Skip to main content

The 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights guarantees that the people's right to bear arms shall not be infringed. This is a right that has historically been denied blacks by different governments- first, to strengthen the institution of slavery; then, to keep blacks from exercising other rights by ensuring that the would not be able to defend themselves against attacks by racists. This left blacks more vulnerable to intimidation.

Today many blacks are still intimidated and terrorized by those who would infringe on their rights. Blacks are disproportionately victimized by crime.

In light of this, is their any justification in the current black liberal position which, for the most part, is vehemently pro gun control and anti-2nd Amendment?

Do these gun-control laws, really make blacks in inner cities safer, or do they simply disarm the law-abiding black populace and make them more vulnerable?
"Most economic fallacies derive ... from the tendency to assume that there is a fixed pie, that one party can gain only at the expense of another" - Milton Friedman "The worst crime against working people is a company which fails to operate at a profit." –- Samuel Gompers Ron Paul for President
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

Great question! I know there are some interesting perspectives among members here. Vox, in particular, has some legal thoughts on the 2nd Amendment that I hope he chimes in with.

I respond to this question in a couple of ways. First, the constitutional elements of this question are completely unpersuasive to me. While I, of course, respect the role that the constitution plays in American life, I completely reject the notion that "Original Intent" is something that should strictly bind us today. There is no way that 18th century men, however talented, could have contemplated life to enable a strict constructionist point of view to govern America forever. Moreover, James Madison , the primary author of the document, acknowledged that the constitution should be a living document - taking on interpretations and meanings as they evolve over time. In the book "Original Intent and the Framers' Constitution", Leonard Levy writes the following:

James Madison, Father of the Constitution and of the Bill of Rights, rejected the doctrine that the original intent of those who framed the Constitution should be accepted as an authoritative guide to its meaning. "As a guide in expounding and applying the provisions of the Constitution," he wrote in a well-considered and consistent judgment, "the debates and incidental decisions of the (Constitutional) Convention can have no authoritative character." The fact that Madison, the quintessential Founder, discredited original intent is probably the main reason that he refused throughout his life to publish his "Notes of Debates in the Federal Convention," incomparably our foremost source for the secret discussions of that hot summer in Philadelphia in 1787."


Third, the fallibility of the document itself is patently obvious in its consideration of African Americans as 3/5 of a human being. If the Founders could have been so wrong about that, they could have obviously also been wrong about other things. Looking at the role that guns, particularly hand guns, have played in America, it's rather easy to conclude that perhaps this is one of those issues that (from their vantage point in the 1780s) they could not have contemplated - particularly when firearms then meant 5 foot muskets.


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.

Lastly, from a legal standpoint, the concept of "militias" was at the foundation of the "right to bear arms" provision. As militias have no current relevance - it would therefore seem to be logical to question the relevance of the succeeding 'right to bear arms'.

Now to your point about guns and our community: African Americans have had all manner of rights tread upon. IMO, the overriding harm that guns perform trumps any historical reflex to want something that may have been denied us. I do not believe that more guns in our communities equals safer communities. In fact, with all due respect, I think that's ridiculous. Statistics on gun deaths and accidents clearly bear that out.
By the time many Black men and women reach adulthood they have had an experience with a gun or two, and understand its purpose and use. Guns have a different meaning for Black people than white people. White people like to go kill animals and call it sport. While there may be black hunters, hunting is not a thing Black people do in masses here in the U.S. Thus for us a gun is not something we have just to have, if we have no need for a gun even with the constitution saying we can have it we still may pass on having it.

Secondly couple this with our experiences as I said earlier, Black men and women do not equate security with having a gun necessarily, We are more likely to equate having a gun with criminals and the crimes they commit, thus once again if we don't have a need for a gun we don't have one just to have it. Which may be a good thing, there are far too many poor, broke and hungry Black men and women, and a gun in our hand may be just the motivation we need to go get us something to eat. Smile
Guns are most effective when one can predict or know in advance of an attempted assault. If someone tells you he is going to break in your house at 9:00 Am Central time, then you can get your gun and prepare for him. However, that is not the way it works. Criminals utilize the element of SURPRISE to gain advantage. Having a GUN concealed or otherwise does not offset that advantage.

