I was pointed by Fox News over to this little gem of liberal idiocy called “The Problem with the Second Amendment”
I am no constitutional scholar, or even an attorney, but I did take American History in high school, and it seems to me that the reason so many people argue about the Second Amendment to the US Constitution is because nobody, and I do mean nobody, quite likes what it means and how it was intended.
He then goes on to prove that not only is he not a lawyer (neither were most of our Founding Fathers) he also proves that he knows nothing about history, current events or, apparently, the English language – since he cannot read the Amendment and understand it’s meaning.
He then goes on to try and show that the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794 was the sole purpose of the Second Amendment. I say this because it is the ONLY historical fact he references in his piece. According to Kimel, the Whiskey rebellion allowed Washington to conscript men into a militia and then crush the rebellion.
The next time anyone, on whatever side of the debate, tells you they are firm supporters of the Second Amendment, ask them if they believe it was intended to allow the Federal government to round up citizens against their will, put them in uniforms, and make them march and fire upon other citizens in order to crush revolts and collect taxes.
So, lets take a look at it shall we?
The law that allowed the forming of a militia was the Militia Act of 1792. Under the act, it allowed the raising of a militia from men ranging in age from 18-45
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act
So that meant EVERYONE. Everyone had a duty to help protect their nation. Everyone had to pitch in when it was required – yes, even when it was 7,000 farmers revolting against a very new Federal government.
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Oh, look!! Further in section I of the act it states that everyone who is part of the milita has to have a rifle, bayonet, ammo and powder – they have to be equipped with the same stuff their regular army counter parts carried.
So, the Second Amendment states that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” and then we have the militia act, which Mr. Kimel claims was designed to enslave us into the military machine saying that all militia members – remember, that is EVERY man from ages 18-45 – MUST have a military rifle and ammo that the member will provide themselves. So the government is forcibly arming people.
Kimel’s next little line is a bit of snark in an attempt at a ‘gotcha’ moment:
If they do not, then politely remind them that is the Founding Fathers chose to interpret the Constitution they themselves hashed out, agreed upon, signed and ratified. And then, for grins and giggles, ask them why they are so unpatriotic as to insist on clinging to an un-American belief that the Founding Fathers would certainly have deemed un-Constitutional.
So, somehow he thinks that requiring service of the people to a militia – which the Second Amendment mentions – is somehow unconstitutional??? I guess he never heard of the draft, which has been used quite a bit in our history for a couple of world wars, and then again for a little place known as Korea and finally Vietnam. Also, you are still required to register for the draft if you are a male 18 years of age or older. Gee, 18 years – where have we seen that age before??
Also, he conveniently ignores that these men also just finished fighting a war where the first battle of that war was when the British came for the their guns. So these men were very well aware that to resist an oppressive government, one would need weapons and yet, curiously, they pass a law REQUIRING the citizens to be armed. I would think it would be much easier to force conscription on an unarmed populace than an armed one.
Also, how can a belief be unconstitutional?? I really don’t get that part at all.
But my real question is this – Mr Kimel, by your own argument you show that the United States government wanted, nay REQUIRED it’s people to be armed. Not just some of the people, but every male was required to have a rifle and ammo. This is a fact.
The rifles that they had were ‘military grade’ since muskets were the military rifle of the time. Civilians were as well armed as their uniformed counterparts. This is also a fact.
Now most of us ‘gun nuts’ have argued that the Second Amendment is pretty clear that”Shall Not Be Infringed” means just that. But you seem to suggest that it means something else, yet you never say WHAT that something else is – just that everyone has it wrong.
So, tell me. What does it really mean. What does a government passing a law to make sure it’s citizens are all armed say about the government? I would say that it doesn’t show that the government was trying to control it’s people through force. That would be a fairly hard thing to do once you have made sure they all have gun.
I also don’t think it means they meant the Second Amendment for target practice and hunting, not with the Militia act in place. Nope, I think it means exactly what it says “Shall not be infringed”.
I hope you are successful as an investor, since as a historian and/or constitutional scholar you’re a bust.