VegasGeorge
07-12-2008, 10:34 PM
In the wake of our victory in the Heller decision, I have been giving the "militia" issue more thought. Heller was a close, split decision, and there are still powerful forces that are urging the "collective right" theory.
I've taken a new approach. Instead of analyzing the syntax, grammar, and definitions of the written words of the 2nd Amendment, and instead of researching the history of the manner in which the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted, and instead of attempting to divine the real intentions of the founding fathers when they adopted the 2nd Amendment, I thought it might be instructive to simply apply logic to the problem. So, here goes.
We are dealing with two, mutually exclusive propositions: (a) that the 2nd Amendment expresses an individual right, and; (b) that the 2nd Amendment expresses a collective right.
Let us consider (b), that the 2nd Amendment expresses a collective right.
The "collective right" then would consist of: (1) the right of the government to organize and maintain an armed militia, and; (2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms while in the service of a government controlled militia.
Firstly, let us consider phrase (1), the right of the government to organize and maintain an armed militia.
Isn't that beyond any doubt, or question? Was there ever any sovereign government that did not have that right from its inception? Every country of any consequence, both before and after the American revolution, has organized and maintained an armed fighting force. Consequently, the collective right interpretation is an empty, meaningless proposition. Never mind that the American revolutionary government had already organized and maintained a militia, and fought a bloody 7 year war with it. The very notion that the 2nd Amendment grants a right to the government to defend itself is logically absurd. That right is enumerated in Section 8. of the Constitution, "The Congress shall have power To ....provide for the common Defense ....of the United States ....." That renders the collective right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment redundant and superfluous. In short, the right of the government to defend itself is specifically set forth in the body of the Constitution, was never in question, and cannot logically be thought the subject of the later 2nd Amendment.
Secondly, let us consider phrase (2), the right of the people to keep and bear arms while in the service of a government controlled militia.
What could this mean? Would it mean that regardless of age, health, sex, training, experience, temperament, criminality, or any other qualifying factors, every American would have the right to enlist and serve bearing arms? That the government couldn't exclude anyone for any reason? Is that the meaning of the "right to bear arms?" I doubt it. No country would organize an army (or militia) on that basis. Does it mean that those chosen to serve in the militia have an absolute right to keep and carry their weapons at all times? I've never heard of such an army. In fact, since Roman times and before, military commanders have retained the right to prescribe the presence and use of weaponry. To ordain otherwise makes no sense. Does it simply mean that soldiers will have weapons? Of what use is that inane observation? Of course soldiers will be armed. I can think of no other interpretation of phrase (2) in conjunction with proposition (b). And, I cannot find any logical meaning for that phrase under that proposition. It is rendered meaningless.
I suggest that by logical analysis, it is conclusively demonstrated that proposition (b) cannot be correct. Under proposition (b), phrase (1) is shown to lack merit by superfluous redundancy, adding nothing to the meaning of the existing Constitution, and phrase (2) is shown to be totally without reasonable meaning.
Therefore, I conclude that proposition (a) must be the correct interpretation. That the 2nd Amendment sets forth an individual as opposed to collective right to keep and bear arms, is the only logical conclusion.
I've taken a new approach. Instead of analyzing the syntax, grammar, and definitions of the written words of the 2nd Amendment, and instead of researching the history of the manner in which the 2nd Amendment has been interpreted, and instead of attempting to divine the real intentions of the founding fathers when they adopted the 2nd Amendment, I thought it might be instructive to simply apply logic to the problem. So, here goes.
We are dealing with two, mutually exclusive propositions: (a) that the 2nd Amendment expresses an individual right, and; (b) that the 2nd Amendment expresses a collective right.
Let us consider (b), that the 2nd Amendment expresses a collective right.
The "collective right" then would consist of: (1) the right of the government to organize and maintain an armed militia, and; (2) the right of the people to keep and bear arms while in the service of a government controlled militia.
Firstly, let us consider phrase (1), the right of the government to organize and maintain an armed militia.
Isn't that beyond any doubt, or question? Was there ever any sovereign government that did not have that right from its inception? Every country of any consequence, both before and after the American revolution, has organized and maintained an armed fighting force. Consequently, the collective right interpretation is an empty, meaningless proposition. Never mind that the American revolutionary government had already organized and maintained a militia, and fought a bloody 7 year war with it. The very notion that the 2nd Amendment grants a right to the government to defend itself is logically absurd. That right is enumerated in Section 8. of the Constitution, "The Congress shall have power To ....provide for the common Defense ....of the United States ....." That renders the collective right interpretation of the 2nd Amendment redundant and superfluous. In short, the right of the government to defend itself is specifically set forth in the body of the Constitution, was never in question, and cannot logically be thought the subject of the later 2nd Amendment.
Secondly, let us consider phrase (2), the right of the people to keep and bear arms while in the service of a government controlled militia.
What could this mean? Would it mean that regardless of age, health, sex, training, experience, temperament, criminality, or any other qualifying factors, every American would have the right to enlist and serve bearing arms? That the government couldn't exclude anyone for any reason? Is that the meaning of the "right to bear arms?" I doubt it. No country would organize an army (or militia) on that basis. Does it mean that those chosen to serve in the militia have an absolute right to keep and carry their weapons at all times? I've never heard of such an army. In fact, since Roman times and before, military commanders have retained the right to prescribe the presence and use of weaponry. To ordain otherwise makes no sense. Does it simply mean that soldiers will have weapons? Of what use is that inane observation? Of course soldiers will be armed. I can think of no other interpretation of phrase (2) in conjunction with proposition (b). And, I cannot find any logical meaning for that phrase under that proposition. It is rendered meaningless.
I suggest that by logical analysis, it is conclusively demonstrated that proposition (b) cannot be correct. Under proposition (b), phrase (1) is shown to lack merit by superfluous redundancy, adding nothing to the meaning of the existing Constitution, and phrase (2) is shown to be totally without reasonable meaning.
Therefore, I conclude that proposition (a) must be the correct interpretation. That the 2nd Amendment sets forth an individual as opposed to collective right to keep and bear arms, is the only logical conclusion.