The Second Amendment is an Auxiliary and Subordinate Right

I take the constitution seriously, and the second amendment, But the second amendment makes no sense without the context of, and reference to, Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution. The Second amendment really refers to a requirement of good Government, that we preserve the “Security” of our “Free State,” therefore the SEcond amendment refers to the:

• Duty of all Citizens to participate in protecting our security
• Effort to avoid having a Standing Army or forces separate from the citizenry
• This implies that functions that emanate from the militia functions are also a common duty:
1. Emergency Services
2. Police
3. Fire and Rescue
4. Health Services

The Right to Bear Arms is Auxiliary and subordinate to the right to own oneself, to liberty and security.

Individual security requires collective security

National security requires State Security which requires local security.

If people don't feel secure in their persons and possessions, the country isn't secure. If some people are secure (Oligarchy), the majority are less secure. The "Right to Bear Arms" is auxiliary, but necessary to, the right to participate in governing ourselves. Samuel Adams referred to the Right to “have and use arms” as Auxiliary and Subordinate to the rights to personal security, liberty and property.

In ancient times the greatest power of common people was that the Government had to ask them to fight for them.

Auxiliary and Subordinate Rights

As I've said elsewhere owning and using weaponry for self defense is an "auxiliary and subordinate" right. Samuel Adams quoted Blackstone and Parliament when he wrote, referring to the Glorious Revolution when English Parliament overthrew the Stuarts:

“At the Revolution, the British Constitution was restored to its original principles, declared in the bill of rights; which was afterwards passed into a law”

Note the wording "restored" and "afterwards passed into a law", is expressing the principle that these human rights existed all the while in their denial, which is the reason that any right to own and use arms other than in the military is actually linked to the 9th and 10th Amendments and the product of hundreds of years of resistance by Citizens against Government Oppression. The right to bear arms is the right to participate in the defense, and by logical extension, the governance of the country.

This was a principle that dated back to "Old England." Samuel Adams in an essay published in the Boston Gazette during the early stages of the rebellion in New England that became our Revolution referred to the right to “have and use” arms as part of a list of "auxiliary and subordinate" rights that only apply;

• “When actually attacked”

Which are rights that people have auxiliary, to resisting oppression:

1. “first to the regular administration and free course of justice in the courts of law”
2. “the right of petitioning the King and parliament”
3. “having and using arms for self-preservation and defense ”

These are only rights in a context of protecting the primary rights of:

1. “personal security”
2. “personal liberty”
3. “private property”

In Britain, only those with real estate property, "the gentry" were permitted to bear arms in the Militia. The Gentry were afraid of "the rabble" being permitted to bear arms, and as a result, Sam Adams said that:

“having arms for their defense” ... “a public allowance under due restrictions of the natural rights of resistance and self preservation, when the sanction of society and society are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression.”

This right to bear arms is an auxiliary right necessary to resist "the violence of oppression", not a right of mere disaffection, or to engage in oppression or ethnic cleansing. If there is no oppression and no occupying military, there is no need to possess and sue arms. Hence the word "auxilliary."

Second Amendment

Fear of Standing Armies

To the nascent Rebellion, it also was a response to the presence of “Military Troops” due to the fear that;

“Violence is always to be apprehended from Military Troops”

If you talk to any gun nut, they know full well this history, and that the great fear of "Standing Armies" was what drove the founders of this country to create a second Amendment. But they interpret that fear the way Southerners did in the antebellum period before 1865. They saw it as a right for the Free Men (they expanded the franchise from the Gentry) and Gentry to defend their property, which included other people. They didn't see slaves, peasants, indentured servants and the property-less worker, as full equals in society. But their arguments saying "All Mankind" meant that this was a deluded attitude towards their own universal principles. The struggle to make universal universal principles continues.

More to Come

On Standing Armies:

http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/192.html

Most quotes from “Armed In America,” by Patrick J. Charles:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B06Y56WFY6/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

How the Militia Of the Whole Concept failed in the 19th Century

The Concept of the Militia of the Whole Gave way to National Guard

The Founders of this country had faith in the "Militia of the Whole" as the guarantor of our civilization. As long as the Frontier was near most citizens or we had credible outside enemies, this faith was justified. The Second Amendment was originally the "Palladium of Liberty" of this country because the notion of being able to force the entire populace of a county or Town to muster and defend their homes was noble, virtuous and made sense, until most of the country was relatively peaceful and there was no longer any immediate threat. At that point the concept began to seem absurd. By the end of the 19th century the underlying concepts behind the second amendment and Article One Section 8 militia had to change. For the further context here I'd recommend reading these posts:

1. Thoughts on Defending Democracy
2. Why DC Versus Heller was Badly Decided,
3. On Militia and the Founders
4. Militia Second Amendment and Democracy
5. Select Militia National Guard and Second Amendment
6. The Palladium of Liberty

SS Mansfield And My Father

My Dad, Hartley Oliver Holte, Served on the USS Mansfield in the mid 50s. He told me he participated in Occupation Hardtack in 1958. There were a series of Nuclear tests during Operation Hardtack. He recounts that sailors took photos and it was his job to collect the pictures. His Ship was too close to one blast, he told me. I believe he also served in the defense of the Taiwan Strait in 1959. In 1960 he was transferred to Sandia Labs in Alburquerque. He chose to leave the service in 1962 rather than go back to sea.

