I came across this tonight while browsing M-W Online, and I thought it was interesting. (I love their trend watch; it's always fun to see what people have been reading.)
"Militia"
 When:
Lookups spiked on January 11, 2013.
Why:
The wording of the Second Amendment to the Constitution came under renewed scrutiny as Vice President Joe Biden led the White House task force on guns.
The Second Amendment says: "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."
Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary offers three definitions of militia:
: a part of the organized armed forces of a country liable to call only in emergency
: a body of citizens organized for military service
: the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service
In interpreting the Constitution, opponents of gun control tend to support a definition like the middle one, which doesn't refer to a legal army; supporters of gun control generally support the other two.
|
I'm a little confused, though. Because to me, even the second definition says nothing about it being every citizen's right to own guns. It still says a body of citizens, organized, for military service. That seems like three separate requirements, none of which are met by the average American who is not part of a group of citizens who have organized themselves for military service. Am I missing something? Is it, like... that all citizens have the potential to organize themselves into a militia? That doesn't really make sense to me either, but at least it'd be something in the way of an explanation...
To be fair, you can't organize a militia without arms, and logically, the right to bear arms.
ReplyDeleteIt's my understanding that historically, militias were often organized locally and autonomously, without necessarily having any input from larger governmental bodies. Historically speaking, it would make sense to give the citizens of small, isolated towns the right to bear arms so that they could form a militia and protect themselves should the need arise.
I want to say that I've heard of some small towns still technically having militias, but I can't give you a source on that.
I'm not sure how that applies in our day, but we do consider the Constitution a living document, so here we are.
FYI, I'm usually in favor of modest gun control. In a society where it is in our constitution that the right to bear arms is a right, I can't in good conscious be in favor of sweeping bans, but neither do I believe total deregulation.
In reading those three definitions, I would've thought gun rights advocates would prefer the last interpretation (sans the male-only part) as that would cover basically everyone (after some haggling about who is subject to military service). The second definition does seem pretty broad as well, so I'm sure they'd be happy with either.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I'm not sure it matters what definition of militia you use, the amendment doesn't say "...the right of the militia to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." If it did, then we'd be having a heck of a time as a country haggling over the definition. Since the amendment specifically says "...the right of the people...", it's hard to argue that this right was intended only for those who could possibly serve in a militia.
That said, I'm kinda with Lauren. It would be a clear violation of the constitution to ban all guns, but there are some measures that, if intelligently implemented, I'm sure even the NRA could get behind.