If I was a criminal looking to rob someone and using a gun in the commission of this felony, I will use stealth and when I roll up on the victim I will have my gun drawn and aimed. Now, if you, the victim, is also armed, how are you going to get your gun out, aim it and shoot me before I bust mine? If I know you have a gun or fear that you have a gun, I am also going to fear that you will kill me, for robbing you and taking your money. So, I think that I would have to kill you, when I would have otherwise just let you go after I got your goods.

Back when I was living in Detroit, it was just assumed that most everyone was armed, legally or illegally. This is why he murder rate has always been so high. When something goes down like an altercation, people feel that the other guy my kill them, if they do not kill him first. Guns escalate violence and murder, in my opinion and do not reduce it.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
I do not believe that more guns in our communities equals safer communities. In fact, with all due respect, I think that's ridiculous. Statistics on gun deaths and accidents clearly bear that out.


Does more gun control lead to less crime? Domestic crime in countries that have more legal gun ownership are often low. Switzerland, Canada, and Israel are examples as well as many communities in the US.

This aside, back to the original issue, does gun control decrease crime? Are people really safer when the law-abiding populace is disarmed?

As for Noah's comment that "Guns are most effective when one can predict or know in advance of an attempted assault. If someone tells you he is going to break in your house at 9:00 Am Central time, then you can get your gun and prepare for him. However, that is not the way it works. Criminals utilize the element of SURPRISE to gain advantage."

Should we outlaw guns simply because they may not be adequate for defense in all cases? There are definitely many cases where intruders into homes have been thwarted by a citizen with a firearm. Also, there are cases where shooting sprees have been stopped by firearm-bearing citizens.

Also, MBM, I doubt Madison was taking a stance that our rights are to be vulnerable to "living" interpretations of the Constitution. If that were the case, why have a Bill of Rights at all in the first place?

There are many parts of the Constitution that would need to be adjusted with time other than the bill of rights.

And, by the way, the Constitution does not say that African Americans are 3/5 of a man, and this clause, which refers to "persons not free", did more to help blacks in slavery than hurt them. It decreased the amount of representation slave states would get in the Federal government, which was its intention.

I'd have rather had them not counted at all, which may have lead to a quicker end to slavery.
And, by the way, the Constitution does not say that African Americans are 3/5 of a man, and this clause, which refers to "persons not free", did more to help blacks in slavery than hurt them. It decreased the amount of representation slave states would get in the Federal government, which was its intention.

I'd have rather had them not counted at all, which may have lead to a quicker end to slavery.
toussaint

I think control of guns is good. In our communities, the reason to have a good is more typically about acquiring, or protecting power. It would, therefore, be more effective to control/eliminate the foundation of the power. This foundation is most often drugs.

About the Constitution. Toussanint said,"And, by the way, the Constitution does not say that African Americans are 3/5 of a man, and this clause, which refers to "persons not free", did more to help blacks in slavery than hurt them. It decreased the amount of representation slave states would get in the Federal government, which was its intention.

I'd have rather had them not counted at all, which may have lead to a quicker end to slavery."

I think,I know, you have misinterpreted both the intention and the effect of the 3/5s Rule.
Any assignment of value to the slave population increased the power of the State. That was the whole point. The vote was intended for European males. To be able to count, a non-citizen, non-voting population is a plus. And in fact bogus. Increased power in the slave States was definitely "bad news" for African Americans.

Not counting them at all was the goal of the States with smaller numbers of slaves.

PEACE

Jim Chester
Toussaint, you must know that Black folk do not care enough about the right to bear arms to debate what those who made the second amendment had in mind. This is an issue of concern to white citizens. As I stated earlier black men and women do not equate having a gun with being secure, the only time gun control was an issue to us was when Reagan wanted to disarm the Black Panthers. Outside the Black Panther movement there has been little interest in the Black community having mass gun ownership.

One of the strangest of things is that white folk fight against gun control and specifically gun control of automatic weapons, but more Black men and women are dying from the usage of these guns. What do white folk use these automatic weapons for? What use does a white citizen have for an AK47 or an Automatic Tech Nine with an extended clip?

