The Second Amendment in Art!

This is Charles Henry Granger's Muster Day which is in the National Gallery in Washington, DC. There is another version of this at the located at the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts in Philadelphia.

Many able-bodied citizen between the ages of eighteen and forty-five were a members of the militia under the militia act of 1792. The annual muster day accomplished actual enrollment of the members into their units.

Local companies of militia would gather annually for parade and inspection at their regiment's muster day which often involved a thousand or more men from half a dozen towns. Food and alcohol vendors, showmen, fiddlers, auctioneers, charlatans, gamblers, and several thousand spectators turned these gatherings into regional festivals in an era of few such diversions. Muster days were structured social events in a regimental towns in ways not duplicated since. By 1830, muster days were under attack from those who resented the required participation. They were joined by temperance advocates, who objected to the considerable public drunkenness attending each muster, and later by critics of the Mexican War, who claimed that the existence of a peace-time militia had in fact led to this conflict.

"Their general good conduct on the field was creditable to officers and soldiers – with the exception of a few, (such as never know how to leave off when they have done), who fired promiscuously about the plain a long time after they had been dismissed, a practice always disreputable to good soldiers and the officers to whom they belong. the occasion attracted an unusual assemblage of spectators, pedlers, rumsellers, rumdrinkers and gamblers; whose noise, ribaldry, intoxication, and violation of the laws in the face and eyes of the authorities, was disgraceful to the place, to the occasion, to those specially engaged in it, and to all who looked on and tolerated it. We leave it to the people to judge whether there be more good than evil derived from ‘making a muster.’" --Report of the Amherst Muster Day from The Farmers’ Cabinet, 1834

Exemptions to Militia service were:

Vice President, federal judicial and executive officers, congressmen and congressional officers, custom-house officers and clerks, post-officers and postal stage drivers, ferrymen on post roads, export inspectors, pilots, merchant mariners, and people exempted under the laws of their states"notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."

Or as the quote goes: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788 (that should be quite a few public officials).

So, militia service was NOT universal. In fact, Men actively sought exemption from militia service. This was a reason for the carnival atmosphere at muster days. Again from Story:

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights.

To be quite honest, people had jobs and other things to do than militia service and sought exemption from that duty. The muster day had a carneval feeling because it made the obligation less painful. Still there was an obligation to perform militia service. Thie was compulsory military duty which required time away from your work.

Now, they demand the right without the obligation encumbent to that right.

More of the Widom of Matthew White

From his FAQ: Death Tolls for the Man-made Megadeaths of the 20th Century

Q: Is government responsible for most of the deaths by violence and oppression in the 20th Century?

A: Well, yeah. Of course. Organized thugs kill more efficiently than disorganized thugs.

Wars and oppressions are collective endeavors, and whenever humans work collectively, they work through government. Whether wars are fought using citizen militia, standing armies, hired mercenaries, tribal warriors, corporate security teams, street gangs, paramilitaries or feudal levies, there's always a ruler or governing body to determine who does what to whom. Call it a cabinet, junta, council of elders, general staff, board of directors, politburo or capo de tutti capi -- it's a government.

Unfortunately, blaming war and tyranny on government is like blaming house fires on oxygen. Strictly speaking, it's true, but no fire marshal would ever get a good performance review if that's his answer to everything. To understand house fires, you'll have to look at wiring, storage, smoking, materials and cooking, and not just insist, "It's oxygen, I tell you! Oxygen is evil! Why won't anyone listen to me?"

Most attempts to blame government for democides depend on a kind of circular reasoning. They define "government" as any organization capable of mass violence, and then are amazed when all mass violence is produced by government. If they were to instead define "government" as, say, any organization that delivers mail or builds roads, then at least they would be moving away from obvious tautologies.

He makes a point that most people miss about the "militia", especially if they believe that being a part of an "Unorganised militia" qualifies them for dick. This is partially because they are ignorant that the "unorganised militia" is a draft pool of potential militia members. As I like to say, it's the equivalent of saying you are in the army because you have a draft card.

The really salient point is that the militias, especially during the War for American Independence, were under some form of government control. Despite the common criticism that they were as effective as a mob with sticks. The reality was that the militias and ultimately the Continental Army was under the Control of the Continental Congress and other forms of rebel government.

They weren't just some people who got together with weapons and beat off the British. In fact, the War for American Independence was both a civil war, in that the Loyalists had their own militias, and an actual war in that the British, French, Spanish, and various other countries were involved in fighting it.

So, you had both revolutionary miltia units and Loyalist militia units which were under some form of government control. They wern't unorganised bans of people who just struck out at "British tyranny" or "Rebel tyranny".

This puts the modern "militia" pretenders and Libertarian loonies in a quandry about the insurrection theory since how can one have tyranny in a democracy when one is technically the government? As Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts points out in regard to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

So, there is no right to armed rebellion and one cannot make an argument that such a right exists where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change.

Got that???

When we hang the capitalists, they will sell us the rope.

I have to admit being flooded with outrage about the Fort Hood shootings. There are loads of reasons for this.

First off, that it could have been allowed to happen. Even more so when you consider that the ridiculous access to firearms is done under the guise of the Second Amendment. This is a text that includes the words:

necessary to the security of a free State

Why has that gottten lost in the debate? I hear all sorts of stupid shit about "fighting tyranny", "rights", "Liberty", and "freedom", but I never hear about the responsibility and obligation that is incumbent upon this right.

That is service in the militia. Not some bullshit "unorganised" militia, which is the quivalent of having a draft card, but actually serving in a legally organised militia unit.

There has been at least two conspiracies to shoot up military bases in the US: Fort Dix and Quantico, VA. U.S. domestic military bases are still "wide open to attack."

Charles Faddis, a 20-year CIA counterterrorism veteran, says:

"If you drive around the United States today, other than security measures in place at airports, you will see very little has changed in the last eight years," said Faddis, who has visited several U.S. military bases in the past year while researching an upcoming book on homeland security, "Willful Neglect".

"We remain wide open to attack. That is true in the nation as a whole, and it is true on military bases as well," said Faddis, 51, who retired in 2008 as chief of the CIA's weapons of mass destruction terrorism unit. Before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, he led a counterterrorism team into northern Iraq in search of an al Qaeda base. He has authored two withering critiques of his former employer, most recently "Beyond Repair: The Decline and Fall of the CIA", published last month.

“They know how to secure an installation,” says Faddis. “They are not failing to do so because they do not know what to do. They are failing to do so, because somehow, some way, we have convinced ourselves that an attack cannot happen here.”

"You may have to show a photo ID at some locations, but even that is not always true. Even if you have to show an ID, a civilian driver's license will often suffice," he said. "Most bases remain open to civilian visitors with even the most cursory of explanations for why they are coming on post. "

Even the Fort Meade, Maryland, headquarters for both the U.S. Army Intelligence and Security Command and the super-sensitive National Security Agency, has porous security, said Faddis, who has visited the sprawling post within the last few weeks. "There are no barriers (at the gate)," he said. "If you want to stop, you do so. If you want to go by the gate and onto the base at 60 miles an hour, you do so.

"Once you are on base," the former CIA official continued, "you go wherever you want. There are no armed guards. There are no checkpoints. There is no visible security. Even entering buildings, the only kind of security you are going to see is the kind designed to deter unauthorized personnel who are trying to sneak in, steal secrets. and sneak back out.

Nothing has been done to restrict access to firearms either. One can walk in to a gun store with a valid drivers licence and walk out with enough firepower to cause serious mayhem. Hey, you can buy enough guns and ammo to start WWIII. There have been mass shootings in the United States for at least 30 year, yet gun laws are becoming laxer, not tighter. The assault weapons ban was crap, but somewhat useful. Even then, it was allowed to lapse and newly made assault weapons can once again be bought,

So, why the fuck are people who should not have access to firearms still buying them legally? Or even acquiring them easily. I mean we lock our houses and cars, but we leave firearms wide open.

