Revisiting The 'Militia Argument' -- One More Time
[Part Two]
by Vin Suprynowicz
[email protected]
Special to TLE
Yes, "T.P." is back, writing me on Jan. 12:
Vin: It was not my intent to get into a debate concerning the right
or wrong of what happened at Waco with the Branch Davidians. My
intent was to show that if an armed entity chooses an armed conflict
with the government of the Unites States, they need to be armed with
equal weapons and enjoy public sympathy and support. The Branch
Davidians enjoyed neither of these three, yet, chose armed conflict
instead of resolving the issue in the courts. As to their needing
public support, the local sheriff you mentioned as having declared
their weapons to be legal, not even he came to their support.
You parallel the like of public support afforded the Branch Davidians
with the jews of Poland in the 1943. Let's regress with this parallel
10 more years. Had the jews of Germany been fortunate enough to enjoy
the public's sympathy and support, the jews in the Warsaw ghetto,
most likely, would not now be a gruesome footnote in world history
today. It was then that "an armed citizenry," calling themselves the
Brown Shirts, began a violent campaign against the Jews of Germany.
The Brown Shirts later became known as the Nazis.
Vin, you've given FDR extremely much more credit than he deserves. It
was the people of the United States that repelled Prohibition and
legalized alcohol. It took a two-thirds vote of each house of
Congress and ratification by three-fourths of the states. This would
seem to make my point that issues can be resolved, with enough
support from the public, at the ballot box instead of armed conflict.
Now, back to the Second Amendment. I assume you agree with my
assessment about the Branch Davidians not being on an equal level
with the government when it came weapons. The scenario of the
14-year-old girl being able to purchase a "shoulder launched
heat-seeking missile over the counter at Home Depot, for cash,
without showing any government-issued ID," would seem to support that
assumption.
Such a scenario is scary. It allows any individual, citizen or
non-citizen, to purchase any weapon that is equal to those in the
military arsenal, over the counter. How do you purpose our government
protect us from a foreign entity, if that entity is able to purchase
its weapon of war inside our borders?
Your claim that "an armed citizenry" is a synonym of "a well
regulated militia" still rings hollow. You use an example of
"gentleman farmer George Washington and his friend George Mason" and
their founding of the Fairfax County Militia. I'm certain that the
purpose of that militia was to stand ready to protect the United
States of America, since there was not a standing Army at the time.
Also, it would have been regulated by the government of Fairfax
County. I believe history will show, the militia was adsorbed into
the Virginia National Guard.
You accuse me of not understanding the true meaning of the Second
Amendment. I find such an accusation to be, at best, abstract. I'm
the one that has no fear of quoting the Second Amendment as it was
written by James Madison. Only those that fear it, as it is written,
find it necessary to paraphrase, thus, you are the ones that "twist
its real and obvious meaning." I do not find it necessary to
paraphrase any aspect of the amendment.
I have no desire to disarm you or any law abiding citizen. Laws,
however, are designed to protect the populace. If the populace
decides that background checks and limited access to certain weapons
are needed in order to afford that protection, that should be the
law. For those who believe this is in violation of the Second
Amendment, the courts are there to resolve the dispute.
We've touched little on national security. National security, a
concept absent in 1791 when the Bill of Rights was ratified, has to
be a consideration when discussing the Second Amendment today. If any
weapon in the military arsenal, as stated earlier, is available over
the counter, then the passing of nuclear secrets to the Chinese is a
mute subject.
I considered you a equal, someone that merely had a different
opinion, when I sent my first e-mail. Apparently you do not share
that sentiment since you have regulated me the status of a coward.
While this may fall on deaf ears, I still need to say it: I am
willing to take up arms, a soap-box or pen in order to protect you
right to own and bear legal arms. I will do the same in order to
protect you Fourth Amendment right against search and seizure.
I do, however, contend the manner in which you defend the Second
Amendment encourages those that have no respect for the rights of
anyone.