Black people should be fighting for gun control since we are victims of gun fire. However as I said we really do not care one way or another as a people because we truly do not have a fascination with guns as widely portrayed in music and film.
Wow, one of my new favorite topics. I'm currently trying to research for a paper on the 2nd Amendment. As MBM noted, Toussaint, I have discovered that we are completely misreading the 2nd Amd. The "right to keep and bear arms" meant the right to render military service. The phrase, as they meant it, had absolutely nothing to do with gun ownership. At some point in history, Americans fell victim to the misreading that led to our current, false understanding. However, while I am pro gun control, I'm in favor of gun ownership as well, subject to regulations, restrictions, etc.

Noah is right about the lack of ability to respond to a robbery, but I hate it when I hear about an innocent man being prosecuted for using a gun against a mugger on the street.

When this thread's gun control debate winds down, I hope you wouldn't mind spending some time debating my 2nd Amendment issue (hopefully by then I'll be able to log on to this site from home, so I'll have time to debate). As for the gun control issue (which to me is a separate issue, since the 2nd Amendment wasn't intended to have anything to do with guns), my stance is this:

Guns are dangerous instrumentalities. Government's role is to protect a person's ability to pursue life, liberty, and happiness, and to restrict a person's ability to rob someone else of these three things. Regulations like waiting periods and background checks, and a national standard and registry for them, would aid government in its duty. Most crimes are used with illegal guns. Most illegal guns were made available to the criminals by someone who bought them legally in states that have lax gun laws. A well-enforced federal gun law would make it much more difficult for these things to happen. This issue is one of those that should not be politicized. The same way car registration and driver licensing are not politicized issues, so should these types of gun laws. Maybe it's our misperception of the 2nd Amd that allows this to go on.
Amendment [II.]

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.
______________________________________

I take this ammendment to the constitution to mean exactly, that people have the right to own and possess weapons; partly, to ensure that the people will not be oppressed by military and/or policing forces dominance (as well as for self-defense, otherwise).

People having the right to bear arms has nothing to do with criminal activity taking place because of possession of guns---the criminal activity has more to do with the attitudes of the persons bearing the arms, and has more to do with the illegal purchase of guns--which more often that not, is the first sign of illegal intent.
The problems with guns in America begin to happen and run rampant when people do not obey the law where guns are concerned:
Illegal purchase of guns
Selling guns to minors
Using guns to settle disputes, instead of the court systems or common sense
Using guns to imitate courage that you do not naturally possess
Living in a society/community that is so dangerous that people who otherwise would not and/or should not posses gun, feel compelled to for their own safety
Parts of society being so disenfranchised from mainstream society through all of the ism's in America that they are also disenfranchised from the way the mainstream handles disputes
Drug addiction induced urges to rob and steal
False pride obsession that induces people to go as far as to kill another human being over pride or insult
Again, all I'm hearing is that gun control is "a good idea" and we should keep guns off the streets to make things safer.

Such gun measures are already in place- background checks and all, and even some outright bans on firemarms. The question is: does it help, and do you have evidence that it does?

Also, another question. Would you have supported people's right to bear arms back when the KKK was terrorizing blacks? If so, why? If not, why not?

PS did anyone check out the link given in the beginning of the thread?
quote:
Originally posted by toussaint:
Again, all I'm hearing is that gun control is "a good idea" and we should keep guns off the streets to make things safer.

Such gun measures are already in place- background checks and all, and even some outright bans on firemarms. The question is: _does it help_, and do you have evidence that it does?

Also, another question. Would you have supported people's right to bear arms back when the KKK was terrorizing blacks? If so, why? If not, why not?

____________________________________
So, with such measures already in place, what needs to happens is a national effort to get guns out of hand of children/teenager/mentally ill, etc. people.

Usually it is not the persons that legally purchase and register their guns that are the problem with the rampant violence in America and especially the black community.

America needs to go after the manufacturers who "claim" to not know where truck loads of serial numbered weapons or going or how they keep winding up in the ghettos of America and in the hands of underage criminals and others not legally qualified to own or possess weapons.