The next thing that pisses me off is that people are pointing fingers at everything except what allowed this to happen.

The gun.

Yeah, sure guns are tools. They are highly effective tools for killing. They work quite quickly as the Fort Hood shootings show.

Don't give me any crap about an Army Base being a gun free zone since there was an armed guard who returned fire. They were guns on the base which could have been used to fend off the attack, but a semi-automatic pistol can has a high rate of fire. Unfortunately, people, especially civilians, don't understand that an incident like this can happen quite quickly and result in a high body count before anybody can do anything.

The FN 5.7 holds 20 rounds. In a crowded room it would be easy beyond belief to hit 43 people in a matter of a few SECONDS, say nothing of minutes.

Are you going to tell me that US soldiers are cowards and didn't resist in any way? They just let this psychotic asshole shoot up the military processing center. I don't believe that.

Not to mention someone did return fire, but by that point, the body count had racked up.

Of couse, in this outrage, we also see a backlash against muslims, which also doesn't make sense. The Fort Hood shooter could have been screaming "Kill for Cthulhu". He was a fucking whack job.

His religious pseudofundamentalism is a symptom of his mental illness.

As Zirgar said, do we point out the people who kill abortion doctors are christians? Likewise, do we point out the religion of other mass shooters? How about the asshole who shot up the Holocaust museum, what religion was he? How about the dickhead who gunned down 3 Pittsburgh Officers, what religion was he? How about the Jerkoff who shot up an LA Fitness Centre in Pittsburgh? What religion was he?

No, only this asshole because he is a "muslim".

If this is terrorism, then it is because someone with a firearms shoots up a place we would like to think is secure. But we would like to think streets, shopping malls, supermarkets, schools, universities, fitness centres, and so on are secure. Terrorism is creating a feeling of terror and panic, which mass shootings do create.

The United States has to become like Northern Ireland during the troubles where security checkpoints were ubiquitous and frequent if people are going to demand more guns without restrictions. Even with registration, there should be checkpoints.

It is completely moronic to give terrorists the tools they need to accompllish their goals. Those who block any restrictions, especially if they do it in the name of "fighing tyranny" are complicit in this act.

After all, who defines tyranny? Is it a small minority who feel that they have been wronged? Then why aren't they praising the Fort Hood shooter for standing up against what he saw as tyranny?

No, because that it complete bullshit. So, cut the crap with the Second Amendment being for "fighting tyranny" and "freedom" because somehow our freedom of movement and right to live safely will have to be curtailed. Even if that destruction of liberty is from sheer paralysis about leaving the safety of your own home.

As for the Second Amendment, I have said more than once that it is archaic and its meaning has been lost with the passing of time. The founders would be shaking their heads in disbelief at things which are being said and done regarding "the Second Amendment right". Especially when people say that the Army should be able to "exercise its Second Amendment rights".

No, too much emphasis has been placed upon the phrase "right to keep and bear arms" with neglect of the concept of the "Security of the Free State". The Supreme Court wrote those words out of the Amendment in its DC v. Heller decision, but it is time to revive that concept.

The "right to keep and bear arms" is related to the "Security of the Free State" and those who would allow terrorists, foreign or domestic, access to arms are guilty of treason.

So, where the fuck is the outrage that this shit can happen and why isn't it directed at the ease it can happen?

Collective Right Anathema to freedom?

I would argue that the entire concept of a “collective” right is an anathema to freedom. Some please tell me what ‘collective right’ they have, and how they can assert it.

Well, Those who insisted the Second Amendment was included in the Bill of Rights had a well founded fear of standing armies. They knew how often standing armies, established in the name of defending against external enemies, had instead used the power with which they had been entrusted to enslave the very peoples they had pledged to protect. Those men of wisdom also recognized how the power of tyrants almost always required control over a standing army capable of imposing the tyrant's will on an unwilling populace. The Continental Congress had no intention of allowing the liberty they sought for Americans to be easily usurped - and they were also determined not to create the means for a tyrant to seize the reins of power from the people.

