On Being "Pro Military" And "Pro Second Amendment"

Discussion of Firearm Politics & Legislation. This forum is now strictly limited to discussions directly related to firearms.

Moderators: Coordinators, Moderators

On Being "Pro Military" And "Pro Second Amendment"

Postby bignflnut » Sat Sep 01, 2018 9:56 am

**Sacred Cow Alert** Image

Everybody gets to be mad at this article...

The phrase"pro-gun, pro-military" is used by some conservatives to describe themselves, as if the two go together seamlessly. For example, activist and political candidate Erin Cruz states she is both "Pro Second Amendment" and "Pro Military" in her promotional materials.

Another Republican candidate, Gregory Duckworth, advertises that he advances "pro-gun and pro-military initiatives."

And last year, Donald Trump, Jr. - as part of a controversy over Keurig coffee pulling its advertising from Sean Hannity's show — denounced Keurig and endorsed Black Rifle Coffee, which is advertised as a company with a "pro-gun and pro-military stance."


After all, at the time of the ratification of the new Constitution — and the writing of the Second Amendment — Americans were notable for their opposition to a permanent and powerful military force — especially in the form of a so-called "standing army."

Greatly distrustful of putting military power in the hands of the federal government, the authors of the Second Amendment advocated instead for a far larger decentralized and locally controlled militia. Thus, in the nineteenth century, both state and local militias greatly outweighed federal military power, and it was assumed that any large standing force would have to be composed of state units supplied by state governments. In practice — until the late twentieth century — state governments could veto these deployments. Even statemilitia power was suspect, if it was full-time and professionalized. Thus, the concept of the "unorganized" militiaretained significant support even into the early twentieth century. Today, however, these checks on federal power have been abolished, thus that which is "pro-military" is now necessary pro federal military.


Put another way, the authors of the Second Amendment clearly had a very different conception of "balance" when it came to balancing out a potentially "tyrannical force." For them, the non-federal fighting force was assumed to be armed with the same weapons as the federal military, and would exist in far greater numbers. This was even the vision of pro-federal James Madison who, in Federalist 46, estimated that an appropriate state of affairs would be one in which the US federal government could put approximately "twenty-five or thirty thousand men" in the field, while it could be opposed by "a militia of near half a million citizens ...united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence." In other words, this much-larger and presumably equally-well-armed militia would be loyal not to the federal government, but to the individual states. In other words, this much-larger and presumably equally-well-armed militia would be under the command of — and loyal to — the individual states and not the federal government.

Thus, properly understood, the Second Amendment goes hand in hand with opposition to federal military spending and to limiting a standing army to a mere fraction of the size of the state-controlled militias. If modern pro-Second Amendment activists claim to support a Second Amendment as understood by its authors, they could conceivably still support naval forces and a very small fraction of the US's standing army. Any consistency in supporting the Second Amendment as originally intended, would require drastic cuts to both the Army and the Marines, which combined make up more a standing army of more than 550,000 troops.


This destruction of the militia system - a system going back to the Revolutionaries and the English libertarians before them - struck at the core of the Second Amendment. The Amendment still legally protected some private gun ownership, but gone are the foundations built on the premise of federalism and decentralization in military power. Instead, all that is left is the notion that some untrained civilians with non-military-grade weapons can offer a "counterforce" to the US military.

What private gun ownership there is, of course, is better than nothing, but thanks to the "pro-military" mindset of people also claiming to be "pro-gun" the Second Amendment is now a hollowed out shell of what it once was.

On the anti-side, to be both anti-2A and anti-federal military is equally absurd. They're unwilling to take personal responsibility for their own safety and deny RKBA to the populace at large (at least this is the public position). Then decry a civil government having the power that they simultaneously insist on giving them (turn in all your guns, even though we're comparing POTUS to the worst people in history??).

Non-Leftists have been tricked into growing government military power by simply deciding to be straight ticket against anything the left says. To where the federal "defense" budget is north of 850 billion.

This, again, goes to illustrate the hypocritically vapid position taken by either side of the false dichotomy when we cling to tribalism alone.
“A free people claim their rights, as derived from the laws of nature, and not as the gift of their chief magistrate.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1774

Tweed Ring: "...we should have all done more to elected Republicans..." Agreed
User avatar
Posts: 6593
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 12:14 pm
Location: Where Black Sheep and Black Swamps meet

Re: On Being "Pro Military" And "Pro Second Amendment"

Postby JU-87 » Wed Sep 19, 2018 5:26 pm

Very interesting. Thank you.
"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun... Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion of your walks." Thomas Jefferson, 1785.

Read "War is a Racket" by MG Smedly Butler,USMC. He knew war,and was awarded the Medal of Honor twice. http://warisaracket.org/

Henry Kissinger said, "Military Men are just dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns in Foreign Policy" and has not denied this quote to this day.
User avatar
OFCC Patron Member
OFCC Patron Member
Posts: 1343
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2005 9:16 am
Location: N.E. Ohio

Return to National Firearm Politics & Legislation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest