Gun-grabbers love to quote that pesky Second Amendment. Well, at least part of it.
Without fail, they have down by rote, “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
But for whatever whacky reason, they forget all about that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” part.
Never mind that the SCOTUS has ruled more than once that Americans have every right to keep and bear those same arms.
As much as the same gun-grabbers bemoan and ridicule America’s so-called “gun culture,” I decided to dig a bit into the history of legal gun ownership. Of course, Lefties won’t like what I’ve found.
Noted on Constitution.org (the last third of the page linked to) would be The Militia Act of 1792;
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, 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…
Congress even went as far as to put into law what else each of the “Militia men” should show up with;
That every citizen… 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…
Of course, firearm technology has progressed since 1792, but the First Amendment doesn’t protect thoughts and opinions only put to parchment with a quill pen.
Even with that aside, isn’t it interesting that it was understood that just as soon as any given dude upon his 18th birthday was already considered to be part of the military?
But this particular Militia Act is well over 200 years old. Could something so antiquated still be relevant here in the modern day?
As noted on Constitution.Congress.org;
Under the National Defense Act of 1916, the militia, which had been an almost purely state institution, was brought under the control of the federal government.
Keep in mind that WWI was already raging. With the exception of nuclear weapons, the armories of every nation still use essentially the same weapons as those from the Great War. Bomber aircraft, submarines, tanks, explosive artillery shells, shoulder-fired and crew-served automatic weapons, all that Jazz.
But did you catch that? “… brought under the control of the federal government.” Interesting, huh?
If you’d like to see what the NDA of 1916 actually states, seen on page 32 on PDF (197 on text) via GovTrackUS, the same clearly states;
SEC. 57 . COMPOSITION OF THE MILITIA .-The militia of the United States shall consist of all able-bodied male citizens of the United States and all other able-bodied males who have or shall have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be more than eighteen years of age and, except as hereinafter provided, not more than forty-five years of age, and said militia shall be divided into three classes, the National Guard, the Naval Militia, and the Unorganized Militia.
So, between the Militia Act of 1792, the National Defense Act of 1916, and the multiple SCOTUS rulings in regards to the Second Amendment, what conclusion have I come to?
One doesn’t have to be a Ph.D. in constitutional law to figure this one out. If the Democrat controlled Senate and House back in 1916 would have just left well enough alone, things could predictably be different.
But they didn’t. So now the mindset of the gun totin’ populace shifted from protection of the nation to protection of family and home.
Who knows? If the federal bureaucracy would have kept their noses out of it, the outlawing of privately-owned firearms may have been outlawed a long, long time ago.