A large part-time people's army reduces the likelihood of war as members derive the great bulk of their income from civilian employment thus are less than enthusiastic about interrupting their civilian lives and careers by marching off to an unnecessary war, while many citizens are far less likely to support a war of aggression if it is likely a family member will have to fight it, factors which help explain Swiss neutrality and the fact that it has not fought a war in almost 500 years (not counting a very brief civil war in 1847 that did away with the last vestiges of feudalism). Being a member of a military organization promotes discipline, comradeship and self-reliance, which fosters social cohesion and an egalitarian, democratic mindset thanks to the mixing of people from different social classes and cultural groups who would otherwise have little if any close contact with each other.

You would find that the founders also would be in complete disagreement:

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people's] freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"It astonishes me to find... [that so many] of our countrymen... should be contented to live under a system which leaves to their governors the power of taking from them the trial by jury in civil cases, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, freedom of commerce, the habeas corpus laws, and of yoking them with a standing army. This is a degeneracy in the principles of liberty... which I [would not have expected for at least] four centuries." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1788. (*) FE 5:3

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so." --Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

"When a government wishes to deprive its citizens of freedom, and reduce them to slavery, it generally makes use of a standing army." -- Luther Martin, Maryland delegate to the Constitutional Convention

Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures ith respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins. This was actually done by Great Britain at the commencement of the late revolution. They used every means in their power to prevent the establishement of an effective militia to the eastward. The assembly of Massachusetts, seeing the rapid progress that administration were making, to divest them of their inherent privileges, endeavored to counteract them by the organization of the militia, but they were always defeated by the influence of the crown. The Congressional Register, 17 August 1789

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

It must be made a sacred maxim, that the militia obey the executive power, which represents the whole people in the execution of laws. To suppose arms in the hands of the citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self defense, or by partial orders of towns, counties, or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed, and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws. Adams, John, A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America,1787-88, p. 474-5

The Bill of Rights secures to the people the use of arms in common defense; so that, if it be an alienable right, one use of arms is secured to the people against any law of the legislature. The other purposes for which they might have been used in a state of nature, being a natural right, and not surrendered by the constitution, the people still enjoy, and [may?] continue to do so till the legislature shall think fit to interdict. "Scribble Scrabble," Cumberland Gazette, January 26, 1787; "Scribble-Scrabble," ibid., December 8, 1786

Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments. They are the fruit of much labor and research. He has hunted up all the grievances and complaints of newspapers, all the articles of conventions, and the small talk of their debates. It contains a bill of rights, the right of enjoying property, of changing the government at pleasure, freedom of the press, of conscience, of juries, exemption from general warrants, gradual increase of representatives, till the whole number, at the rate of one to every thirty thousand, shall amount to ____, and allowing two to every State, at least. This is the substance. There is too much of it. Oh! I had forgot, the right of the people to bear arms.

Risum teneatic amici? [Hold your laughter, friends.]

Upon the whole, it may do some good towards quieting men, who attend to sounds only, and may get the mover [Madison] some popularity, which he wishes. Fischer Ames, letter to Thomas Dwight, June 11, 1789

And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution 3:§ 1890

The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense. The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed.

To hold that the legislature could pass no law upon this subject, by which to preserve the public peace, and protect our citizens from the terror, which a wanton and unusual exhibition of arms might produce, or their lives from being endangered by desperadoes with concealed arms, would be to pervert a great political right to the worst of purposes, and to make it a social evil, of infinitely a greater extent to society, than would result from abandoning the right itself. Aymette v. State, 21 Tenn. (2 Hump.) 154 (1840).

So, your right to be free from a large military establishment was of the highest importance!

For Sevesteen

The Militia Information Service is an Internet website dedicated to the democratization of military forces around the world.

This service was created by the Human Rights Coalition (Australia) and is committed to two objectives:

* Promoting the democratization of national armed forces as a safeguard against tyranny and crimes against humanity; and
* Educating the public about the danger posed by the monopolization of force into the hands of professional soldiers.

