The Obsolescence Of The 2nd Amendment

Footnotes:

{1 Exegesis is the interpretation of what a text actually says–something done by elucidating its intended meaning.  This factors in where the authors were coming from as well as what the authors were (ultimately) getting at.  It takes into account both historical context (the circumstances in which the text was composed) and intertextuality (how any given passage relates to the other parts of the text; as the latter typically sheds light on the former).  Eisegesis, on the other hand, is an ersatz exegesis.  The eisegete imports his desired meaning into the text; and then pretends that it inheres in the text.  The trick is to pass this disingenuous interpretation off as legitimate exegesis, hoping that everyone assumes the fabricated meaning was there all along…and that he is only revealing it.}

{2 The first two proposed Amendments were not ratified, thereby rendering the 3rd the 1st, and the 4th the 2nd, in the final draft. The numerical value, of course, has no significance in terms of the substance of the respective Amendments. It is notable that the first two Amendments originally proposed were–on further reflection–seen as not being needed.}

{3 When it comes to gun-fetishism, it is as though being “a real man” were somehow a function of being able to vanquish the dastardly perpetrators that one imagines to be lurking around every corner.  (See endnote 21 below.)  “Contingent self-esteem” is a common phenomenon; but this particular kind hinges on the perceived ability to defeat some dastardly perpetrator in a confabulated scenario (in which one envisions oneself in the starring role, as the gun-toting hero). Here, overwrought swagger is more affectation–a PERFORMANCE–than it is a sign of (genuine) self-confidence. To wit: Owning a firearm is a means of compensating for repressed insecurities. Fragile masculinity usually translates to a toxic masculinity; and toxic masculinity invariably stems from repressed insecurities. (See footnote 22 below.)  And so it goes: Countenancing a revisionist conception of the 4th-cum-2nd Amendment serves as a palliative for the most insecure members of the American populace.}

{4 The “more guns, less crime” myth presumes guns to be a deterrent of–more than a facilitator of–harm. A corollary of this tenet is: “The optimal means of foiling the occasional bad actor with a gun is ensuring more good actors have guns.” If increased access to guns (that is: the augmented proliferation of guns) led to a safer society, then the U.S. would have BY FAR THE LEAST–rather than BY FAR THE MOST–annual gun-based casualties in the developed world. Meanwhile, whenever in New Zealand, Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Britain, France, Belgium, Netherlands, Germany, or Scandinavia, one would be THE MOST likely to be shot. Indeed, those would be the most dangerous countries on Earth. That the exact opposite is the case should put the discussion to rest.  (See footnote 15 below.)}

{5 In rural America, there exists a communal gun fetishism. This widespread pathology stems largely from a deep-seated insecurity–especially as it relates to masculinity (see footnote 3 above). One does not have to resort to fanciful Freudian psycho-analyses to recognize that this zany obsession with firearms is a matter of overcompensation on the part of hyper-provincial men grasping for an emblem of machismo. (See footnote 21 below.) Demographically, this translates to poorly-educated, conservative (usually very religious) white males in rural areas. Half of American gun-owners say that having a gun is an integral part of their identity.  This is the very definition of pathology.  Level-headed people should find this tremendously disconcerting. To burnish his credentials as a swaggering super-patriot, the gun-fetishist fashions himself a valiant, gun-slinging paladin–quick on the draw–ready to bring law and order to his community. Moreover, he envisions himself “armed and ready” to defend his castle, and thus keep his family safe. Thus he fancies himself the star of his own movie. Such delusive thinking enables him to simulate the masculinity for which he pines. With the ability to kill others at his fingertips, such a man can indulge in visions of his own swashbuckling vigilantism. (Think of the delusive protagonist in Sartre’s “Erostratus”.) The problem is that this is not just one person compensating for his own insecurity; it is a widespread, collective pathology–afflicting large swaths of the American countryside. (See footnote 27 below.) Thus the notion that a society that has been super-saturated with guns is somehow a safer society (see footnote 4 above) is taken as gospel.}

{6 Due to the predominance of (pacifist) Quakers, Pennsylvania opted not to have a state militia. This opt-out was very telling, as it clearly had nothing to do with people seeking to relinquish a right to self-defense! It was entirely about participating in a militia. At no point did anyone raise concerns that an absence of civilian participation in a militia might somehow infringe on their civil rights.}

