The role of gun ownership has always been emotionally charged, but Sandy Hook’s news has again heightened the rhetoric. This debate has spilled over and has become international.
Anti-gun lobbyists consider the Second Amendment antiquated, asking what militias could protect us from today. The pro-gun side answers: “Tyrants”, citing King George III, Hitler’s Germany, or another event so seemingly distant that the argument seems academic. Even some who want stricter controls might concede the home-defense argument. But they would never want Joe Public armed with the sorts of guns carried by soldiers and police. Are militias relevant today?
Do you think it strange that citizens might be called to grab their gun, and rush to the defense of their community or region against some threat? Why is it strange? Small towns do the same thing with volunteer fire departments. Bankers, plumbers, or gym teachers, all become firemen when there’s a fire raging. You can’t wait for experts to put out the fire, everybody gets involved. That same principle describes a militia.
The relevant Amendment reads: “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.”
This week, I stumbled on a modern, local parallel to this principle. A judge was complaining about a Provincial police force refusing to administer a court order. Reading further, I saw the connection.
Now, I need to proceed carefully. The example I’m citing is complex, and explosive. I could not possibly give the nuanced description that fairness would require. Others can debate…