And yes, I still would support my position when the KKK was terrorising African Americans in this country---especially then, because it is for reasons like that, the KKK, etc., that the ammendment was added, so that the people can protect themselves from being terrorized by any one group as well as the military and policing powers in this country.

DO YOU REALLY TRUST THIS GOVERNMENT ENOUGH TO BE COMPLETELY DEFENSELESS FROM IT?
The founders were interested in preventing the government from raising a "standing army," which was an army of lifetime professionals loyal to the interests of those in power, who would fight for those interests even at the expense of the interests of the masses.

In England, the King's standing army and the militia were comprised of people from the highest classes. These were the people who benefitted from the same system that benefitted the king. Specifically, the standing army was comprised of people who possessed "the right to bear arms," which, in those days, meant people who had a status symbolized by "ensigns," armorial "devices" that we know of as a "coat-of-arms." The standing army was comprised of people who possessed that status. The local militias were still comprised of people who belonged to these higher classes, whether they had the "right to bear arms" (in the heraldry context) or not. No common member of the masses could belong to the militia.

In order to preserve liberty for the (white) masses, the founders sought to prevent this standing army situation from occurring. However, they realized that the militia had to be well-regulated; that is, controlled by the federal government, in order for the feds to "provide for the common defense." This is what they meant by the "well-regulated militia being necessary for the defence of a free state."

However, if the feds were to regulate the militia, there's a danger of them maintaining a standing army. They way they came up with to prevent this danger was to make sure that any able-bodied person (male), regardless of his class, could render military service. If the military is controlled by the government or governments (states and/or federal), but the military is comprised of the masses, the government could never use the military to oppress the people. And they could never raise a "standing army," because military service was not to be determined based on class.

This is the clear import you get from an intelligent reading of Hamilton in the relevant federalist papers, and the House members generally in the transcript of their debate on the wording of the amendment (I'm at work and don't have time to provide the links, but I know I posted them in a topic I started at Protest Warrior last June or July). They actually use the term "bear arms" interchangeably with "render military service. So at some point, the "right to bear arms" in the sense of the status of having heraldry became synonymous with the right to serve in the military. Eventually, when our understanding of the phrase changed, it came to mean the right to own weapons. I know this all sounds unbelievable, but if you read the source material honestly, it's clearly the original meaning of the 2nd amendment, and it's why the 2nd amendment correctly should have no place in the gun control debate.
If the constitution had set up the power of a 'king', vox points would make sense. But they did not. The 'powers' afforded to each branch were clearly spelled out. The idea of what is meant by 'standing militia' is taken that it only applies to something in place in 'advance' of bearing arms. But that is not the intent.

The colonial army itself was comprised of 'citizens'. Should those citizens have been wholly 'unarmed' prior to forming a militia, which England did at one point try to do, then there would have been no meaning in the clause 'well regulated militia', since they'd have been a 'unarmed well regulated militia'.

When the constitution guarantees the rights of its citizens to 'bear arms', it means just that. A 'well regulated militia being necessary' means that armed men are required if a militia is to be formed from the citizenry.

ALL of the constitution is focused on limiting the power of government. When we use the term 'right', we are actually describing a limitation of government, not something which is awarded to people. The necessity for a citizenry to bear arms, due to the need for a well regulated militia, is a direct reference to the ability to fight tyrranical government, and nothing else.
WOW gun control!! Something that makes criminals get happy since gun control measures don't apply to them. Its amazing how gun control adovates can give numbers about how guns hurt the innocent and yet at the same time ignore all the people who because they had a gun did not end up a victim.

There is no evidence that an outright ban would make streets any safer especially if the ban only works with honest people participating in the program. Don't get me wrong, I see nothing wrong with a waiting period, background checks and other things to keep guns out of peoples hands who really don't need them. But to think that a ban makes us safer is absolutely nuts.

Finally I will say this, many years ago the fact that I had a gun in my hand kept an uninvited guest out of my house, we called the police when we first discoverd the person and it took then all of 30 minutes to show up, wonder what that person would have done to my family and I in those 30 minutes if I had not chased him off with my weapon.
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:

There is no evidence that an outright ban would make streets any safer especially if the ban only works with honest people participating in the program.