OK, one more time: let's take this stuff in order. T.P. writes:
It was not my intent to get into a debate concerning the right or
wrong of what happened at Waco with the Branch Davidians. My intent
was to show that if an armed entity chooses an armed conflict with
the government of the Unites States, they need to be armed with equal
weapons and enjoy public sympathy and support. The Branch Davidians
enjoyed neither of these three, yet, chose armed conflict instead of
resolving the issue in the courts.
V.S.: Nearly 100 government agents in black suits, bulletproof vests,
and firing German MP-5 submachine guns (they killed the dog and her
puppies in the pen outside, in the opening seconds) stormed the
church at Waco (as armed government helicopters fired in with
fully-automatic weapons from the rear), killing David Koresh's
father-in-law behind him as Koresh opened the front door, held out an
empty hand, and said, "Stop, there are women and children in here."
The church members were then walled up inside their church --
government snipers including Lon Horiuchi assassinated anyone trying
to slip in or out -- until the government finally knocked down the
staircases with armored personnel carriers two months later, sprayed
in deadly levels of CS gas in a flammable propellant medium, fired in
multiple incendiary grenades and "flash-bang" devices, and then held
the fire engines more than two miles away while they allowed the
place to burn to the ground.
Yet you contend the Branch Davidians "chose armed conflict instead of
resolving the issue in the courts"? When were they summoned to court?
What summons, subpoena, or peacefully-served warrant did they ignore?
Do you also believe rape victims "choose to get into physical
conflicts with their assailants instead of opting for relationship
counseling"?
As to their needing public support, the local sheriff you
mentioned as having declared their weapons to be legal, not even he
came to their support.
V.S.: Yes. Tragic, isn't it? The Branch Davidians dialed 9-1-1 and
died 10 weeks later, still waiting for the sheriff to come.
Yet you victim disarmament types still believe that federal authority
should take prominence over local authority; and that "The average
citizen doesn't need a gun; (s)he can always dial 9-1-1" ... right?
You parallel the like of public support afforded the Branch
Davidians with the jews of Poland in the 1943. Let's regress with
this parallel 10 more years. Had the jews of Germany been fortunate
enough to enjoy the public's sympathy and support, the jews in the
Warsaw ghetto, most likely, would not now be a gruesome footnote in
world history today. It was then that "an armed citizenry," calling
themselves the Brown Shirts, began a violent campaign against the
jews of Germany. The Brown Shirts later became known as the
Nazis.
V.S.: The brownshirts (the Sturm Abteilung) were a unit of the Nazi
party from their inception in the early 1920s, under founder Ernst
Rohm. They did not "later became known as the Nazis" -- everybody
knew who they were from the get-go. Most of their violence was
performed without firearms; these thugs didn't NEED firearms to
terrorize oppressed German minorities, as they knew their victims
would be disarmed, civilian ownership of firearms having been
outlawed in Germany by the late 1920s -- the situation which left the
Jews (and Gypsies, and Slavs, and trade unionists ...) unable to
defend themselves against the Holocaust, and which you would
apparently prefer here.
In fact, as chancellor, Hitler faced the logistical problem in early
1934 that he could secretly arm either Rohm's SA or the Wehrmacht's
SS, but not both. He opted for the more professional SS, which is why
Rohm and his buddies were purged in June of '34.
But what is all this "public support" nonsense, anyway? You continue
to imply the European Jews somehow deserved what they got from
1941-1944 because they didn't have a good enough Public Relations
operation. No minority -- whether it be racial, religious, or
political -- can EVER count on consistent "majority public support."
That's why we call them "minorities." Duh. And that's why the vital
rights in the Bill of Rights are not subject to repeal by any mere
"majority vote." But ARMED citizens don't need majority "public
support" to guarantee their rights, which is why the founders of this
free country guaranteed that all law-abiding citizens may keep their
military-style arms. As Patrick Henry said at the Virginia ratifying
convention: "The great object is, that every man be armed. ...
Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Issues can be resolved, with enough support from the public, at
the ballot box instead of armed conflict.
V.S.: I'm glad to learn all "issues can be resolved at the ballot box
instead of armed conflict," I guess that's why King George pulled all
his troops out of this continent as soon as we nicely asked him on
July 5, 1776, and why Hitler and Tojo gave up power on Dec. 8, 1941,
after the American people expressed their wish that the Nazi Party
and the Japanese imperial staff close down all operations and
surrender.