{7 Article III, Section 3 categorized rebellion against the Republic as “treason”. It would have hardly been the case that an Amendment was made to facilitate rebellion. The federal government’s role was to protect each state from “domestic violence”, as stipulated in Article IV, Section 4. This was to PREVENT a scenario in which crime was mitigated by a wild-west-style free-for-all. “The People” (meaning land-holding white men) were charged with equipping themselves with firearms. This license was afforded to them with regards to their capacity as members of a “well-regulated” civilian militia. Said militia-men were charged with ensuring the security of the State, which was needed in the absence of a standing army.  The raison d’etre of the Amendment-in-question was the need for the State of the Republic to maintain civilian militias BECAUSE there was no plan for a standing army. It was not a warrant for vigilante justice by use of lethal force (see footnote 28 below).  Relevant passages in the main body of the Constitution attest to this fact.}

{8 The Founders actually orchestrated a sweeping DIS-armament of the civilian population (i.e. of those who were not commissioned to participate in the fighting) during the American Revolution. The provisional right to bear arms was conditioned upon swearing an oath of loyalty to the Union. Those who refused to swear the oath were often deemed unfit for duty, thereby forfeiting their right to remain armed. Another clue that today’s gun-fetishists are not thinking accurately about this provision (which, to be clear, made perfect sense at the time it was written) is that they are NOT eagerly standing by, awaiting a call BY the State–as militiamen–for service to the State. Such a call of duty is anathema to them; as they are only thinking about themselves.}

{9 It is telling that John Jay also thought that those who owned the country ought to run it–as if material wealth were somehow an indication of erudition and moral integrity. That is: White, land-owning men should be in charge because THEY are the one who had the property. (This is the standard “skin in the game” tac used by plutocrats to rationalize the continued disenfranchisement of the disenfranchised.) This was the prevailing mentality at the time a government-regulated civilian militia was instituted. That is: The measure to ensure the security of the State was enacted by those who saw white, land-owning men as the proper stewards of that State. In rare instances where African-Americans were permitted to carry a gun, it was at the pleasure of–and under the supervision of–white men. James Madison even went so far as to RE-DRAFT the Amendment-in-question during the Virginia Ratifying Convention in 1788. He did so in response to the demands of Patrick Henry (the state’s largest slaveholder) that protections for slave patrols be made more explicit. THAT yielded the Amendment’s final form.}

{10 Illustrative of this point were those who were SKEPTICAL that a civilian militia was a prudent alternative to a standing army. Gouverneur Morris, the man who drafted the U.S. Constitution, articulated this concern. He held that, in the future, a civilian militia–being, as it was, comprised of oft-delusive amateurs–may be inadequate to the task of battling professional militaries: “An overweening vanity leads the fond many…to believe…that a militia can [prevail over professional soldiers] in the open field and even play of battle. This idle notion [has] alarmed us for our country, when in the course of that time and chance, which happen to all, she should [come to] be at war with a great power.” Eventually, George Washington would also express his concerns about the shortcomings of a civilian militia; and consequently saw the need for a professional military. In a letter to Alexander Hamilton in 1799 (just days prior to his passing), he wrote: “The establishment of a Military Academy upon a respectable and extensive basis has ever been considered by me as an object of primary importance to this country.” Three years later, Washington would get his wish. West Point Academy was founded in 1802.}

{11 There is a cringe-inducing irony here. Those who are afflicted with 2nd-Amendment-mania claim to be hewing to the “original intent” of the “Founding Fathers”. Yet these are the same people who unabashedly rebuke the most fundamental principles on which the Republic was founded. They espouse such things as plutocracy (allowing political leverage to be a function of financial power) and disenfranchisement (systematically suppressing voting rights of already-marginalized communities).  It’s as though affluence was a barometer for merit; and those of low socio-economic status had nobody to blame but themselves.  Meanwhile, they deny the right to dissent (pretending their is a mandate to stand for the national anthem, as if they lived in North Korea) and the freedom of speech (advocating for the prohibition of the BDS movement). To top it all off, they neglect the enumerated mission to “promote the general welfare” (refusing to acknowledge the responsibility of the State of ensure universal access to healthcare and education)…even as they promote Christian theocracy. In sum: These self-styled “patriots” betray the highest ideals of democracy. So it should come as little surprise that they pervert the 4th-cum-2nd Amendment.}

