- It is fundamental common sense that no encyclical presenting
a rule of law of, by and for the people of a nation, when conveying upon
its chosen and created government so established, to create also within
that same document via amendment, instruction to its standing armed forces
as regards the necessity of military discipline within its ranks, especially
when such a standing armed force is strictly forbidden by that very same
document.
-
- The military organization of any nation requires only
a bare minimum of codified authorization and legitimization to be legally
established; beyond that, military organizations develop their own internal
rules and regulations for discipline independently and outside the executive,
legislative and judicial functions that normally constitute government
powers.
-
- That section of the United States Constitution that prohibits
a "standing army" is really not a prohibition, but a funding
limitation enforced by Article I, Section 8, Paragraph 12: "[The Congress
shall have the power] "to raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation
of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."
-
- By limiting funding in terms of two year intervals, a
standing army is made impossible. It was the desire of the Founders to
prevent the buildup of a permanent army on land. Instead, since the Continental
Army, a ragtag bunch of poorly equipped rogues, drunks, farmers, unemployed
and unskilled footloose "irregulars," were able to defeat the
finely- uniformed, disciplined and well-equipped army of King George III,
it was always the opinion of the Founders that an armed people could "take
care of themselves."
-
- As long as Americans stayed at home, took care of their
farms, their mines, their shops, and in general, minded their own business,
all that was required to keep US safe and secure was John Adams' "wooden
wall" [the Navy]. Proof of the pudding is Article I, Section 8, Paragraph
13: "[The Congress shall have the power] "to provide and maintain
a Navy." No restrictions as regards funding are mentioned. The Founders
feared a standing army with weapons on land, where they could be used the
same way King George III used his Army. When disagreements heated up, the
British sent their army to Lexington and Concord to seize guns and ammunition
[gun control] in order to disarm the American colonists.
-
- Now when looking at the Second Amendment, and employing
fundamental common sense to it, it suddenly becomes quite easy to understand:
- 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.
-
- Why would a document establishing the rule of law of
the people, a document whose preamble begins, "We the People,"
exclude themselves from having the same firepower as King George's army?
Why mention a "Militia" if you rely upon a standing army?
- With respect to the term "well-regulated,"
this refers to the responsibilities of the joint and several states, and
describes those responsibilities in Paragraph 16: "[The Congress shall
have the power] to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the
Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the
Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the
Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia
according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
-
- Why would Congress have to develop a code for discipline
in the ranks? Obviously, because a militia is composed of individual citizens,
even if they don't own any firearms!
- Hence, a militia is not an army; it is an unorganized,
undisciplined group of civilians. And it doesn't have codes of military
rules and regulations; if it did, it would be a military unit like the
Army National Guard, which can and does get called up very frequently by
the president, and not the governor of the unit's home state.
-
- Clearly, the responsibility for maintaining a free state,
meaning citizens with protected individual freedoms, rest upon the citizens
themselves, and this is assured when individual citizens own and carry[bear]
guns. To offer that every one of the first ten Amendments is directed at
the individual rights of the citizens, namely "We-the-People individually,
yet the Second Amendment addresses those rights collectively, especially
as regards a trained, well-disciplined sate or federal military unit guided
by military rules and regulations, is the height of mental deficiency.
-
- The issue as to what constitutes a militia, and what
constitutes the Army and Air Force National Guard, or the Navy and Marine
reserves, has just come up in another unlikely area of government activity.
On Friday, May 13th [leave it to government], the Pentagon announced its
pick of bases for submission to the Base Realignment and Closure Commission
[BRAC] for closure, realignment, or increased mission. On Wednesday, May
11th, Illinois State Attorney General, Lisa Madigan, "said she would
file a federal lawsuit on behalf of Democratic Gov. Rod Blagojevich if
any of the state's National Guard bases are included in the closure list,"
according to an article posted on GovExec.com.
entitled, "Base closing recommendations expected Friday," by
staff writer George Cahlink.
-
- The article continues, "Illinois has Air National
Guard bases in Springfield and Peoria. Madigan and other BRAC opponents
contend that the federal law prevents closure of National Guard bases in
a state without the consent of its governor. That reading of the law is
disputed by BRAC supporters who contend the commission has the authority
to close bases."
-
- Interesting dispute, no? Especially interesting coming
from a state with a long history of hating, loathing and despising the
militia, er, National Guard. Illinois Governor
Blagojevich is on record as hating the Second Amendment as well, especially
demanding that laws be imposed on other states to protect his state from
gun crimes. His website offers: "Governor Blagojevich launches effort
to fight gun trafficking - Governor sets up gun crime unit in State Police;
New Gun Trafficking Unit will work with Indiana, Mississippi and federal
agencies to stop flow of crime guns into Illinois." Got it? According
to Blagojevich, ALL guns, and therefore, ALL of the Second Amendment, are
ILLEGAL in his model state, a state that harbors the Cook County, City
of Chicago Mayor Daley political crime machine that would put another former
Chicago organized criminal to shame: Al Capone.
-
- Blagojevich was perfectly happy to involve other states
in his illegal gun control scheme, and even welcomed help from outside
the state and the federal government, bent on eliminating a "citizens'
militia" as provided for in the Constitution. And therefore, you may
rest more than comfortably assured that the Gov' is one of those fuzzy-brained
characters with a pointed head that offers: The National Guard IS the Militia,
of course depending upon your definition of the word "is."
-
- What a rude awakening for a police state fascist, no?
The feds have just told Blagojevich that the National Guard and its base
belong exclusively to them. As the late William Bendix so often pointed
out from his days in the role of Chester A. Riley on classic radio and
TV: "What a revoltin' development!"
-
- But the Gun Nazis have always contended that the National
Guard and the Militia were one and the same! "What a revoltin' development,"
indeed!
-
- I called the Governor's office after checking the BRAC
list, and after being switched around umpteen times, the last PA person
agreed when asked, that the Capital Airport Air Guard Station was definitely
in Springfield, and the realignment, not closure, would cause a net loss
of 30 military spaces as well as all 133 civilian jobs. The PA person wasn't
clear whether or not State Attorney General Madigan would pursue the matter
further.
-
- The issue, of course, isn't whether or not the State's
Attorney General has jurisdiction or not in this matter; nor is it germane
to point out that the biggest lying, most corrupt politicians seem always
ready to jump to one side of an issue or the other as suits either their
political party's needs or their own interests in order to manipulate public
opinion. If the Militia isn't the National Guard, and the National Guard
belongs exclusively to the feds and can be called up by the president,
then who and what represents the State of Illinois', or for that matter,
any state's, National Guard?
-
- Theodore E. Lang
-
- Ted Lang is a political analyst and freelance writer.
|