I assume you agree with my assessment about the Branch Davidians
not being on an equal level with the government when it came weapons.
The scenario of the 14-year-old girl being able to purchase a
"shoulder launched heat-seeking missile over the counter at Home
Depot, for cash, without showing any government-issued ID," would
seem to support that assumption. Such a scenario is scary.
V.S.: Here we have it, then. If you find freedom "scary," should you
have the power to deprive others of their freedoms, to make yourself
feel more snug and comfy in your swaddled welfare/police state? In
fact, the set of conditions I recommend -- precisely the state of
affairs that prevailed in this country from 1607 to 1933 -- is not
the slightest bit scary to anyone who understands, believes in, and
seeks to protect and defend the Bill of Rights.
If you concede that the reason the federals were able to get away
with murdering the Branch Davidians is that the church members were
not adequately armed, why would you continue to refuse to "allow"
such citizens to exercise their God-given right to self-defense by
purchasing anti-tank and anti-aircraft missiles over the counter --
only allowing American peasants to be as well-armed as Afghan
peasants? Because you FAVOR the ongoing government immolation of
mothers and babies?
It allows any individual, citizen or non-citizen, to purchase any
weapon that is equal to those in the military arsenal, over the
counter.
V.S.: You've finally got it right. This is precisely what the
founders guaranteed us, when Madison said in Federalist No. 46 that
the proposed new federal government would never dare encroach on the
people's rights, since to any regular army "would be opposed a
militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their
hands." To which Madison's friend Tench Coxe added "Who are the
militia? are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the
militia. Their swords, and EVERY OTHER TERRIBLE IMPLEMENT OF THE
SOLDIER, are the birth-right of an American. ... The unlimited power
of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state
governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the
hands of the people." (Coxe's "Examination of the Constitution,"
1788.)
To this Richard Henry Lee, author of most of the Bill of Rights,
added: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people
themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary."
("Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer," 1788.)
Are we to suppose today's armed citizenry "renders regular troops in
great measure unnecessary" because we are "allowed" to keep air
rifles, black powder museum pieces, pistols of less than 11 rounds
capacity, and the occasional slingshot, but no machine weapons? Of
course not.
The promises above are those made to our people by the federalists --
the guarantees against tyranny which they agreed to enact in the form
of the Bill of Rights if only we would ratify their proposed new
Constitution. This remains the highest law of our land.
These sacred promises ONLY make sense if the average citizen is
allowed to own machine guns, Stingers, mortars, and rocket-propelled
grenades. That, then, is the meaning of the Second Amendment. Far
from being ashamed to quote the "militia phrase," I am proud to
declare myself part of this armed militia. Now, when will you and
your kind concede I have a right to arm myself properly, with any and
all manner of modern military-style weapons, to defend myself against
both bandits and would-be tyrants, as the founders intended?
How do you purpose our government protect us from a foreign
entity, if that entity is able to purchase its weapon of war inside
our borders?
V.S.: The system I propose WAS the law in this country for more than
150 years, up until 1934. Machine guns were available for
unrestricted civilian sale over the counter, as were mortars and
field pieces. Did the Spaniards therefore come to this country to buy
their weapons to fight us in 1896? They did not. Did the Germans come
to this country to buy their weapons to fight us in 1917? They did
not. Your "objection" is absurd. Foreign powers prefer to arm
themselves, due to the logistical benefits of having their own spare
parts and ammunition supply. There is no sense debating whether
foreign powers "should be allowed" to arm -- they will do so whether
we like it or not. The point under debate is whether the American
civilian populace shall somehow be prevented from exercising its
natural and constitutional right to similarly arm.
Your claim that "an armed citizenry" is a synonym of "a well
regulated militia" still rings hollow. You use an example of
"gentleman farmer George Washington and his friend George Mason" and
their founding of the Fairfax County Militia. I'm certain that the
purpose of that militia was to stand ready to protect the United
States of America, since there was not a standing Army at the
time.
