a concealed weapon, but revealing that weapon during a criminal act could make the situation deadly. A Rand study found that even experienced New York City Police who became involved in a gunfight, only hit their intended targets 18% of the time. In one situation last year, NYC police wounded 9 bystanders while taking a gunman down.
President Obama is not proposing that citizens can not own guns. What is clear however, is that there needs to be regulations on who can own and have access to guns, and what kinds of guns and accompanying equipment should be allowed by private owners. If gun advocates want to hide behind the Second Amendment, our Founding Fathers clearly stated things needed to be “well regulated”. Our country holds the highest private gun ownership rate in the world and one of the worst gun death rates in the world compared to developed countries. Statistically around two thirds of shootings in communities are done by individuals that live there. The Harvard Injury Control Research Center found there is substantial evidence that indicates that more guns means more murders. It would be logical to believe then, that the more guns that can be owned privately and carried by anybody, the less safer our country, state, and communities will become.
This is no longer a political issue, but a large majority of Americans believe it a serious safety issue. In a recent survey it was found that 92% of Americans, 89% of Republicans, 87% of gun owners and 74% of NRA members all support universal background checks for gun sales. As our Commander-in-Chief said in his 2013 State of the Union Address about gun regulation laws proposed, “Each of these proposals deserves a vote in Congress.”
Proud UNI Grad
10:41 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Excellent
Travis Biggs
11:01 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
If your education was so poor as to believe that this writer is correct I would not publicly declare that you're proud of it. To any person with even a mediocre education and basic grammatical understanding its clear the writer is not familiar with the purposes of the 2nd amendment.
Wm Luke Priest
11:05 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Travis - The author doesn't even talk about the purpose of the 2nd amendment, except to suggest that it was a carrot to get the Southern States to ratify the Constitution. Why is it a carrot? What benefit did it serve? Why did it entice them enough to support the Constitution? WHAT WAS ITS PURPOSE?
maxine weimer
11:21 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
PUG...excellant what?!
Wm Luke Priest
10:44 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
What part of "shall not be infringed" do you fail to understand?
Steve Wikert
11:03 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
What part of "well regulated" do you fail to understand?
Wm Luke Priest
11:09 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I guess the part where it is in a completely separate and independent clause, and as absolutely no effect whatsoever on the actual action statement of the amendment. Do you see that comma... it separates two independent clauses. Meaning that the second part stands on it's own, and its meaning is the same regardless of the other clauses included in the sentence.
The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
revdj
12:18 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
What is the purpose of the words "well regulated" if not to mean... umm... well regulated?
Wm Luke Priest
12:40 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Rev - That depends on which definition of "regulated" you are using.
"Adjusted by rule, method or forms"
"put in good order" or
"subjected to rules or restrictions"
Are we talking about military discipline and training, or are we talking about bureaucratic red tape and burdensome governmental meddling?
(You also have to be careful to apply the descriptor "well regulated" to its subject "militia".)
Greg Tagtow
10:50 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Amazing how he can be so well spoken and so wrong at the same time.
Wm Luke Priest
11:01 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I think he forgot to read the Declaration of Independence.
And the Federalist Papers.
And the Anti-Federalist Papers
And take into effect that the framers who wrote, and ratified the 2nd amendment HATED standing armies (hence the 2 year funding restrictions in the Constitution).
And that those same ratifiers were a bunch of farmers and merchants who had just evicted a professional standing army because it was tyrannical and violated all the principles of republicanism (not to be mistaken with the Republican Party) and of self-government, that they had traveled to the New World to live under.
Steve Wikert
11:14 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Amazing your statement can be so poorly spoken with nothing to back your statement up with. Every statement in the blog is supported with statistics or researched facts. That is why it is "so well spoken." That is why it is right!
Greg Tagtow
10:59 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) - The Court affirmed the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, holding:
"The Second Amendment guarantees an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed."[1]
McDonald v. Chicago (2010) - The Court ruled that the Second Amendment was incorporated against state and local governments, through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.[2]
In the decision, the Court said:
In Heller, we held that the Second Amendment protects the right to possess a handgun in the home for the purpose of self-defense. Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller.[3]
Steve Wikert
11:05 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Did you fail to read this sentence in the blog? "President Obama is not proposing that citizens can not own guns."
Travis Biggs
11:02 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
It's unfortunate that Patch chooses to publish so many articles written by so many different people with so little understanding of their topics. When will Patch wake up and realize that education and research are the keys to good journalism? Until that time we'll have to rely on other sources for quality information.
Alison Gowans
11:11 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Hi Travis - this is a blog, and therefore an opinion, not an article. Any reader is free to post in our blog section.
Travis Biggs
1:39 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I was unaware of that Alison, my apologies.
Alison Gowans
1:40 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
No worries, Travis. If you'd ever like to blog, just let me know!
matt hilbert
11:04 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Do people really just miss the commas. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms". This is pretty straight forward to me.
Wm Luke Priest
11:10 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
They do when it suits their agenda.
Karl
11:40 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
That is NOT the 2nd Amendment..
