Saved by the miltia...

September 22, 2001

Posted Image well-regulated militia being essential to the security of a free state.

. . ." The next time someone tells you that the militia referred

to in the Second Amendment has been "superceded" by the National

Guard, ask them who it was that prevented United Airlines Flight 93 from

reaching its target. The National Guard? The regular Army? The D.C. Police

Department? None of these had a presence on Flight 93 because, in a free

society, professional law-enforcement and military personnel cannot be

everywhere. Terrorists and criminals are well aware of this indeed,

they count on it. Who is everywhere? The people the Founders referred

to as the "general militia." Cell-phone calls from the plane

have now revealed that it was members of the general militia, not organized

law enforcement, who successfully prevented Flight 93 from reaching its

intended target at the cost of their own lives.

The characterization

of these heroes as members of the militia is not just the opinion of one

law professor. It is clearly stated in Federal statutes. Perhaps you will

not believe me unless I quote Section 311 of US Code Title 10, entitled,

"Militia: composition and classes" in its entirety (with emphases

added):

"(a) The

militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least

17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32,

under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention

to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the

United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of

the militia are

(1) the organized

militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized

militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members

of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

This is not to score

political points at a moment of great tragedy, though had the murderers

on these four airplanes been armed with guns rather than knives, reminders

of this fact would never end. Rather, that it was militia members who

saved whatever was the terrorists' target whether the White House

or the Capitol at the cost of their lives points in the direction

of practical steps in some cases the only practical steps

to reduce the damage cause by any future attacks.

An excellent beginning

was provided by Dave Kopel and David Petteys in their NRO column "<a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel091401.shtml" target="_blank">Making

the Air Safe for Terror</a>." Whether or not their specific recommendations

are correct, they are too important to be ignored and they are not the

only persons to reach similar conclusions about the need for <a href="http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=95001147" target="_blank">effective

self-defense</a>. Refusing to discuss what measures really worked, what

really failed, and what is likely to really work in future attacks on airplanes and in other public spaces for reasons of political

correctness would be unconscionable. And we need to place this discussion

in its larger constitutional context.

Asking all of us

if we packed our own bags did not stop this attack. X-rays of all carry-on

baggage did not stop this attack (though it may well have confined the

attackers to using knives). And preventing us from using e-tickets or

checking our bags at the street (for how long?) would neither have stopped

this nor any future attack. All these new "security" proposals

will merely inconvenience millions of citizens driving them away from

air travel and seriously harming our economy and our freedom. As others

have noted, it would be a victory for these murderers rather than an effective

way to stop them in the future. A way around them will always be open

to determined mass murderers. More importantly, none bear any relation

to the attack that actually occurred on September 11th.

Ask yourself every

time you hear a proposal for increased "security": Would have

in any way have averted the disaster that actually happened? Will it avert

a future suicide attack on the public by other new and different means?

Any realistic response to what happened and is likely to happen in the

future must acknowledge that, when the next moment of truth arrives in

whatever form, calling 911 will not work. Training our youth to be helpless

in the face of an attack, avoiding violence at all costs will not work.

There will always be foreign and domestic wolves to prey on the sheep

we raise. And the next attack is unlikely to take the same form as the

ones we just experienced. We must adopt measures that promise some relief

in circumstances we cannot now imagine.

Here is the cold

hard fact of the matter that will be evaded and denied but which must

never be forgotten in these discussions: Often whether on an airplane,

subway, cruise ship, or in a high school only self defense by

the "unorganized militia" will be available when domestic or

foreign terrorists chose their next moment of murder. And here is

the public-policy implication of this fact: It would be better if the

militia were more prepared to act when it is needed.

If the general militia

is now "unorganized" and neutered if it is not well-regulated

whose fault is it? Article I of the Constitution gives Congress

full power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the

Militia." The Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights

in large part because many feared that Congress would neglect the militia

(as it has) and, Congress could not be forced by any constitutional provision

to preserve the militia, the only practical means of ensuring its continued

existed was to protect the right of individual militia members to keep

and bear their own private arms. Nevertheless, it remains the responsibility

of Congress to see to it that the general militia is "well-regulated."

A well-regulated

militia does not require a draft or any compulsory training. Nor, as Alexander

Hamilton recognized, need training be universal. "To attempt such

a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable

extent, would be unwise," he wrote in Federalist 29, "and the

experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured." But Congress has the constitutional power to create training programs

in effective self-defense including training in small arms marksmanship,

tactics, and gun safety for any American citizen who volunteers.

Any guess how many millions would take weapons training at government

expense or even for a modest fee if generally offered?

Rather than provide

for training and encouraging persons to be able to defend themselves and to exercise their training responsibly powerful lobbying groups

have and will continue to advocate passivity and disarmament. The vociferous

anti-self-defense, anti-gun crusaders of the past decades will not give

up now. Instead they will shift our focus to restrictions on American

liberties that will be ineffective against future attacks. Friday on Fox,

Democratic Minority Leader Dick Gephart was asked whether additional means

we have previously eschewed should be employed to capture and combat foreign

terrorists. His reply was appalling. Now was the time, he replied, to

consider adopting a national identity card and that we would have to consider

how much information such "smart" cards would contain.

Rather than make

war on the American people and their liberties, however, Congress should

be looking for ways to empower them to protect themselves when warranted.

The Founders knew and put in the form of a written guarantee the proposition that the individual right to keep and bear arms was the

principal means of preserving a militia that was "essential," in a free state, to provide personal and collective self-defense against

criminals of all stripes, both domestic and foreign.

A renewed commitment

to a well-regulated militia would not be a panacea for crime and terrorism,

but neither will any other course of action now being recommended or adopted.

We have long been told that, in a modern world, the militia is obsolete.

Put aside the fact that the importance of the militia to a "the security

of a free state" is hardwired into the text of the Constitution.

The events of this week have shown that the militia is far from obsolete

in a world where war is waged by cells as well as states. It is long past

time we heeded the words of the Founders and end the systematic effort

to disarm Americans. Now is also the time to consider what it would take

in practical terms to well-regulate the now-unorganized militia, so no

criminal will feel completely secure when confronting one or more of its

members.

Maitreya · September 23, 2001

One of the first things the Taliban 'govt.'did in Afghanistan was to disarm the population.

They actually mention this themselves in an effort to show the world how responsible they are.

Sign In

Saved by the miltia...

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Maitreya

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Support the Ashram

Join Groups

Top Downloads