David Virtue's Irrational Hoplophobia - Part 5 in a Series

This article, "The Uvalde School Shooting is Complicated",  was penned by Virtue Online contributor Mary Ann Mueller and published there in the aftermath of the Uvalde shooting.  It is a long, rambling, emotional, mostly contentless piece, but I hope my readers will suffer through it for my replies in italicized bold.

"I see no need for civilians to be in possession of military-style assault rifle firearms such as the AK-47 or the AR-15, the Gatling gun or the machine gun. Those weapons are designed for warfare."

As I pointed out here, those who make such arguments are:

"either oblivious to or willfully suppresses the fact that *all* weapons are designed to kill human beings, or animals or both.  That is what a "weapon" is.   Moreover, not for Virtue, apparently, is the fact that the right to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment to the United States and as reaffirmed by the United States Supreme Court in the Heller, McDonald and recent Buren decisions protects exactly the kind of firearms he decries, mainly firearms suited for military use (e.g., the AR platform).  The Second Amendment, which at the time of its drafting had neither recreational shooting or hunting in mind, but connection with the needs of a "well-regulated militia".  This was affirmed in the 1939 US Supreme Court U.S. v. Miller.  

At the time of the amendment's drafting and adoption, black powder rifles, handguns and other small arms were the weapons used by the militia and Continental Army. And the amendment says the "the people" have the right to own such arms.  Gun-control advocates such as Virtue repeatedly trot out the trot out the tired, old argument that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the technological development of more potentially legal weaponry, but this false on its face.  The Founders were learned men of the Enlightenment conversant with old and evolving technologies of all kinds, and they accordingly knew that military small arms technology would continue to evolve.  Thomas Jefferson owned two Giradoni rifles, a precursor to automatic-fire technology.  The Puckle Gun, patented in 1718, was an early Gatling Gun.

And with every new development of military small arms - muzzle-loading to breech loading, single shot to multiple shot (revolvers, lever action rifles and bolt-action rifles), to semiautomatics (late 19th century), to full automatics - American civilians were deemed to have just as much a right to access the evolving technology as the military did.  This argument commonly spewed by hoplophobes that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own "weapons of war" is therefore roundly defeated."

Furthermore, it is not for Virtue, Mueller, any other hoplophobe or some state or federal legislature to tell us gun owners what kinds of firearms we "don't need."  As the saying goes, "It's a Bill of Rights, not a Bill of Needs".  Military-style firearms with 30-round magazines are precisely the kind of firearm we might need in certain situations.  Think community defense in the aftermath of a natural disaster.  Think Kyle Rittenhouse.

"Right now, the Ukrainians would like to get their hands on as many military-style assault rifles as they can as they fend off Russian military aggression"

Which, in light of my previous comment, illustrates the point.  Ms. Mueller hereby gives away the store.

"Keeping and using a long-barreled rifle for deer hunting or target practice is legitimate. I have hunted in Wisconsin. And I grew up with my family being avid big and small game hunters. My father loved hunting pheasants in southern Wisconsin with his faithful bird dog flushing out the birds."

Of course it is legitimate, but the Second Amendment nowhere mentions the right to keep and bear arms in connection with recreational shooting or hunting, and once again, it is not for Virtue, Mueller, any other hoplophobe or some state or federal legislature to tell us gun owners what kinds of firearms are "legitimate" for us and which are not.

"My father was an NRA member, but he never owned an AK-47 or an AR-15. He owned a 30.06, a 30-30 and an M-1. I learned to shoot using daddy's M-1."

Indeed. So?  Many if not most NRA members today do own the AK, AR and other platforms.  Her father's choice is irrelevant to us.

"Also keeping a pistol handy for protection against home invasion is within reason. A man's home is his castle. And at times that castle and castle dwellers (the family) have to be defended with deadly force. A baseball bat just doesn't cut the mustard or crack a head."

Ms. Mueller shoud then follow the logic: what if it's not just a lone crackhead but a band of heavily-armed maruaders?  In that case one will want more than just a handgun.  Something like, say, an AR or an AK with a goodly number of "high-capacity" magazines.

"The Second 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."

Parsing the words "militia" basically means an armed civilian force backing up the rag-tag military in a time of extraordinary need.

We now have a well-trained military to provide the necessary security needed for a free state. Civilians rarely take up arms to defend the government."

Ms. Mueller could not have missed the point of the Second Amendment here more spectacularly.  The reason the Antifederalists insisted on appending a Bill of Rights to the propsed Constitution is because they feared it would potentially lead to federal usurpation against the people and the states.  (Turns out they were right.) The right of the people to keep and bear arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment was connected principally with, *but not limited to*, the right of a state to take up arms against the federal government and its armed forces that had turned tyrannical, and this is why her statement that "we now have a well-trained military to provide the necessary security needed for a free state" is absolutely absurd.  Yes, "civilians rarely take up arms to defend the government", but it doesn't logically follow from this that nowadays civilians can just rest on their laurels and expect the government to be the good guys.  Events happening today in Mordor-On-The-Potomac are illustrative of why that just isn't so.