Passed by Congress: 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.
Ratified by states: 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.
To anyone ignorant on what a 'well regulated militia was at the time- from Federalist #29, by Alexander Hamilton:
"...the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense..."
"...desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority..."
"...If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...."
The First and Second Militia acts of 1792 spell-out the militia are STATE-regulated troops to be summoned for defense of the country, be it against foreign enemies or 'Indian' attacks. And they were required to report for organized training twice a year.
Yes, a well regulated militia of the late 18th Century and early 19th Century is what we call the National Guard today.
Wm Luke Priest
12:11 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Karl T. - As Matt pointed out.. you missed the comma that combines two independent clauses. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" COMMA "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
This sounds strange in modern English, because we don't talk like this. We don't imply conjunctions, and we don't use the word "being" as a verb though it is clearly a conjugation of the common verb "is". If we were to rewrite the above amendment into modern spoken language while making as few changes as possible, and keeping the clear intention we would have...
"The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State."
Wm Luke Priest
12:14 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
And Karl - I would argue that the National Guard, while it is the legislative evolution of the framer's militia, is actually an example of the standing army that they so feared.
They wrote the 2nd amendment to ensure that the People would always have the arms necessary to deploy their State militia against a national standing army.
Karl
12:23 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
That was a concern, but it was not the only reason. There is plenty of writing from the time noting how it was not fiscally possible to keep a full-time national army. Aside from simply having the money at-hand going forward, we still had huge debts to pay off.
The success of state units in the Revolutionary War strengthened the idea that militia units were a plausabile means of having a 'national' army without having a 'national army'.
Wm Luke Priest
12:32 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Well said. Karl. Finances were definitely a factor, especially coming out of the Articles of Confederation, but accepting responsibility for debts previously incurred.
J Johnson
10:06 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
Current definition of well regulated from the DC vs. Heller case:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).
Wm Luke Priest
11:13 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
A well educated voter, being necessary for the security of a self governing nation, the right of the People to own and read books shall not be infringed.
This obviously means that only schools and institutions of education can have books, and that people on the street need to submit to formal education before they can purchase or read books.
Wm Luke Priest
11:13 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
And don't forget that you have to be a registered voter to get your permit to purchase books.
Steve Wikert
11:28 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
As far as I know there are no "book-related deaths" problem in this country nor would we need a concealed carry book permit. Pretty silly analogy. Oh and by the way, you do need to read to become a citizen in this country unless you were born here and if you were born here, there is compulsory education required up to a certain age even if you are home schooled.
Wm Luke Priest
11:36 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
It isn't an analogy... it is a direct transposition of the grammatical structure and wording. To allow people to actually analyze the words used in the law, instead of just paying attention to the pro-gun \ anti-gun rhetoric.
I didn't expect you to actually consider it with an open mind. You already "know" what the amendment says.
maxine weimer
11:19 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Exactly Matt. But the scardey cats and cry babies are not going to give it up. The second and fourth amendments are what they are, pure and simple. If people choose to keep trying to change that, they are going to lose because there are more of us who want to protect whats ours with a gun than there are those who think they can outrun a bullet.
Steve Wikert
11:44 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
maxine, possibly you should refrain from commenting on "outrunning bullets" and "protecting whats ours" until you really have done it. You see I have had the chance to do both being a Vietnam veteran. The good news is, you can do it now that they have approved women to fill combat roles. Enlist, pick up a gun, and you will see what I and millions of others before you did, to defend your right to even comment on this blog. You may then have a sense of the danger involved with guns and handling them.
Rebuttal Dick
12:20 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I thank you for your service in the case you served respectably. I dont believe you understood her clearly SMW. I think she was talking about protecting her personal property/family if there were a threat at home. Not travelling to another country to protect them. Which in that case we have the right to protect our life, property and family by any means neccesary. Sorry but 2.5 million in the military doesnt make me feel anymore safe trying to protect 300 million. They cant stand next to everyone to protect them, there just isnt enough. Some must take the role of the sheepdog into their own hands to deffend their flock from the wolves. And thats the fair facts folks
Rebuttal Dick
11:56 am on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Why are people so afraid of guns? Its like a spare tire.... You never need one, till you do! So id rather be prepared and never need it than be SOL when i do.
Wm Luke Priest
12:02 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." attributed to Thomas Jefferson*
Variations: "The people will not understand the importance of the Second Amendment until it is too late."
*authenticity questioned by The Thomas Jefferson Foundation, www.Monticello.org
Steve Wikert
12:10 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Some how I do not believe there are over 32,000 "spare tire-related deaths" in the U.S. like there are with guns. You need to try a better analogy!
Rebuttal Dick
12:42 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
And somewhere along the line someone forgot to teach proper gun handling and safety. Which i will teach my kids. That is the biggest issue we need to address. There should never be an accidental shooting ever if you always practice gun safety rules. 32,000 gun related deaths tell me how many are suspected gang shootings? Which most dont legally own guns.
maxine weimer
2:44 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Thanks Rebuttal Dick, thats exactly what I was saying.
maxine weimer
2:47 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
SMW.....I can handle a gun just fine. While I do appreciate your tour of duty, I really don't appreciate people telling me I have no right to protect my family in the manner in which I chose. There are far too many lunitics in society today and I have seen way too much craziness to not be prepared for the worst.
maxine weimer
2:59 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
SMW...guns are not dangerous in responsible hands, guns don't kill, people do. And I have first hand knowlege of the devastation that guns in the wrong hands can do.
John
12:08 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Most of the loudest gun nuts are also the gutless who never served, like their idol, the motor city maniac and most repub politicians.
Greg Tagtow
12:49 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
John, you don't need to have served to deserve your constitutional rights. But if you dig into the serving congress and senate, I am sure the R's will come out ahead. I will also send your regards to Senator John McCain. He may have something to say about the matter.
Troy Murphy
2:00 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I guess I am a gun nut but who is my idol? I am not familiar with the "motor city maniac", and of course most republican ploiticians are the loudest, they support my right unlike liberal dems who would like to gut the civil rights of law abiding citizens instead of punishing criminals and enforcing the law, look at fast and furious if you need proof that liberal dems like to ignore the law, still can't figure out how it is legal for a government agency to authorize straw sales, congress makes the law and I don't know how a federal agency has the power to just say ignore the law. I also must point out that in the states with the most restrictive gun laws have some of the highest gun murder rates.
maxine weimer
2:54 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
I can see you have no empathy for Senator John McCain who was tortured beyond belief for this country. A true hero.
Rebuttal Dick
12:44 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Most of them are actually nuts. I can say the same for both sides of this argument. Tue fact is some people are nuts for one way and some the other. Thats life, but quit listening to them and listen the logical thinking people please.
Greg Tagtow
1:00 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
From the story, "President Obama is not proposing that citizens can not own guns. What is clear however, is that there needs to be regulations on who can own and have access to guns, and what kinds of guns and accompanying equipment should be allowed by private owners"
And again I have to say, that is the most frightening part of the story, more government controlled regulation of just how much rights we as citizens can have. They seek to control the law abiding gun owner and limit his/her rights when it is the criminals with illegal guns we all need to worry about. Society is not safer if my rifle has a 10 round clip vs a 12 round clip.
Joe Dygas
1:26 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
The following facts are worth consideration:
Mental Health Records and NICS
According to a recent General Accounting Office study, as of 2011 23 states and the District of Columbia submitted less than 100 mental health records to NICS; 17 states submitted less than ten mental health records to NICS; and four states submitted no mental health records to NICS.[2]
Prosecutions
In 2010, the FBI denied 72,659 NICS checks out of a total of 14,409,616. But only 62 of these cases were actually prosecuted, and only 13 resulted in a conviction.[4]
“Universal Background Checks”
While the term “universal background checks” may sound reasonable on its face, the details of what such a system would entail reveal something quite different. A mandate for truly “universal” background checks would require every transfer, sale, purchase, trade, gift, rental, or loan of a firearm between all private individuals to be pre-approved by the federal government. In other words, it would criminalize all private firearms transfers, even between family members or friends who have known each other all
Wm Luke Priest
1:51 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
+1
Troy Murphy
2:38 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
Alison,
You don't at least require the authors of blogs to post with their real names?
Alison Gowans
3:07 pm on Wednesday, February 20, 2013
You're correct, Troy, thanks for pointing that out. I've contacted the writer and asked him to change the profile.
J Johnson
8:49 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
"What is clear however, is that there needs to be regulations on who can own and have access to guns, and what kinds of guns and accompanying equipment should be allowed by private owners"
Since the overwhelming majority of those 32,000 deaths are committed using handguns, you wish to drop this nonsense of banning so called "assault weapons" and focus on the firearms that are actually used illegally every day, right? Because if you don't, all of your stats that you defend are otherwise worthless.
The true "problem" is handguns. If you want to show yourself as someone seriously looking to affect gun violence, you will start there.
maxine weimer
10:23 am on Friday, March 8, 2013
J johnson... So you think if all handguns were banned, the country would be safe from all the maniacs on the street? Don't you think if handguns were not available that they would just use a rifle or shotgun etc. to do their dirty work? It dosen't matter what is or isn't banned, if someone wants something, they will still aquire it through the underground or black market. In my opinion, banning handguns is not the answer...I beleive it should begin with the mental health of these people who should otherwise be in a mental facillity and not running rampant to do harm to whomever they want to.
J Johnson
2:11 pm on Friday, March 8, 2013
I think only that if one wants to make an honest attempt at reducing gun violence, one must look at the guns used in the majority of said violence. These bans on ammo, bullet proof vests, "assault weapons", etc, are simply attempts by the anti gun side to get something passed.
Don't confuse my post with where I stand on the issue. I would wager a significant amount that I own far more guns than you including handguns and scarier looking "assault weapons". I am simply asking those who wish to legislate my property away from my possession to at least make an honest attempt to rationalize their plans.