Liberty or Laws? – The First Line of Defense

Liberty or Laws?
The First Line of Defense


Gary Hunt
Outpost of Freedom
June 17, 2016

As much as many disagree with the Founder’s intent of the Second Amendment, there is little doubt that there were two primary purposes.  The first, of course, was be able to respond if, should the need arise, as had then recently occurred, the government had begun taking their rights.  It was to assure that the People would have an adequate means of defending against those encroachments and complying with the duty set out in the Declaration of Independence:

“But when long trains of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide for new guards for their future security.”

There was a second intent that is, in this day, perhaps a bit more obscure.  However, there was a constant threat, especially in the fringes of the American civilization, of attack by Indians, and on occasion, by foreigners such as the French.  Though most often, fighting such battles was conducted by militia units, armed and equipped by the local government, those who of necessity, to protect life and property, were operating within the capacity of the intent when they acted, as individuals or small groups without the organized structure, were no less militia than the units, or even the standing military force.  There was never a consideration that individuals must rely on the government to afford them and their property protection.

Even during the expansion of the country, especially after the Civil War, military forts were few and far between.  The first line of defense had to be the armed citizenry.  It could be days, weeks, or there might never be a response by the military when there were attacks made on the People.

As the West was settled, the need for the militia and the armed citizenry was diminished.  Since that time, that historical necessity had all but gone away.  By 1903, with the passage of an Act “To promote the efficiency of the militia“, also known as the “Dick Act”, the militias was redefined as the National Guard and the Reserve Militia.  Within that Act, only the National Guard could be called to national service.

That Act did not deny the existence of any right secured by the Second Amendment.  However, it did mandate (shall) that:

“That the militia shall consist of every able-bodied male citizen of the respective States, Territories, and the District of Columbia, and every able-bodied male of foreign birth who has declared his intention to become a citizen, who is more than eighteen and less than forty-five years of age, and shall be divided into two classes—the organized militia, to be known as the National Guard of the State, Territory, or, District of Columbia, or by such other designations as may be given them by the laws of the respective States or Territories, and the remainder to be known as the Reserve Militia.”

There you have it: every able-bodied male citizen, is either exempt, in the National Guard, or the Reserve Militia.  The only exclusions were certain government employees and those excluded by the respective state laws.  There is no subsequent mention of the “Reserve Militia”, therefore, it includes those described and only excludes those so described.

Taking into consideration recent events, we are facing a challenge that did not present itself to the Founders.  This would easily fall into the realm of necessity with regard to both intentions of the adoption of the Second Amendment.

First is that the government created by the Founders has assumed powers and authorities never granted to them by the Constitution.  In so doing, they have usurped power and endeavored to undermine our rights.  We are seeing in the courts as well as the current debates in Congress a concerted effort to undermine those rights secured by both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

The purpose of the Bill of Rights is clearly set out in the Preamble thereto:

The Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its [federal government] powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

When those Rights are attacked, we have approached the necessity of the first intention of the Founder’s.

Now, to the second intent.  Though we no longer fear Indian attacks or foreign invasion across our borders, we cannot look at the current invasion of both legal and illegal immigration as without concern.  The legal aspect being almost without constraint, and the illegal being an outright violation of our laws, both of which afford unarmed foreigners to enter the country and obtain weapons, precluding the necessity to invade us with arms in hand.

Unlike the past, where the intruder, with malicious intent, was easily identifiable, today’s intruders are concealed in such a way that their intentions only become clear when they set off a bomb, or pull out their firearms and start shooting.  Though often their words precede their actions, under the guise of “diversity”, we are told that they have every right to reject American values and laws.  This, in and of itself, disarms us as to the true identity and intentions of those who will potentially become a violent enemy, done under the guise of accusations of intolerance, or racism.  It is not until they act that their true intentions become apparent.

This puts us, the People, in a more precarious position than that of the Founders.  When these people decide to act, there is even less time to respond than there was to Indian or Foreign invasions of the past.  These threats may also come from Americans who have simply gone over the edge.

As those forefathers, we have only ourselves, as provided for and protected by the Second Amendment, to provide for our security, the security of others, and the protection of our property.

The military will never even react in defense of attacks by those foreign interests, as was evidenced by the shootings at Fort Hood, Texas, by an avowed Muslim enemy.  The local law enforcement will not protect us, only the “crime scene”, as evidenced by the Columbine High School shooting (1999), where officers arrived at the scene 50 minutes before they entered the school, allowing most of the killings to occur while they waited, safely, outside.  This is also evidenced in the recent events in Orlando, Florida.  Though the police were initially informed of the shootings shortly after 2:00 am, they waited outside nearly three hours before finally entering the Pulse nightclub to subdue (kill) the shooter.

So, absent the militia, we have only a reliance on the government, who are more concerned for officer safety than our lives or property, to protect us.  That was never the intention of the Founders.  It is the militia, as a unit, that responded within hours, on April 19, 1775.  It was the settler, as a unit, a small group, or as individuals, that responded to various attacks on the settlements.  It is clear that the real First Line of Defense was, and should continue to be, the militia, as a unit, or as an individual.

There should be, to use a modern term, Zero Tolerance for any effort to deny to us, the American People, to act in accordance with the intentions of the Founders in adopting the Second Amendment.

It is time for us to say “NO”, or to act in accordance with that Duty first mentioned.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

Leave a Reply