Friday, April 11, 2008

Army Surplus For Sale: Equipping a “Well-Regulated Militia”

The fact is, you can buy just about anything online. And now I find out here that if you need a good pair of night vision goggles, or an “enhanced” body armor vest, those things can now be gotten on eBay or Craigslist.

What gets put up for sale is largely unpoliced on these sites, so even if you want to sell some Iraq cammies with all the patches, bells and whistles, you can, despite the fact that sale of any of that has been illegal since January 2007 after a team of Iraqis infiltrated a US base in Karbala wearing used US military uniforms. And killed 5 US soldiers.

Not one to get in the way of good old American capitalism, Congressman John Tierney (D - Mass) proposes a ban on the sale of all military equipment that is not older than 50 years old.

That makes tremendous sense to me. Any fool can dress up and arm oneself in pre-1958 military hardware and be turned into hamburger with the weaponry we have available to our military today.

So that makes a lot of sense.

But then, what about the 2nd Amendment? Hey, don’t we have a right to bear those arms? Don’t we have a right to protect our bodies against the onslaught of depleted uranium projectiles?

Don’t we?

We do! It is right there in the 2nd Amendment.

“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.”
Get it? It’s not a penny ante amendment we have here. This thing is talking about fighting wars.

Only a 4th grader would be able to misinterpret the full meaning of this amendment. Sure there’s a comma after the words “free state”, but they weren’t making a shopping list, they were framing a conditional clause. One condition, “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”, leads to the resolution: “the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

Cause and effect.

The Framers, in their infinite wisdom, saw the need to write into our Constitution a fundamental right to bear arms so that we might, as the need arises, take up arms against a common enemy when events merit it. It made huge sense, in that this strategy worked well for us in the War of American Insurrection, as the British would see it.

Our Constitution is transcendental. Times change, weaponry gets upgraded to degrees of lethalness unheard of in the 18th (or even 19th) century, but the Constitution is a constant whose meaning transcends the generations.

The meaning of the Framers is clear: we Americans have a right to all of the most advanced weaponry that any present or future foe can arm themselves with. That is the full meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

After all, what if it happens that we stop fighting them over there? Won’t we end up fighting the terrorists over here? They with Heckler and Koch MP 5s wildly outgun we with our nickel plated pea shooters.

With what do you defend yourself against an RPG?

What if a Bradley Fighting Vehicle comes rumbling down our neighborhood streets with Islamofascist flags and symbols arrayed about them?

Clearly, there is something unconstitutional about limiting what we Americans can buy and maintain in our homes in order to guarantee a well regulated militia, as our constitution requires.

It is time, no it is past time, for our government to stop these unconscionable and unconstitutional acts of weaponry deprivation.

If every American owned a BAR, a LAWS rocket launcher (with loads) and a dozen or so hand grenades, I’ll bet the Islamofascists would think twice about attacking us at home.

And just think, it could be so convenient if it is all offered on the internet.

Or, if you think all of that seems like a bad idea, and that we should leave our war fighting to our professional soldiers, then maybe the 2nd Amendment has seen its better days.

Charlton Heston or no, maybe it should be repealed.


Rhymes With Right said...

You know, the founders never envisioned radio, television, or the internet. Maybe we should repeal the First Amendment -- or at least limit it's application to single-sheet presses of the type in use in 1791.

Makes as much sense as your suggestion

Hal said...

Quite frankly, had the Framers limited free speech to the technology of the time, I would see the merit of your argument, Rhymes. But they didn't. They did, however, make specific mention of a militia, and how beneficial it was. In 1791 it made sense. Now it doesn't, unless we can agree to fully arm people so that they won't be ripped to shreads when the militias form up to defend America.

Flick said...

Oh, I get it, Hal, you're one of those few remaining people who still believes what the government and the mainstream media tell us. At first, your argument's sarcasm didn't make sense, but now it does. You believe that we need to fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here. You believe that the three WTC buildings came down by collision with airplanes and, in the case of WTC7, being hit by debris. You believe that Iraq had something to do with the 9/11 attacks. What I believe is that you should probably watch less TV.

You say there's no need for the militia today. Obviously you have not been paying attention. Every major piece of legislation passed since 9/11 in the name of protecting the people has been an assault on the rights of those same people. The Reps and Dems are the same party, they just hack away at the tree of liberty from opposite sides when in power. If Obama wins the election, Bush, who has been hacking at the tree from the right side, will hand the ax to Obama, who will begin hacking at the tree from the left. Their goal is the same; they invent issues for us to squabble over so we don't see that they're steering the ship of state toward the rocks. Oh, but they wouldn't do that, they're Americans, right?

With rights come responsibilities. With the freedom of speech comes the responsibility not to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. We all know that. So what is the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms? It is the opening phrase of the Second Amendment. Problem is NOBODY IS TAKING THAT RESPONSIBILITY SERIOUSLY. Gun owners all seem to think that that opening phrase really says "Owning guns and writing to your representatives is sufficient for the security of a free state,..."

For any who wish to take seriously the responsibility that comes with the right to keep and bear arms, feel free to check out today's militia at If you've never spoken with a real militia member but only accepted what the MSM repeats from the SPLC, we might surprise you.

Hal said...

Geez Flick.

I guess I only have one question. When you are your fellow militia members arm yourselves to defend that Tree of Liberty, what are you going to use to defend yourself against the M1A1 Abrams main battle tank? What about those Hellfire missiles that will be launched at you from drones being controlled by a 19-year old with a joystick?

My point is, unless you can arm yourselves in like kind against this fire power, the militia is obsolete.

Hal said...

That and you should reread my post. Yes it was sarcastic, but not in the way you think.