V.S.: You are incorrect, as usual. The Fairfax County Militia was
formed in 1774, before there WAS any "United States of America." (See
pg. 60 of Stephen Halbrook's "That Every Man Be Armed," The
Independent Institute, 1994.) And there WAS a standing army at the
time -- the same British Army which marched on Lexington and Concord
the next spring to disarm the Massachusetts militia. This is why the
founders specified that the United States should not HAVE any
permanent standing army -- a signpost to tyranny. In Noah Webster's
words (in "An Examination into the Leading Principles of the Federal
Constitution," 1787): "Before a standing army can rule, the people
must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The
supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword;
because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a
force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any
pretence, raised in the United States."
Also, it would have been regulated by the government of Fairfax
County.
V.S.: No, it was not. Far from being organized by Lord Fairfax (the
crown having had a somewhat different notion of "county government"
than you apparently harbor), the Fairfax County Militia was a
completely independent company of volunteers who elected their own
officers, stood AGAINST the authority of the crown governor of
Virginia (the "established government" of the time) and pledged that
"we will, each of us, constantly keep by us" a firelock, six pounds
of gun powder, and 20 pounds of lead. (See E. Sanchez-Saaveda, "A
Guide to Virginia Military Organizations in the American Revolution,"
1978) ... which is why the British would have hanged Washington if
they'd caught him.
Admit it: You've done none of the reading, have you? You're just make
this stuff up as you go along.
I believe history will show, the militia was adsorbed into the
Virginia National Guard. You accuse me of not understanding the true
meaning of the Second Amendment. I find such an accusation to be, at
best, abstract. I'm the one that has no fear of quoting the Second
Amendment as it was written by James Madison. Only those that fear
it, as it is written, find it necessary to paraphrase, thus, you are
the ones that "twist its real and obvious meaning." I do not find it
necessary to paraphrase any aspect of the amendment. I have no desire
to disarm you or any law abiding citizen. Laws, however, are designed
to protect the populace. If the populace decides that background
checks and limited access to certain weapons are needed in order to
afford that protection, that should be the law.
V.S.: And do you also hold that "If the populace decides that Jews
shall be required to wear yellow stars on their sleeves, that they be
made to live in certain specified neighborhoods, and that they shall
be forbidden from owning businesses or attending universities, in
order to protect the populace, then that should be the law"? Once
again: A majority cannot overrule the Second Amendment, or any other
part of the Bill of Rights. And the stated purpose of our government
is to "secure our unalienable rights" ... not to "protect the
populace" from every imaginary hobgoblin you cringing bed-wetters can
dream up.
For those who believe this is in violation of the Second
Amendment, the courts are there to resolve the dispute.
V.S.: Although the courts have not heard a Second Amendment case
since 1939, the Supreme Court indeed ruled in that year, in the
Miller case, that the government may not tax, regulate, or otherwise
restrict civilian ownership of any firearm which is "militarily
useful." I'm glad you agree with me, and the U.S. Supreme Court, that
all such gun control laws are unconstitutional, and thus null and
void.
But if "the courts are there to resolve the dispute," perhaps you'll
explain to me why the lower courts refuse to enforce the Miller
precedent, and why subsequent Supreme Courts has refused to hear any
of the many Second Amendment cases which have been submitted to it in
the past 60 years? Your side afraid of what they'd be forced to rule,
perhaps?
I by no means defer to nine (much less five) political appointees to
explain to me the plain meaning of rights and sacred guarantees I can
read for myself. The high court has been wrong plenty of times. But
Justice Thomas has said he would welcome a new Second Amendment case.
Perhaps we shall yet see.
Vin Suprynowicz is assistant editorial page editor of the Las Vegas
Review-Journal. His new book,
Send in the Waco Killers: Essays on the Freedom Movement, 1993-1998,
is available at $24.95 postpaid
from Mountain Media, P.O. Box 271122, Las Vegas, Nev. 89127; by
dialing 1-800-244-2224; or via web site
http://www.thespiritof76.com/wacokillers.html.
Credit cards accepted; volume discounts available.