An Open Letter to Piers Morgan
You have recently garnered a degree of notoriety from recent debates regarding gun violence. I read of your interview with Alex Jones, and of a White House petition to have you deported. As I channel surfed on the evening of Thursday, January 10th I stopped on your program to catch your last guest, Tony Robbins. His comments were altruistically well thought out. I enjoyed hearing his insight on redirection and the emotions associated with debate.
You made an interesting comment to the effect that nobody has been able to tell you why a US citizen needs an assault rifle. Will you indulge me?
Resolutions, laws, constitutions, etc are written in order to document the negotiated intent; to minimize obscurity and selective memory of a verbal understanding. As I am sure you are aware, the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution reads as follows: “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 fully comprehend the original intent of the Amendment, one must have an understanding of three key terms; well-regulated, militia and infringed.
Per 10 USC § 311 – Militia: Composition and Classes:
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (emphasis added)
In Federalist 29, Alexander Hamilton shared his cadre’s view on the forming of the militia and the end result sought:
“But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.” (emphasis added)
The militia is to aid in the defense of the homeland in the event of invasion from a foreign enemy or to repel the tyranny of the domestic ruling class.
An 18th century perspective on the term “well-regulated” has been provided by Brian T. Halonen, author of Cognition and Causation in Formulating Unstructured Decision Problems, in that,
“The phrase ‘well-regulated’ was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd Amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.” (emphasis added)
The US is required to maintain in proper working order, and calibrated correctly, a militia of all able-bodied men ages 17 to 45 and female members of the National Guard. This militia, of which I am a part, is also to be disciplined and well-trained in the use of arms, not inferior to an established army.
The 21st century legal definition of infringe includes synonyms such as encroach, breach, trespass, and violate. Should the federal government infringe, encroach upon, breach or violate, my right to bear arms, it is, in essence, in direct violation of its obligation to me and my fellow militia members. A reasonable interpretation of the above citations indicates the federal government should appropriate me an assault rifle and are equally obligated to train me to use it effectively.
This post was submitted by Gary Winebarger.
Short URL: http://pundithouse.com/?p=12760