{12 An ample dose of delusion is at play here. For one is expected to believe that having a cache of lethal weapons in one’s woodshed makes perfect sense; as it would come in handy should one opt to take on the entire U.S. military in an attempted coup d’état (presumably orchestrated from someone’s front porch somewhere in middle America). This fever-dream of “rising up” against a putatively tyrannical federal government involves a level of conceit that would disqualify anyone from being taken seriously on any other topic. Taken to its logical conclusion, this means that everyone has the right to have a fighter jet in his garage, a tank in his back yard, and an arsenal of rocket-launchers in his attic. Many gun-fetishists concede that such private armament is outlandish. Yet the same logic that undermines the prerogative to amass such weaponry (in order to rise up against the U.S. government) holds for keeping a Glock under one’s pillow at night. In order for the dubious logic of the argument-in-question to hold, one must suppose that the difference between the two scenarios is merely quantitative, not qualitative. Was the Amendment really about what any given private citizen might happen to personally want for himself–be it a pistol or a cluster-bomb? Obviously, this is not how the Amendment was intended. When it comes to “arms”, even at the time of drafting there was indubitably a clear line. In 1789, that line was understood to be drawn before, well, canons. Any advocate for civil society would now wish to establish the most prudent place to draw that line today. The provision, which had been designed for a musket with a bayonet, cannot help us answer this query (given that the statement in question only specifies “arms”). So we must employ new criteria–especially considering the massive transformation in relevant technology. That would render it a legislative matter, not a matter of Constitutional exegesis.}

{13 Imagine a statute were to be written for the physically handicapped, which read: “Insofar as a wheelchair is necessary for ambulation, the right to use elevators shall not be infringed.” Now imagine a cabal of elevator-riding fanatics flying banners that read, “The right to use elevators shall not be infringed.” We would be inclined to bring to their attention that the statute was written to ensure that certain people (i.e. those unable to walk up stairs) could gain access to all levels of various buildings; it was NOT a proclamation that everyone be entitled to elevator-rides whenever they wished, regardless of circumstances. The inalienable right for an individual to keep / bear arms–at will, for his own purposes–has no more existed than the inalienable right to ride elevators at will.}

{14 The NRA is a business lobby masquerading as a “rights” lobby. Since the late 1970’s, it has been dedicated entirely to ensuring everyone mis-interpret the 2nd Amendment. (Prior to that, it was simply a trade organization, primarily for hunters.) Some of the world’s biggest rubes are those who join the National Rifle Association under the impression that, in doing so, they are somehow fighting for their “rights”. They are too intoxicated by their own gun-fervor to realize they are being duped. The NRA is nothing more than a lobby for arms / munitions manufacturers. Its only concern is maximizing the sales of those–and related–products. It couldn’t care less about anyone’s safety–let alone about what a founding document might actually say.  For more on this, see the Appendix.}

{15 Never mind that there is overwhelming evidence that the proliferation of (i.e. increased access to) lethal firearms renders everyone LESS safe, not more safe. The supposition is that one needs to be able to kill people in order to be truly free. Gun-fetishists insist that personal liberty is somehow predicated on one’s prerogative to arm oneself with lethal weapons (see footnote 23 below).  This becomes a question of priorities. In America, those on the far-right insist that universal access to firearms is more important than universal access to quality healthcare. Thus the ability kill hypothetical perpetrators is prized over the ability to help actual people. The notion that a civil society does not require an armed citizenry does not cross their minds (see footnote 25 below).  To suggest that a society in which access to guns is EASIER is thereby SAFER is asinine (see footnote 4 above).}

{16 This particular misreading requires that one discount the Constitution’s Preamble, which stipulates that the raison d’etre of the State is to “promote the general welfare” (as opposed to forcing everyone to fend for themselves to survive) and “insure domestic tranquility” (as apposed to forcing everyone to fight for themselves in a kind of free-for-all). After all, the point of creating a Constitutional Republic was to AVOID the need for vigilante justice, not to encourage it. It should come as no surprise that we rarely hear 2nd-Amendment revisionists quoting the Constitution’s Preamble; as nothing in it serves their dubious purpose. After all, the right to keep and bear arms only existed insofar as it was necessary to the security of a free State; after the Preamble had stipulated that it is the State’s role to (somehow) provide for the common defense. The rest of the Preamble deals with things that are also unhelpful to their cause–like promoting the general welfare and ensuring domestic tranquility.}

{17 Positing the “right” to use lethal force on other people simply because one perceives a threat is born of a similar narcissism that underlies the farcical “right” to not feel offended so often touted by p.c. aficionados. In both cases, we find the attitude: “It’s all about ME and how *I* happen to feel. To hell with anyone else.” Thus one’s own subjective state can be invoked to rationalize the imposition of constraints / mandates on all bystanders. The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with self-defense. Using lethal force for self-defense is not a “right” that any sane person would claim to have.}