Using this logic there would be absolutely NO laws on the books since the police can't be everywhere enforcing the law at all times. For example, we have speed limit laws. Of course people break it, but the vast majority don't.
quote:
Originally posted by toussaint:

But has anyone come up with any evidence that gun control leads to less crime? Or has anyone found any evidence that the gun control measures in place (including out right bans) make people safer?


A post from a previous thread on the subject.

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
+ _For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. _


+ _A gun kept in the home is 22 times more likely to be used in a homicide, suicide or unintentional shooting than to be used in self-defense. _
- Kellerman AL, Lee RK, Mercy JA, et al. "The Epidemiological Basis for the Prevention of Firearm Injuries." Annu. Rev. Public Health. 1991; 12:17-40


+ _Members of handgun-owning families were twice as likely to die in a suicide or homicide as members of the same age, sex, and neighborhood who had no history of handgun purchase. _
These increased risks persisted for more than five years after the purchase.


+ _Suicide is still the leading cause of firearm death in the U.S., representing 57% of total gun deaths nationwide. _In 1999, firearm suicides totaled 16,599 of all gun deaths in the U.S. Not surprisingly, most suicides in the U.S. are committed with firearms; in 1999, 57% of all suicides were committed with guns.
- CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8)


+ _10 children are killed by guns in the U.S. every day, on average._


+ In 1996, handguns were used to murder 2 people in New Zealand, 15 in Japan, 30 in Great Britain, 106 in Canada, 211 in Germany, and _9,390 in the United States_.


+ _Taxpayers pay more than 85% of the medical cost for treatment of firearm-related injuries._
- Martin M, et al. "The Cost of Hospitalization for Firearm Injuries." JAMA. Vol 260, November 25, 1998, pp 3048, and Ordog et al. "Hospital Costs of Firearm Injuries." Abstract. Journal of Trauma. February 1995, p1)


+ 59% of students in grades six through twelve know where to get a gun if they want one, and two thirds of these students say they can acquire a firearm within 24 hours.
- Harvard School of Public Health


+ In a ten year span, 1988 to 1997, 633 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed by firearms in America. A handgun was the murder weapon in 78% (492 victims) of the fatal incidents. Over the same period of time, rifles killed 106 officers and shotguns killed 35 officers. 253 law enforcement officers were slain while equipped with body armor.
- U.S. Department of Justice


+ _In 1995, the death rate for African-American males ages 15 to 24 was 140 deaths per 100,000. During the same period of time, the death rate for all American males ages 15 to 24 was 47.6 deaths per 100,000. _
- Center for Disease Control and Prevention


+ From 1977 to 1996, the U.S. firearm industry produced 85,644,715 firearms, 39,024,786 handguns, 26,651,062 rifles and 19,969,867 shotguns in the United States.
- Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms


+ As of 1994, 44 million Americans owned more than 192 million firearms, 65 million of which were handguns. Although there were enough guns to have provided every U.S. adult with one, only 25% of adults owned firearms. Seventy-four percent (74%) of gun owners possessed two or more firearms.
- National Institute of Justice (May '97)


+ _Every two years more Americans die from firearm injuries than the total number of American soldiers killed during the 8-year Vietnam War. In 1999, the total number of people killed by guns in the United States was 28,874, a 6% decrease from 1998 figures. _
- Based on data from CDC National Center for Health Statistics report "Deaths: Final Data for 1999." Vol. 49, No. 8)



+ The risk of suicide in a home with a handgun is 6 times greater than the risk of suicide in a home where no guns are present.
- Kellerman AL, Rivara FP, Somes G, et al. "Suicide in the Home in Relation to Gun Ownership." NEJM. 1992; 327(7):467-472)


+ _In 1997 more than 32,000 Americans were killed with firearms"”

17,566 in firearm suicides,
13,522 in firearm homicides,
981 in unintentional firearm deaths,
367 in firearm deaths of undetermined intent. _



+ From 1968 to 1991, motor vehicle-related deaths declined by 21%, while firearm-related deaths increased by 60%. It is estimated that by the year 2003, firearm-related deaths will surpass deaths from motor vehicle-related injuries. In 1991 this was already the case in seven states (California, Louisiana, Maryland, Nevada, New York, Texas, Virginia) and in the District of Columbia.