I don't agree with this group, but they do present the miltia based idea of military service. While it is a bit fringy, it isn't as fringy as the "militia" groups in the US. It's belief that citizens have a duty to join a Swiss Army style citizen army, army reserve, or Home Guard type militia in order to act as a democratic safeguard and help deter crimes against humanity like genocide is defintely similar to the idea presented at the time of the drafting of the US Constitution. That is a militia is distinct from the full-time professional soldiers paid by the government. In modern times the militia normally serves to supplement a standing army (e.g., help it resist an invasion) and act as a safeguard against it (i.e., deter a military coup).

This is very close to the beliefs of the Founders of the United StateS:

A large part-time people's army reduces the likelihood of war as members derive the great bulk of their income from civilian employment thus are less than enthusiastic about interrupting their civilian lives and careers by marching off to an unnecessary war, while many citizens are far less likely to support a war of aggression if it is likely a family member will have to fight it, factors which help explain Swiss neutrality and the fact that it has not fought a war in almost 500 years (not counting a very brief civil war in 1847 that did away with the last vestiges of feudalism). Being a member of a military organization promotes discipline, comradeship and self-reliance, which fosters social cohesion and an egalitarian, democratic mindset thanks to the mixing of people from different social classes and cultural groups who would otherwise have little if any close contact with each other.

Hessians

Someone pointed out that King George had Hessian soldiers in his employment in reaction to my pointing out that the United Colonies had French, Spanish, and Dutch support. The combined strength of the Americans and the French virtually guaranteed victory against Great Britain, not the citizen soldiers of the militia (BTW, there were also loyalist militia units). The Continental Army soldier Benjamin Thompson, who expressed the 'common sentiment' at the time which was that minutemen were notoriously poor marksmen with rifles:[1]

"Instead of being the best marksmen in the world and picking off every Regular that was to be seen...the continual firing which they kept up by the week and the month has had no other effect than to waste their ammunition and convince the King's troops that they are really not really so formidable."[2]

See also France in the American Revolutionary War and Loyalists during the American Revolution.

The amount of support given by france was rather staggering with the French troops outnumbering both British and American troops at the siege of Yorktown!

French: 11,800 regulars, 29 war ships
American: 5,700 regulars 3,100 militia

British: 9,000 soldiers

Hessians were a different thing.

Hessians comprised approximately one-quarter of the British forces in the Revolution. They were called Hessians, because 16,992 of the total 30,067 men came from Hesse-Kassel. Some were direct subjects of King George III, even though they were not British, since he ruled them as the Elector of Hanover. Other "Hessian" soldiers were sent by Count William of Hesse-Hanau; Duke Charles I of Brunswick-Wolfenbüttel; Prince Frederick of Waldeck; Margrave Karl Alexander of Ansbach-Bayreuth; and Prince Frederick Augustus of Anhalt-Zerbst.

About 18,000 Hessian troops arrived in the Thirteen Colonies in 1776, with more coming in later. They first landed at Staten Island on August 15, 1776, and their first engagement was in the Battle of Long Island. The Hessians fought in almost every battle, although after 1777 they were mainly used as garrison troops. An assortment of Hessians fought in the battles and campaigns in the southern states during 1778–80 (including Guilford Courthouse), and two regiments fought at the Siege of Yorktown in 1781.

The troops were not mercenaries in the modern sense of military professionals who voluntarily hire out their own services for money. As in most armies of the eighteenth century, the men were mainly conscripts, debtors, or the victims of impressment; some were also petty criminals. Pay was low; some soldiers apparently received nothing but their daily food. The officer corps usually consisted of career officers who had served in earlier European wars. The revenues realized from the men's service went back to the German royalty. Nevertheless, some Hessian units were respected for their discipline and excellent military skills.

The real rub comes since use of Hessian troops by the British further rankled American sentiment, and pushed some loyalists to be in favor of the revolution. Using foreign troops to put down the rebellion was seen as insulting, as it treated British subjects no differently than non-British subjects; Some pro-British Tories felt that the British nature of Americans should have entitled them to be above mercenary forces.

