SHITEPOKE.COM: The Second Amendment for Dummies

DISCLAIMER: Shitepoke.com blog attempts to authenticate its content. Disclosure of substantive errors is solicited and will be acknowledged. Accordingly, readers are encouraged to explore and enjoy this content, in its own right, but to always obtain additional sources for historical or academic research.

The radical-right hysteria over Obama and the Second Amendment in the aftermath of the Newtown schoolhouse massacre, is seriously out of touch with history and a dangerous disservice to their children who must govern each other in the twenty-first century. For that, here's a primer for those who slept through eighth grade civics:

When the Constitution was ratified in 1789, certain ornery patriots, called Anti-Federalists, were not fully on board. After throwing one monarchy overboard, they thought the new government gave way too much power to the feds over the states – specifically the president. Sound familiar?

In fact, Massachusetts only ratified the Constitution, provided that congress spell out so-called natural rights – those rights which could not be voted away by a majority or legislated away by government.

Accordingly, James Madison penned a quick do-over consisting of ten amendments. Dubbed the Bill of Rights, they were enthusiastically ratified in 1791.

Both Washington and Madison hated the idea of a standing army, considering it a subterfuge for war making. Madison famously allowed: “War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes … instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few.”

In the Second Amendment, Madison put a fine point on America’s boundary to make war – and the people’s obligation to shed blood for politicians - putting national defense firmly in the hands of civilians, to wit: 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.

The original intent is unambiguous. The proposition is provisional – the operative words being well-regulated and militia. Well-regulated means just that: under the authority of a commander appointed by the governor of each state. And militia means composed of local citizens, as opposed to a standing army.

For that, George Washington signed the Militia Acts of 1792, mandating the duty of every “free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45. Specifically, each recruit had to provide his own musket, bayonet, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack.

The trial run was the Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. Washington himself rode shotgun with 13,000 militiamen from four states for a overwhelming take-down of a handful of Pennsylvania corn farmers who revolted over the taxation of highly profitable homebrew.

The take-home message is clear: the Second Amendment armed citizens in the name of the government. That it was intended to arm citizens against the government is utter right-wing mythology propagated by the paranoid fringe.

The very idea of armed civilians going up against today’s military supremacy – including Apache Attack Helicopters, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, and surface-to-air missiles – is the stuff of ludicrous fantasy.

Teddy Roosevelt's Militia Act of 1903 - no doubt to Washington's chagrin - closed the loop, replacing militias with the fully militarized National Guard, adjunct to a standing army. Today, domestic armaments and matériel are housed in local armories. Thus, the era of citizen militias and the Second Amendment stand replaced by history, Madison's majestic phrases stranded in time.

For more than a century, gun enthusiasts had been spoiling for Second Amendment vindication of their civilian firepower. Finally, in 2008, the partisan Republican John Roberts' Supreme Court delighted to oblige. In a spectacular act of judicial legislation-from-the-bench - it pulled out of thin air, unsupported by either constitutional law or history, the landmark case, District of Columbia v. Heller: The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm … such as self-defense within the home.

Yet writing for the majority, conservative icon Justice Scalia - in astonishing judicial contrition - threw cold water in the face of his gun-toting constituency: Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose … [including] laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.

Twelve days before Christmas, Adam Lanza shot his way into the Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut armed with a perfectly legal Bushmaster XM-15 semi-automatic rifle, with untold dozens of 30-round clips. Within a breathtaking span of four minutes, he unloaded upward of 100 rounds into two classrooms, before putting a bullet into his own head.

Twenty first graders and six teachers lay massacred – many children so unimaginably mutilated by the .223 caliber military grade firepower that their parents could not identify them.

In 1994, Congress outlawed the human killing machine and high-capacity ammunition clips that Adam Lanza deployed – along with nineteen other categories of assault weapons. When the ban sunsetted in 2004, lawmakers, fueled with blood money from the NRA, purposefully let it expire.

Had Congress renewed the ban, Lanza’s horrific mass murder weapon would have never been manufactured – cold comfort for the precious slain children, their parents, and loved ones of Sandy Hook school.

We hear a lot about mental illness and guns. Well, forget about Lanza’s mental state. There will forever be deranged people capable of unspeakable mayhem. For that, we can, and indeed must, decide what level of military-grade overkill weaponry is available for street purchase.

President Obama has asked Congress - and California Senator Dianne Feinstein has introduced a bill - to permanently restore the 1994 assault weapon ban. Many oppose the legislation on the grounds of Second Amendment rights. They would be wrong.