They
May Arm or Disarm All or Any Part of the Freemen of the United States
[A
Landholder requested republication of a Boston newspaper essay in the
Philadelphia Freeman's Journal of January 16, 1788. The reprinted
version was altered from the original by more strongly emphasizing
the Antifederalist arms mantra presented. This text shows how
period authors understood the militia to be the freemen, and that
those opposed to the new Constitution feared the new government would
disarm the people, thus enabling enforcement of tyranny by a standing
army. The concept of an armed populace capable of preventing tyranny was presented as a well regulated militia - common, and well understood, period terminology.]
"It
is asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a
well regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have
ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have
never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen.
Experience has taught them that a standing body of regular forces,
whenever they can be completely introduced, are always efficacious in
enforcing their edicts, however arbitrary; . . . No, my fellow
citizens, this plainly shows they do not mean to depend upon the
citizens of the States alone to enforce their powers; they mean to
lean upon something more substantial and summary. They have left the
appointment of [militia] officers in the breasts of the several
States; but this appears to me an insult rather than a privilege, for
what avails this right, if they at their pleasure may arm or disarm
all or any part of the freemen of the United States, so that when
their army is sufficiently numerous, they may put it out of the power
of the freemen militia of America to assert and defend their
liberties, however they might be encroached upon by Congress. Does
any, after reading this provision for a regular standing army,
suppose that they intended to apply to the militia in all cases, and
to pay particular attention to making them the bulwark of this
continent." [The Origin of the Second Amendment, pp. 211-212]
No comments:
Post a Comment