{18 Telling is the choice of the word “infringe” to uphold this particular right (insofar as it attains). If an unconditional right (which, by definition, would be irrevocable) were to be upheld, this would not be the prudent term to employ in the event someone was deprived of said right. (The 1st Amendment uses the term “abridge” to describe the contravention of the freedom of speech and the press.) On the other hand, infraction of a provisional right is simply a matter of encroaching upon something that exists on a contingency basis. If the right to bear arms were an inalienable right (like life and due process and free speech), upholding it would be a matter of never revoking it. For the issue is that such a right is inviolate; and thus un-forfeit-able. By contrast, we do not have an unconditional right to privacy; therefore our right to privacy–insofar as it exists under certain circumstances–shall not be compromised (with respect to whatever boundary conditions have been established). In the event of a violation, we would say there has been an “infringement” (a trespass) upon one’s privacy–that is: to the extent that one is entitled to it. Such a right CAN be mitigated–or even revoked–under certain circumstances; and thus IS forfeit-able. The same goes for hunting and fishing…and using copyrighted / trademarked material…and owning patented designs: all CONTINGENT rights. Violations of those rights–insofar as they attain–are simply INFRINGEMENTS (that is: infringements on what has been provisionally accorded). Meanwhile, if I kill you, I have not merely “infringed” on your right to life; I have revoked what must never be revoked. This is why violations of human rights (which ARE inviolate) are not described as mere “infringements”; they are betrayals of that which is absolute. In sum: Inalienable rights are either recognized or denied; whereas provisional rights are accorded and rescinded according to whatever conditions have been legislated. It is obvious that the 2nd Amendment pertains to the latter.}

{19 The precedent had been set by the British Bill of Rights, which had been drafted exactly a hundred years earlier. The right was accorded exclusively to Protestants–as the issue was the need to defend the (Protestant) country against Catholics IN THE ABSENCE OF A STANDING ARMY; with the caveat that this was only to be done “as allowed by law.” In other words, the license was subordinate to incumbent legislation. By stipulating that this special license would be regulated by the State (i.e. Parliament), it was made clear that this was not an inalienable right accorded to the individual. The provision was predicated on there being no professional military to protect the citizenry. Moreover, the provision was conditioned on instances where “Papists were both armed and employed contrary to law.” (That is to say, the measure was undertaken explicitly to preclude Catholic sovereignty; not to keep burglars from entering one’s domicile…or to take matters into one’s own hands in vanquishing criminals from the land.) The issue was prompted by the ongoing Catholic-Anglican conflict that existed in England at the time. The measure, then, made perfect sense; as the previous year, the last Catholic monarch (James II) had been ousted after a challenge was posed to his standing army by armed resistance from the Protestant citizenry. Naturally, Protestants wanted to ensure they would be prepared for such eventualities thereafter.}

{20 In the blueprint for the federal government of the new Republic, there was no provision for a standing army, which is precisely why the matter of quartering soldiers in private residences needed to be addressed. And so it was–in the FOLLOWING Amendment (the 5th-cum-3rd Amendment). The issue of quartering soldiers was not unrelated to the previous Amendment, which effectively pertained to civilians in their capacity as soldiers. Indeed, had there been a standing army, there would have been no need for EITHER of these two Amendments. That is: Civilian militias would not have been necessary; and the question of quartering would have been moot (as there would have been federally-administered military bases with barracks). There is a reason we don’t hear about the 3rd Amendment anymore; it was written for a bygone epoch–under circumstances that no longer exist, to address concerns that no longer apply. What is now the 3rd Amendment is no longer relevant; and it is no longer relevant for THE SAME REASON that the provisional license afforded by the previous Amendment is no longer relevant. These Amendments have BOTH been rendered obsolete in the advent of a professional military. The need for a civilian militia is obviated by the Department of Defense and National Guard.  For more on this point, see footnote 38 below.}

{21 There are a few theories that explain the monomaniacal fixation on the 2nd Amendment. For many male Americans, a lethal firearm serves as a proxy for manhood. The snarky quip that “the only gun a real man needs is the one between his legs” prompts a chuckle simply because it contains an element of truth.  This is a truth that gun-fetishists are–understandably–reticent to concede.  It is incontrovertible that, barring serious hunters, any man obsessed with owning firearms is compensating for a deep-seated insecurity–not only regarding his own masculinity (as in: “You can tell I’m a tough guy who means business…because, as you can see, I’m packing heat”), but regarding his own safety (as in: “I need to be able to kill people in order to feel safe in my own home”). It is the case that for most–though not all–American men, toting a gun is a way to fortify what psychologists dub “fragile masculinity”. The fetishization of “gun rights” turns out to be compensation for repressed insecurities (see footnote 3 above). Note that the same insecure self-esteem lay at the root of “fragile patriotism”: the mindless flag-waving bluster of what sociologists sometimes refer to as “super-patriotism”. In the final analysis, “super-patriotism” has nothing whatsoever to do with genuine patriotism (which involves neither sycophancy nor a mob mentality). It is a rather comic irony that this ersatz bravado is predicated on repressed insecurity (see footnote 22 below).  Faux masculinity and faux patriotism both stem from neurosis (exemplified by braggadocio and pageantry).  It is no secret that men with low self-esteem are most prone to obsessions with militarism…even if that obsession is realized vicariously. Their fragile self-image is sublimated by convincing themselves that they are somehow in peril, thereby enabling them to become heroes in their own mind.}