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by jazzdog:

There is no evidence that an outright ban would make streets any safer especially if the ban only works with honest people participating in the program.


Using this logic there would be absolutely NO laws on the books since the police can't be everywhere enforcing the law at all times. For example, we have speed limit laws. Of course people break it, but the vast majority don't.


But no one is asking people to give up their cars even thought automoblie accidents kill more people in this country then do guns.

And as the vast majority of people don't speed while driving, the vast majority of gun owners are law abiding people and not the deranged gun nuts that the anti-gun people try to make them out to be.
quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
quote:
Originally posted by toussaint:

But has anyone come up with any evidence that gun control leads to less crime? Or has anyone found any evidence that the gun control measures in place (including out right bans) make people safer?


A post from a previous thread on the subject.

quote:
Originally posted by MBM:
+ _For every case in which an individual used a firearm kept in the home in a self-defense homicide, there were 1.3 unintentional deaths, 4.6 criminal homicides, and 37 suicides involving firearms. _ ...



Again, MBM, your information does not answer the question I asked. You gave no evidence that our gun control measures have made/will make people safer. Again, if you have the evidence, bring it forward. Otherwise, you must be supporting gun-control measures/bans with blind faith.
In the state I live in, with its strong gun control laws, illegal guns used in crimes are usually purchased legally in states with lax guns laws. This, to me, is evidence that gun crime would be reduced if all states adopted this state's gun laws. The harder it is to commit a crime, the less likely the crime will be committed (example: stricter anti-terrorism measures in the US = no new 9/11s, so far).

It doesn't mean the problem will be eliminated, but it does suggest that its incidence will be reduced.
quote:
Originally posted by DeltaJ:
If the constitution had set up the power of a 'king', vox points would make sense. ...
The colonial army itself was comprised of 'citizens'. Should those citizens have been wholly 'unarmed' prior to forming a militia, which England did at one point try to do, then there would have been no meaning in the clause 'well regulated militia', since they'd have been a 'unarmed well regulated militia'.

When the constitution guarantees the rights of its citizens to 'bear arms', it means just that. A 'well regulated militia being necessary' means that armed men are required if a militia is to be formed from the citizenry.

ALL of the constitution is focused on limiting the power of government. When we use the term 'right', we are actually describing a limitation of government, not something which is awarded to people. The necessity for a citizenry to bear arms, due to the need for a well regulated militia, is a direct reference to the ability to fight tyrranical government, and nothing else.


What's the relevance in your point about there being no king? The point, as you note, was to prevent tyranny. There need not be a monarchy to result in tyranny.

I'm at work, so I have to make this brief. First, "well-regulated" meant, basically, controlled, armed, and directed uniformly under central organization. Alexander Hamilton argued strongly that the feds should have "the power of regulating the militia." He said, "This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. ...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.''

But for a more direct discussion of my point, Read THIS LINK. It's the transcript of the House debate on the adoption of the 2nd Amendment wording. Pay particular attention to this segment below, and tell me why you think it doesn't support my interpretation:

Mr. Smith, of South Carolina, inquired what were the words used by the conventions respecting this amendment. If the gentleman would conform to what was proposed by Virginia and Carolina, he would second him. He thought they were to be excused provided they found a substitute.

Mr. Jackson was willing to accommodate. He thought the expression was, "No one, religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service, in person, upon paying an equivalent."
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

No big deal, but when you mentioned kings and their 'private' armies, I simply wanted to point out that the above clause and the constitution ruled out the possibility of any 'private' army existing in the US under any particularly individuals, or 'state's' behest.
No, but a fighting force made intentionally select in its membership, could very well have been used for the purpose of advancing government's will over that of the people. The clear import of Hamilton and the Annals transcript is that the broader and more "everyday" the population from whence militia membership is derived, the less the people have to fear that the militia will fight against the interests of everyday people.

Add Reply

Post
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×