Mediaboss Marketing

Mark L. Hopkins | Special to the Daily News

A few months back I wrote a column titled, Guns dont kill people. Really? My column usually will draw between 30 and 40 responses each week, some positive and some negative. That column, however, kept me answering emails through much of the next week and beyond.

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.

When the Guns dont kill people column was published, I heard from a number of NRA members. The NRA has often claimed that back in the late 18th century the men who are known as the framers of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights adopted the Second Amendment because they wanted an armed population that would have the weaponry at hand to take down the U.S. government should it become tyrannical. The actual history which preceded the Second Amendment says otherwise. It says, in fact, that the framers of the constitution wanted a strong federal government. To protect that government, they wanted a Second Amendment that would legally create and arm state citizen-based militias capable of stopping citizen rebellions and insurrections against state or federal governments. Though we can date the creation of the National Guard back to 1636 in Massachusetts, the Second Amendment was the first official reference to such militia at the federal level.

So, why did the framers of the Constitution believe they needed an armed militia? The key leaders of the United States at the time were wealthy members of what was in effect an American aristocracy, men like George Washington, James Madison, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Benjamin Franklin. Because of their own experience and knowledge of European countries, especially England and France, they clearly understood the need for an orderly, controlled and smooth-running society, not only for the general population but also to protect their own economic interests.

By the time the Second Amendment was passed the United States government had already experienced several citizen rebellions. Chief among these were Shays Rebellion in Massachusetts and the Whisky Rebellion in Pennsylvania. This was at a time when the federal government did not have an army. Without a military unit available to assert control they had no way to deal with such rebellions. In Boston, a wealthy group of merchants put together a militia to stop Shays rebellion. Two years later, when the Whisky Rebellion occurred in western Pennsylvania, President George Washington was alarmed enough that he put together his own militia, marched into Pennsylvania and arrested the perpetrators. In short, the countrys leadership had experienced citizen rebellions and wanted something with teeth to handle such problems in the future.

For those who believe that I am twisting the tail of the tiger by again broaching the sore subject of gun ownership and control, please view this effort as one of promoting discussion. I am not for removing guns from homes. Such would be as impossible as sending 11 million illegal aliens back to their home countries.

In subsequent columns I will lay out the foundational history that precipitated the creation of the gun clause in the Second Amendment. The next column will focus on President George Washingtons perspective on the rebellions and what he thought should be done about them.

Righting some wrongs is just not feasible. We have to make the best of our current situation. Our people have guns, more than 300 million of them, and most are not for going deer hunting on the weekend.

Dr. Mark L. Hopkins writes for More Content Now and Scripps Newspapers.

Read this article:
Mark L. Hopkins: More on guns and the Second Amendment - The Northwest Florida Daily News