{22 As is usually the case, an insecure self-esteem underlies the peculiar fascination with guns–especially as it relates to the gun-fetishist’s cartoonish impressions of what constitutes manhood. In the case of the American incarnation of this condition, fragile masculinity is veiled behind the make-shift image of a swashbuckling gun-slinger. A crisis of masculinity can be elided by even the most craven of “tough guy” posturing (see footnote 3 above). When it comes to American gun-fetishism, even the most bumbling oaf can imagine himself as a buccaneering vigilante, quick on the draw–as if cast in his own hair-raising Hollywood production. This pathology, then, is an over-compensation for gnawing insecurities (see footnote 21 above). Fashioning oneself a dashing cowboy–ready to stave off danger at every turn–can do wonders for wavering self-esteem. Such posturing confers bounteous satisfaction to this self-styled defender of “liberty”.}

{23 Specious appeals to “self-defense” are non-starters; as such an entitlement has nothing to do with serving in a civilian militia. More to the point: The urge to KILL anyone who makes illicit incursions onto one’s property is sociopathic. Almost NEVER are intruders looking to slaughter the residents of a domicile; they are simply looking for lucre. Burglary is an opprobrious act; but such a crime does not warrant a death-sentence. Even if we were to assume that guns really do deter some burglars, precluding the gun-related deaths of TENS OF THOUSANDS of Americans each year is worth risking a few extra burglaries. In any case, one actually INCREASES the probability that one will be shot when one enters an encounter with a gun (see footnote 17 above). Bottom line: Exigencies have changed since the 18th century. In the modern age, it turns out that a well-armed citizenry does NOT translate to a safer citizenry (see footnote 4 above).  Quite the contrary. More access to lethal fire-arms entails augmented peril rather than augmented security…in direct opposition to the spirit of the 4th-cum-2nd Amendment.}

{24 There is a simple way to expose the speciousness of gun fetishists’ mis-characterization of this Amendment: Call their bluff. Suppose that there were to be a Constitutional Convention (to wit: a chance to revamp the U.S. Constitution; a measure that is itself addressed in the document). Such an occasion would afford the chance to up-date the document however Americans of the 21st century saw fit. A “re-do” would presumably rectify the original document’s shortcomings and take into account new exigencies. If the statement-in-question really means what gun-fetishists contend that it means, then they would find no need to alter the wording of the Amendment. Yet there is a virtual guarantee that ALL would insist on re-wording it. They would almost certainly be inclined to re-write the Amendment to explicitly specify the right-in-question as inalienable–thereby making plain that it exists for the purposes of self-defense and/or to ensure the polity may–of its own accord–rise up against the federal government (in the event a plurality surmised that the State had become unacceptable). Any proposal to re-word the Amendment to that end would expose the spuriousness of their (fraudulent) interpretation; as there would be no need to make such changes if the statement already said what they insist it says.}

{25 And so it has gone: The U.S. has become a nation that strives to ensure universal access to lethal weapons whilst flouting measures to ensure universal access to healthcare and education–as if it were better that citizens were better equipped to kill each other than to help each other. This makes sense in the “every man for himself” vision propounded by gun-fetishists, who imagine their being armed somehow made society more civil. They construe their way of addressing their own insecurities as a valorous way to ensure everyone else’s security; when, in fact, it does quite the opposite.}

{26 This delusive “interpretation” renders the exercise of financial power a form of speech. It is implemented by those partial to plutocracy to ensure that political leverage (a.k.a. “voice”) is proportional to wealth-concentration (which is, after all, the definition of plutocracy). The repercussions of such a precedent are straight-forward: Legislation is bought and sold to the highest bidder. This, of course, has no relation whatsoever to the spirit behind the Amendment; and is entirely antithetical to the principles of participatory democracy. Corporations are not people; and the wielding of economic influence is not “speech”.}

