Marxist Ideology and the Push to Ban Militia Weapons in the USA

What Mao meant was only the Communist Party should be allowed to have guns. For a Marxist revolution to succeed, the people must be disarmed. The left in the United States has long pushed for the disarmament of the population. Recently, the left has primarily pushed for the banning of those arms that are commonly available and most suitable for militia use. These are modern semi-automatic rifles with standard capacity magazines of 30 rounds. These types of rifles are admirably suited to the defense of homes and neighborhoods, in part because they are understood to be extremely effective and, as such, have great deterrent value.

The American founding fathers understood the political power of firearms as well. They had just won a war with the superpower of the age, England. The English king had repeatedly attempted to disarm first the colonists and then the revolutionaries. The founders wished to make sure no future American government would be able to disarm the American people. Thus, they included the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights. The founders understood the right to keep and bear arms included defense against all threats from animals, criminals, other nations, and domestic tyrants.

Many infringements on the right to keep and bear arms have been tolerated by the people of the United States as long as the infringements were applied to disfavored minorities.

The role of the Militia is completely irrelevant to the meaning or intent of 2A and engaging with the hoplophobes on that point is far more likely to the position of RKBA than to reinforce it.

In an Amicus Brief submitted to SCOTUS by Dr. Nelson Lund, Ph.D., J.D., on behalf of the Second Amendment Foundation in the matter of DC v Heller, Lund wrote,

"The most significant grammatical feature of the Second Amendment is that its preamble is an absolute phrase, often called an ablative absolute or nominative absolute. Such constructions are grammatically independent of the rest of the sentence, and do not qualify any word in the operative clause to which they are appended. The usual function of absolute constructions is to convey some information about the circumstances surrounding the statement in the main clause." (emphasis added)

In other words, the opening clause of 2A is mere 'window dressing' that, by the rules of grammar, does not modify or restrict the meaning of the "main" or "operative" clause.

Chief Justice Scalia, in writing for the majority opinion in Heller, opined similarly (albeit less eruditely):

"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed....
"...Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose...."

Furthermore, according to the most esteemed of all period-correct treatises on American grammar, both Lund's and Scalia's opinions not only are perfectly correct but also are the essence of Originalism. Noah Webster was the "Father of American Scholarship and Education," and the foremost authority on the topic of English Grammar in Early America. And Rule No. 15 his 1790 Rudiments of Grammar reads as follows:

nominative absolute

A nominative case or word, joined with a participle, often stands independently of the sentence. This is called, the case absolute. Examples.
The sun being risen, it will be warm.
They all consenting, the vote was passed.
“Jesus conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.”
Explanation. The words in italics are not connected with the other part of the sentence, either by agreement or government; they are therefore in the case absolute, which, in English, is always the nominative.

Noah Webster, writing in 1790 (or probably earlier, since it had to be hand-written with quill and ink), states unequivocally that "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," is not connected, either by agreement or government, to "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Also, the First 10 Amendments collectively are referred to as "The Bill of Rights." This is an important distinction because governments have no "rights," only powers. "Rights" are the exclusive province of We The People, including the "right" to control what powers government may or may not have.

And what was the purpose of "The Bill of Rights?" It was written to guarantee the liberties of We The People by limiting the scope of government. There is nothing in any of the other nine amendments that anyone tries to construe as offering to further empower the (federal) government, so why entertain the argument that 2A alone among the 10 is an exception to the rule?

To the point, the meaning or composition of a "militia" is entirely irrelevant to the meaning of 2A, and nothing within the "The Bill of Rights?" seeks to accord more powers to the government, regardless whether over any militia or anything else.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.