"Nowadays the National Guard acts as the "well-regulated militia," since it is basically made up of civilians doing their civic duty during the time of civil crisis. Even my father was a Civil Air Patrol pilot. He liked to fly small single engine airplanes and had his civilian pilot's license."

 Uh, no.  Here is the current definition from the U.S. Code:

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes 

(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.

Subsection (b)(2) stems from the clear affirmations of the Founding Fathers that the "popular" or "constitutional" militia is not a state or federal miltary force, but *the people* themselves.  Hence the wording of the Second Amendment's juxtapostion of "the people's" right to keep and bear arms and the preservation of a "well-regulated (meaning trained to arms) militia." 

 “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves... and include all men capable of bearing arms.”  Richard Henry Lee, The Letters Of Richard Henry Lee 1762-1778 V1

“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.

“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.” - George Mason (Elliott, Debates, 425-426)

These are only a few of the quotations that can be adduced from the Founders demonstrating that they viewed the "well-regulated militia" to be the general populace, and that understanding is reflected in US Code 10 sec. 246 subsection (b)(2), as noted above.  Anti-gunners like David Virtue typically scoff at this notion.  Well, let them scoff, because it's true.  It was true yesterday and it is true today, and Ms. Mueller is just flat wrong.

The next part of Mueller's goes on a bit of a tangent (poetry and such), until the end, where she gets it wrong again:

"The Second Amendment ensures the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms.

However, the Founding Fathers were dealing with muskets and flintlock pistols. They never envisioned the type of weaponry that are used, and more importantly, abused today."

And as I countered here: 

"Gun-control advocates such as Virtue repeatedly trot out the trot out the tired, old argument that the Founding Fathers could not have foreseen the technological development of more potentially legal weaponry, but this false on its face.  The Founders were learned men of the Enlightenment conversant with old and evolving technologies of all kinds, and they accordingly knew that military small arms technology would continue to evolve.  Thomas Jefferson owned two Giradoni rifles, a precursor to automatic-fire technology.  The Puckle Gun, patented in 1718, was an early Gatling Gun.

And with every new development of military small arms - muzzle-loading to breech loading, single shot to multiple shot (revolvers, lever action rifles and bolt-action rifles), to semiautomatics (late 19th century), to full automatics - American civilians were deemed to have just as much a right to access the evolving technology as the military did.  This argument commonly spewed by hoplophobes that the Second Amendment does not guarantee the right to own "weapons of war" is thereby roundly refuted."

"During Colonial times, guns were vital to a household. They were used to provide meat for the family. A deer for venison, wild turkey and rabbit for the dinner table. Guns also provided protection against invaders -- be they two legged or four legged -- for the well-being and safety of the family."

While true, Ms. Mueller again ignores the Second Amendment's connection of the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" and the preservation of a "well-regulated militia".  It makes no connection whatsoever between that right and the ability to kill game to feed one's family.  It doesn't even link the right to self-defense, though the *constitutional history* behind the amendment does.  The right to keep and bear arms in connection with self-defense was accordingly affirmed in Heller.

"I would imagine if the Second Amendment were to be penned today it would be written differently, taking into account the type of firearms we now have and the political climate."

Given the general intellectually diminished nature of today's American political class, that's surely true.  Thankfully the Founders were much more learned and intelligent men and were able to enshrine the right in the Constitution when they did.  The right of *individuals* to keep and bear arms is now settled law, so there's not much point in speculating what the American political class would do today.

"I do not see common sense gun control laws as an infringement against the Second Amendment. The people would still have "the right to keep and bear arms" but with practical limitations and community safeguards in place.

It makes no common sense that an 18-year-old cannot belly-up-to-the-bar for a beer, but waltz to a gun store for an AR-15."

Well again, says Ms. Mueller.  Not only do we disagree with her notion of what "common sense" requires here, but we simply care nothing about her unlearned opinion on the matter.  For us, it is perfectly reasonable for a qualified 18-year old to purchase an AR-15, especially since he's old enough to enlist or be drafted and fight in a war bearing *true* assault weapons.

The rest of Ms. Mueller's article is merely a meandering ramble, where I believe she gets a few things right, though they're not about gun control per se but instead the terrible spiritual and cultural problems that plague modern society and which is the *major contibutor* to gun-related violence.  It may be worth your while, so read on in Virtue Online article if you choose.  I've addressed all I need to address in this reply.

Part 6