{27 Neuroticism and fetishism tend to go hand in hand. The neurosis endemic to gun-fetishism warrants further study. Here, the collective pathology is plain to see: Those who don’t feel secure unless they are afforded deadly instruments to vanquish villains. This ENGINEERED mass-hysteria can be distilled thus: “I need to be able to KILL other people; and I don’t feel safe unless I’m equipped with the means to do so.” The attitude, then, is that if one is not licensed to kill those who one personally sees as needing to be killed, then one is not truly free. And what better way to express that license than with a lethal firearm–a talisman of the valiant hero in American folklore? In this sense, a gun is a surrogate for valor, not a prerequisite for it. The peculiar fixation on personalized fire-power is a reminder that insecurity and delusive thinking are symbiotic; and that together they engender neuroticism (see footnote 22 above). The social-psychology of this particular brand of fanaticism is integral to explaining such a gross misreading of such a straight-forward sentence. Broadly speaking, the remedy for the epidemic gun-fetishism across America is a revamping of how masculinity is conceptualized by provincial men (and women). See footnote 30 below for more on this point.}

{28  Since the establishment of a military was eschewed at the time, the security of the nation was left to a sufficiently-equipped citizenry–which would be at the State’s beck and call. The 4th-cum-2nd Amendment was written to ensure the polis qua polis would serve as a necessary resource for the State. A citizen’s ability to fend off burglars or kill assailants had nothing to do with this. At a time when a professional municipal police force did not exist in most places, it was understood that wild-west-style vigilantism might often–regrettably–be the default scenario; at least for the time being. Such a scenario was not written in the stars. Indeed, such circumstances have not existed for well over a century. “Taking matters into you own hands” may still sometimes apply; however this certainly does not require one to exercise lethal force. Alas, the boondoggle of 2nd-Amendment revisionism requires one to envision oneself in Hobbesian environs–wherein deference to PUBLIC law-enforcement is seen as tantamount to submitting oneself to the dreaded Leviathan…and/or leaving oneself at the mercy of every imagined scoundrel prowling the streets. The question is: To what degree does civil society (in today’s world) resemble the Hobbesian vision? Even more pressing: Do we want to live in a society in which everyone is equipped to kill whenever the occasion arises?}

{29  In a world where religious fanatics can read passages like Leviticus 17:10 (if the Torah’s your poison) or Acts 15:28-29 (if the New Testament’s your poison), and interpret them as prohibiting blood transfusions to save human lives, anyone can read anything to mean virtually anything.  (In reality, the two statements admonish us to abstain from drinking blood.  Genesis 9:4 admonishes us against eating the meat of a live animal; and EVEN THAT is sometimes used to rationalize the chimerical prohibition against blood transfusion.)  Such is the nature of exegetical shenanigans.  Hence some people think the commandment not to mix a calf in its mother’s milk entails that turkey-and-cheese sandwiches must be banned for all eternity.  How pathological can such delusive thinking can be?  Such cockamamie interpretations invariably translate to nutty behavior.  Certain Christian sects are willing to see a parent, spouse, or even child die instead of receiving a desperately-needed blood transfusion…all because of something a Biblical verse clearly doesn’t say (yet ideologues desperately WISH it said).  Meanwhile, Heredim will refrain from letting dairy products touch the same dish as meat has touched…lest they offend the Creator Of The Universe.  And so it goes with American gun-fetishists vis a vis their boneheaded reading of the Second Amendment.  Delusive thinking is the lifeblood of eisegetical antics–something we encounter whenever cult activity is afoot.}

{30 The response, “Well, what about women who are infatuated with guns?” misses the crux of this observation–which pertains to the social-psychology of gun-culture (or, more accurately, subculture). Women can be insecure too; and just as susceptible to propaganda. Discussed here is a pathos that undergirds American gun-fetishism. Here we are concerned with a peculiar obsession with re-casting the meaning of the 2nd Amendment so as to comport with what is effectively a holy crusade. Females are often swept up in a fervor (be it mass-mania or mass-hysteria) that stems from an epidemic of machismo on the part of their male cohorts. Note, for example, the countless women who defend the patriarchal nature of Abrahamic fundamentalism; and who even become infatuated with the male chauvinism it engenders. By paying tribute to it, they are enablers of a misogynistic ideology. (We would not be tempted to retort to that obvious diagnosis: “But it can’t possibly be patriarchal in nature considering the fact that so many women willfully partake in it.”) This illustrates how women can support patriarchal orders every bit as much as the men who benefit from such arrangements. There are, of course, myriad other reasons one might like to own a lethal firearm (see footnote 31 below).  Women can be brainwashed as much as men–as we see with, say, the donning of the burka / niqab by women in Salafi communities, who are thoroughly convinced that there is absolutely nothing remotely misogynistic about this odious sartorial practice (because they are duped into thinking–against all common sense–that covering their faces in public is somehow a means of EMPOWERMENT).}