The problem was that many of the Loyalist Officers depended on local support to fill the ranks of the Loyalist units. So, I find it annoying that someone who claimed loyalty to the crown would not come forth and do their duty. Moreover it was their duty to serve in Loyalist units if they were insulted by the use of Hessians. This is one of the reasons for the reputation the loyalists had for being cowardly.

If you consider that the War for American Independence was a civil war to begin with, this would be roughly like the US Forces expecting some other power to come to their rescue.

Nevermind, that the forces of rebellion needed the help of the French to defeat the British.

Yet another funny RKBA quote

From Is there Contrary Evidence of an Individual Right?

Historian Garry Wills has made an attempt at claiming the above. An online article, from the gun control group Join Together, reports Wills as writing "any claims that the Constitution ensures an armed citizenry as a bulwark against the potential tyranny of government is a myth. 'You can't read the amendment apart from the body of the Constitution,' he wrote, 'and the body of the Constitution defines taking up arms against the United States as treason.' " [quoting Wills from his book, A Necessary Evil: A History of American Distrust of Government (1999)]

A myth? Not according to Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison in 1811)--at least in the Guncite article author's opinion

No myth

Article III, Section 3.

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted.

Treason is the only crime mentioned in the Constitution. Actaully, one should read and quote the relevant section in Story's Commentaries, which are those relating to Article III, Section iii.

Somehow, I don't see Story's quote in the guncite article as contradicting the US Constution: do you?

Anyway and again, the whole passage from Joseph Story-Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, vol. 3 at pp. 746-747 (1833):

"§ 1889. The next amendment is "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.

"§ 1890. The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them. [FN1] And yet, thought this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. [FN2]

"§ 1891. A similar provision in favour of protestants (for to them it is confined) is to be found in the [English] Bill of Rights of 1688, it being declared, "that the subjects, which are protestants, may have arms for their defence suitable to their condition, and as allowed by law." [FN3] But under various pretences the effect of this provision has been greatly narrowed; and it is at present in England more nominal than real, as a defensive privilege."

Note that Story is talking about the institution of the Militia in relation to the Second Amendment, not personal ownership of firearms, lamenting "How is it practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization". The problem is that the Militia was pretty much dead at the time Story was writing, which he mourns in this passage. In fact, the militia was a still birth.

I mean if the Second Amendment were truly vibrant, there wouldn't be the large military budget since:

It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.

Again, from Story's Commentaries regarding Article III, Section iii of Constitution:

§ 1292. The propriety of investing the national government with authority to punish the crime of treason against the United States could never become a question with any persons, who deemed the national government worthy of creation, or preservation. If the power had not been expressly granted, it must have been implied, unless all the powers of the national government might be put at defiance, and prostrated with impunity. Two motives, probably, concurred in introducing it, as an express power. One was, not to leave it open to implication, whether it was to be exclusively punishable with death according to the known rule of the common law, and with the barbarous accompaniments pointed out by it; but to confide the punishment to the discretion of congress. The other was, to impose some limitation upon the nature and extent of the punishment, so that it should not work corruption of blood or forfeiture beyond the life of the offender.

Another point, Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951) puts paid to the insurrectionist theory:

The obvious purpose of the statute is to protect existing Government, not from change by peaceable, lawful and constitutional means, but from change by violence, revolution and terrorism. That it is within the power of the Congress to protect the Government of the United States from armed rebellion is a proposition which requires little discussion. Whatever theoretical merit there may be to the argument that there is a "right" to rebellion against dictatorial governments is without force where the existing structure of the government provides for peaceful and orderly change. We reject any principle of governmental helplessness in the face of preparation for revolution, which principle, carried to its logical conclusion, must lead to anarchy. No one could conceive that it is not within the power of Congress to prohibit acts intended to overthrow the Government by force and violence. The question with which we are concerned here is not whether Congress has such power, but whether the means which it has employed conflict with the First and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

What? No mention of the Second Amendment in that passage??? Again, the Second Amendment cannot be construed as allowing treason or "change by violence, revolution and terrorism" since armed revolt is unconstitutional under Article III, Section iii.