More Info:

http://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/2-Hist_Rpt_Atm/1958_DNA_6038F.pdf

http://www.dtra.mil/Portals/61/Documents/NTPR/2-Hist_Rpt_Atm/1958_DNA_6038F.pdf

https://www.revealnews.org/article/us-veterans-in-secretive-nuclear-tests-still-fighting-for-recognition/

For some Reason he's not listed at this site:

http://www.ussmansfield.com/nfbomb/

http://kman.my.meganet.net/nfbomb.htm

Why Burn it Down?

Years ago, they ran an experiment where they turned a lab chamber into a large maze and let rats run free within. They fed the rats & cleaned, took care of basic needs but little else. Rats did what rats do and soon the place was crawling with them. It started to look like Hells Kitchen. With bully rats, gang rats & little gang wars. The rats, when autopsied, had swollen adrenal glands & other signs of great stress. To the social scientists this was disturbing. Though to the rest of us it now seems like they were playing "obvious man."

This post is a follow on to Turning "Our Revolution" into Piqueteros which refers to the authoritarian impulse in both the far left and far right. I'm trying to make sense of why people would want to burn down our system. I hope this helps.

Turning "Our Revolution" into Piqueteros

The Lost Patrol of Piqueteros/"burn it down" activists

The Far left wing in much of the world is into violent revolution, "burn it down", "destroy the establishment," and replace the current system. That is similar to the goal of the Far Right. But in the hands of corrupt leadership, compromised leaders or leaders who won't work well with each other, the people who engage in such "revolution" become one or all the following:

• Useful Idiots, people who cancel the efforts of each other and give dictators and corrupt organizations by canceling their own efforts.
• Controlled opposition,, who will go after a dictators enemies as proxies for them. Sometimes instigated by trolls, agent provocateurs, corrupting agents, or traitors. Sometimes good people behave badly due to blackmail or bribes.
• Unsound followers of authoritarian ideology,; who follow sociopathic or narcissistic leaders and have a deluded ideology that cannot ever work out as dreamed of by those followers. The Far Right has morphed into such a totalitarian movement led by a nascent dictator. A similar tendancy exists in the far left. Whenever people follow leaders blindly, they fall into the authoritarian trap.

Wise people hold principles that include working for the common good, trading lesser goals for greater objectives and recognizing the importance of thresholds and mutual equity. Sometimes to achieve a threshold capability one has to be willing to trade off ideals. People who can't adjust to reality are idealists (by definition). Such people usually let "the perfect be the enemy of the good" and are easily manipulated by trolls, agent provocateurs or demagogues.

Selective Service Versus Standing Armies

We are Facing Standing Armies

This post follows: http://holtesthoughts.blogspot.com/2018/03/select-militia-national-guard-and.html

More about what Standing Armies

A Standing army:

“....unlike a reserve army, is a permanent, often professional, army. It is composed of full-time soldiers (who may be either career soldiers or conscripts) and is not disbanded during times of peace. It differs from army reserves, who are enrolled for the long term, but activated only during wars or natural disasters, and temporary armies, which are raised from the civilian population only during a war or threat of war and disbanded once the war or threat is over. The term dates from approximately 1600, although the phenomenon it describes is much older.” [quote from Wikipedia but also in my other sources]

But here is the thing, standing armies used to also serve as police, "peace keepers", enforcers, and often lived off the land as land pirates when governments were tyrannical or occupying hostile territory.

.... which means that modern armed forces; police, security guards (private armies), and similar; also are standing armies, because they are permanent, professional and sometimes they act like occupying forces when they operate in (or as if in) occupied territory.

Select Militia, National Guard and Second Amendment

Militia and the Second Amendment

There is a lot of propaganda about the concept of Militia. But there are three definitions we should focus on when talking about guns and the second amendment. These are:

• "Militia of the whole" refers to the drafting of the entire male population of an area into service.
This was a concept that repeatedly failed to be practical. But it was ideologically preferable to the alternatives among (democratic) republicans over the alternatives.
• "Select Militia" Due to cost authorities were forced to select out smaller subsets of the citizenry. These select militia, preferably between 18-30, were younger, more trainable, and the government could afford. They also frightened Republicans
• "Standing Army" was what the founders were most afraid of. These were soldiers drafted into service, peace and war, and who served as a job. The government is at risk from a standing army because it has a separate identity, is often loyal to the State or who pays it. And is dangerous.
The founders were scared of standing armies because of the risk of them gobbling up resources, engaging in corruption and tyranny and installing dictatorship or royalty.

They were also scared of private armies, though if the army was raised, authorized by the government it could be tolerable.

As I read the current propaganda about this subject I'm finding both standing armies and "select militia" criticized heavily by pundits who work for the NRA. The NRA formally understands that the second Amendment was written in the context of the militia portions of the Constitution, but they claim that it nevertheless grants an individual unregulated right to own firearms based on it. They use cherry picked "historiography" and a kind of faulty originalism to make this point.