{31 Those who retort with “But what about those who just want to use guns for hunting?” have completely missed the point of this monograph. Let’s leave aside the fact that the Amendment has nothing to do with killing game for food–let alone for sport. Given the availability of tranquilizers and other non-lethal munitions as an alternative (the use of which would not compromise the thrill of the sport), this tac is a non-starter (see footnote 33 below). Other matters pertaining to guns are ALSO un-related to the 4th-cum-2nd Amendment. Much of America’s gun-violence is gang-related, and occurs amongst ethnic minorities in high-crime, urban areas. Such scenarios have little to nothing to do with appeals to “2nd Amendment rights”; as “packing heat” is done sheerly out of pragmatism–though of a disastrously dysfunctional sort. Black and Latino youth trying to survive–and gain street-cred amongst their peers–in impoverished city neighborhoods could care less about what the U.S. Constitution (a document written by white men who were oppressing their ancestors) does and does not say.}

{32  It was also specified that participation in said militia was a matter of “rendering military service.” The assumption was that a standing army was a recipe for government tyranny; so the only viable alternative was to maintain an armed citizenry–which would serve as a bulwark against a regime that might try to establish a federally-run (i.e. professional) military as a means to rule over the citizenry (to wit: a police state). At the time, this concern was not unwarranted.}

{33 At the risk of venturing too far afield (too late!), it should be noted that comparisons to casualties related to other implements (knives, cars, pools, etc.) entirely miss the point at hand. Such implements exist for reasons that have no relation whatsoever to causing harm…even though they COULD cause harm if misused.  Unlike a lethal firearm, their raison d’etre exists independently of their ability to cause harm. In other words: The existence of such tools is justified by their utility in contexts other than inflicting injury. Their raison d’etre is justified BY THAT utility. A firearm, by contrast, is EXPLICITLY DESIGNED to be lethal, and so is fulfilling its purpose whenever it is used to cause harm / death. Ownership of a bathtub is justified for reasons that hold independently of any dangers bathtubs may pose to the irresponsible user (as with, say, unattended infants). The raison d’etre of a bathtub is not to drown people.  Pens can be used to mis-spell words; but they’re not DESIGNED TO mis-spell words.  Pens can also–very easily–be used to stab someone in the neck.  But their raison d’etre is for something else entirely–something that justifies their existence.  Ergo the justification for anyone’s possession of a pen (qua writing implement) is not undermined by the fact that it is very useful for committing murder.  Guns are DESIGNED to discharge lethal rounds.  By killing people, they are realizing a function–if not THE ONLY function–for which they were designed.  Virtually anything can cause harm if there is sufficient negligence–a fact that in no way delegitimizes the prerogative to own it. This is no justification to own tools the sole raison d’etre of which is to inflict injury.}

{34 In a letter addressed to the Massachusetts militia, John Adams even noted: “We have no [federal] government armed with the power capable of contending with” discord stemming from the citizenry’s inevitable vices. The upshot: That’s why we have YOU, the militia. This point was commonly understood at the time. The key to remember here is that the new Constitution transferred much of the control of the militias from the state governments to the FEDERAL government. The problem with the Articles Of The Confederation was that it arrogated too much governing prerogative to the states. Much of the point of establishing a Republic (and concomitant Constitution) was to rectify this shortcoming. Even champions of the more agrarian visions of local control–like the Democratic-Republican, Thomas Jefferson–recognized this exigency at the time.}

{35 It was for this reason that the Constitution specified the issuing of letters of “marque and reprisal” (Article 1, Section 8) as one of the enumerated powers of Congress. At the time, such a measure made perfect sense; as it was the way that many States undertook military interventions beyond their boarders (that is: when a commissioned military was not available for the task). Hence merchant marines were used during the Revolutionary War and, thereafter, to defend against the Barbary pirates…in lieu of there NOT BEING a full navy to carry out the task. (We might recall that it was the FRENCH navy that clinched the American colonies’ victory in the Revolutionary War.) Pursuant to the Merchant Marine Act of 1936, “merchant mariners” and their vessels were rendered auxiliaries to the (by then constituted) U.S. Navy.  They were to be recruited primarily for the purpose of transporting soldiers and supplies.  Thus “merchant marines” are civilians except in times of war, whereupon they can be used as “reserves” for the military.  This notion of civilian reserves might be juxtaposed against the original use of “militia”, which existed NOT ONLY in times of war, but was a permanent fixture–as illustrated by the wording of the 5th Amendment.  Today, unlike before, the primary role of personnel designated as “merchant marines” is in logistics-readiness and water-borne commerce, not in combat.  That the drafters of the U.S. Constitution saw the need to broach the topic of “marque and reprisal” is very telling.  And so we might ask: In harking back to the (former) need for a civilian militia, shall we also bring back “marque and reprisal”? A well-regulated militia, it turns out, is as obsolete as the “merchant marines” (as originally conceived).  “Marque and reprisal” is now no more relevant than is the right to bear arms.}

{36 This is what prompted Patrick Henry to say: “Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined.” At the time, this attitude made perfect sense. Revolutionary zeal was at a fever pitch; and it was stoked for obvious reasons. The militant defiance exhibited by Henry was indicative of the epoch; and so was a reflection of the circumstances in which such sentiment percolated. Nobody articulated this sentiment better than Thomas Paine, who noted that “these are the times that try men’s souls.” When it came to taking action, the matter was ENTIRELY ABOUT taking up arms. Though the spirit behind such statements is timeless, the particulars no longer attain. To suppose that the “liberty requires guns” approach espoused by Henry and Paine tracks to the 21st-century is indulge in a deranged flight-of-fancy. One need only observe all the developed countries around the world today WITHOUT libertine gun-rights (specifically the ones which are far more democratic than the U.S.) to recognize this incontrovertible fact. The jury is no longer out: Numerous liberal democratic societies around the world today–in which the average person is MORE safe and the government is MORE representative of the will of the People–are conclusive proof that an armed citizenry is NOT necessary for either security or accountability. Moreover, taking up arms is no longer how liberal (participatory) democracies ensure freedom. Hence the “everyone needs to be equipped with lethal firearms to stave off tyranny” rationalization goes completely out the window. Had they taken a time-machine to the 21st century, Henry and Paine would surely have recognized this.}

{37 This is what prompted Thomas Jefferson to write in a letter to James Madison: “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Of course, Thomas Jefferson ALSO noted that Americans should revisit the Constitution every twenty years, rewriting it as needed. For he was prescient enough to recognize how exigencies would change from one generation to the next (especially over long periods of time). Jefferson recognized that, even as the underlying principles would remain, each epoch called for different measures. It is safe to assume that, in this post-War era, Jefferson would have acknowledged that the proviso for a civilian militia was obsolete. Had his recommended approach been followed, the provision would now be long-gone.}

{38 As if to verify this point, the 1903 Militia Act (a.k.a. the “Dick Act”) was passed because the extant militia had too much LOCAL control.  The Act was written to FEDERALIZE the national militia, thereby creating what is now known as the “National Guard”: a federally-regulated body that serves the State.  Tellingly, the Militia Act bestowed the privilege exclusively to white men.  The crucial change made to the militia system by the Dick Act was that militiamen would no longer procure their own guns. Thenceforth, the National Guard would be furnished with modernized military weaponry–at the expense of the Federal government.  Are we to suppose that the U.S. National Guard can be mobilized to rise up AGAINST the Federal government?  The need for the Dick Act attests to the original purpose of the very precedent it was designed to amend.  So how did the “National Guard” come to be as it now is?  In 1916, Section 61 of the National Defense Act made it illegal for any state to maintain troops during peacetime (except in ways that were explicitly authorized via the National Defense Act).  Section 82 then stipulated: “The National Guard of the United States shall, as far as practicable, be uniformed, armed, and equipped with the same type of uniforms, arms, and equipments as are or shall be provided for the Regular Army.”  Clearly, to be part of the militia was to be acting in the service of the State, at the pleasure of the State.  As a result of this Act, citizens were no longer allowed to join state-run militias unless they met the (federalized) qualifications that also applied to membership in the U.S. Army.  Moreover, the need for members to equip THEMSELVES with arms was rendered obsolete; as the State now assumed that responsibility.  (Hence armories.)  To what end?  When John Kennedy mobilized the National Guard to enforce federal law in Alabama (against the local police, to protect African American protestors), the guns with which it was equipped were not for empowering insurrection.  Quite the contrary.  It was to carry out the will of the Federal government.  THAT was the Second Amendment in action.  Yet, EVEN THEN, the Second Amendment was not invoked.  Why not?  Because, by then, the Federal government had reserved the right to arm its personnel (the FBI, the DEA, the Secret Service, et. al.)  What changed?  Abetting tyranny by having armed federal bodies was no longer seen as a danger.  In other words: The Second Amendment was no longer relevant.  The local-level civilian militias to which the Amendment pertained were rendered obsolete by the Department of War / Defense on the FEDERAL level; and–as the Dick Act illustrated–civilian militias had been transplanted at the level of each state by the National Guard.  Since then, a few states have instituted STATE-level guards.  But even then, the Second Amendment is no longer salient, as the state’s government equips the members.}