Saturday, March 28, 2009

This isn't hard...

On 11/28/2007, Paul Helmke wrote a minor diatribe about the phrasing of the Second Amendment to the Constitution. His contention was that the Parker decision went the wrong way, and that the Second Amendment refers only to Militia prerogative for arms ownership; that self-defense was too narrow a view and misses the thrust of the amendment, as written. These remarks were pre-Heller.

The Second Amendment to the Constitution:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State; the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"


If we were to parse it, it would go as follows:


well regulated ("in proper and working order")

militia ("the whole body of able-bodied male citizens declared by law as being subject to call to military service")
or, alternately, under 10 USC 311

(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.")

being (conjunction, emphasizing the following word)

necessary ("logically unavoidable, absolutely needed")

for the

security (" the quality or state of being secure: as a: freedom from danger")

of a

free ("1 a: having the legal and political rights of a citizen b: enjoying civil and political liberty c: enjoying political independence or freedom from outside domination d: enjoying personal freedom : not subject to the control or domination of another")

State; (individually - "mode or condition of being", collectively " a politically organized body of people usually occupying a definite territory ; especially : one that is sovereign")


right ("something to which one has a just claim")

of the

people ("the body of enfranchised citizens of a state")


keep (" to retain in one's possession or power")


bear ("to carry or possess arms")

Arms ("a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense ; especially : firearm")

shall ("used to express a command or exhortation")

not ("used as a function word to make negative a group of words or a word")

be (" intransitive verb: to take place") Together "shall not be" means "an absolute prohibition"

infringed. ("to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another")

So, to play Paul Helmke's game, we should look at every word of the Amendment, not leaving anything aside, and also address the Militia clause. To wit:

A properly functioning and in regular working order Militia (those citizens NOT a member of the Armed Forces or of the National Guard), being necessary, logically unavoidable, and absolutely needed for the security of a free state - as defined "a politically organized, sovereign body of the people having the legal and political rights of citizens, enjoying civil and political liberty, independence, and freedom; and not subject to the control and domination of another"; the Right (just claim) of the People (the body of the enfranchised citizens of the above free state) to keep and bear arms (to possess and carry weapons of offense or defense, especially firearms) shall not be infringed (absolutely no encroachments on this right whatsoever).

Mr. Helmke, the people ARE the Militia. The Constitution recognizes this, and 10 USC 311 codifies it in case there is any confusion. The Militia clause argument is self-defeating if you understand the words. Your failure to speak openly and honestly about this indicates that you are either a fraud or a liar, and your intention is perfectly clear to anybody who can read and understand the words. You are attempting to re-write history for your own purpose, to empower a central government who holds you in contempt but will use you for their own purpose, at the expense of free citizens who only wish to be left alone.

According to the Militia clause, the National Firearms Act of 1934 is unconstitutional. According to the Militia clause, the Miller decision was wrongly adjudged. According to the Militia clause, the Brady Assault Weapons Ban was patently unconstitutional, as were the infringements upon civilian purchases of high-capacity magazines, semi-automatic shotguns, and yes even machine guns.

Mr. Helmke's current position on the Heller case is one that presumes Heller to be an invitation to regulation, restriction, and imposition of onerous "common-sense gun laws" for the protection of the people, as the "Slippery Slope" that previously restrained legislators is "now gone".

If the previous position required one to believe that the Second Amendment was solely for Militia purpose, then, logically, the people should not be prohibited in their pursuit of Arms for defense of home and hearth, town, city, county, state, or country. If the current position is that the people really do have the right to self-defense, but that this right is subject to "reasonable restriction"; said restrictions being as many as he can force through the system to achieve the goal of effectively total civilian disarmament, then his previous argument was a smokescreen and a lie. In either case, the two positions are incompatible with each other as rational pieces of the whole. Unless, as mouthpiece of the Brady Campaign, he has no positions of his own and is merely a puppet or a stooge.

In either case: Mr. Helmke, your stated positions are on the side of those people who would gut the Constitution for their own aims. The Supreme Court in the Heller decision got it only half-right. Unfortunately, they limited their scope and dared not tread upon stare decisis and ALSO reverse Miller and declare NFA34 unconstitutional as well. It would have been the greatest blow for freedom that the United States would ever have experienced. Instead, we get to argue banalities about whether your position is one of moral bankruptcy or mental deficiency.

Good day to you.




(NOTE: Previous version of this posting was removed and replaced by this version to correct a technical inaccuracy and a reference to the wrong court decision in the opening paragraph.)

1 comment:

Newbius said...

Fixed 2 links in the post. Sorry if they were broken before I edited them...