Editor’s note: This commentary is by Bill Dunkel, of Windham, who is a retired teacher, coach and high school principal.
[I]t is well known that the Founding Fathers opposed “standing” (i.e. permanent, professional) armies. History had shown over and over that armies often became the tools of tyrants. Instead, the Founders preferred to rely upon the militia to defend the state against its enemies, domestic and foreign. To cite but one example among many, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #29, “… it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. … This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it …”
As the Second Amendment indicates in its first clause (“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”) the role of the militia was to defend the nation, which is why citizens were guaranteed the right to possess arms in the second clause (“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”). If citizen soldiers could quickly grab their muskets and respond effectively to an insurrection or an invasion, the hope was that a permanent army would not be needed, or could at least be kept to a bare minimum. This was an assurance the Founders especially needed as they created a new Constitution which made the president commander in chief of the army, navy and the militia when it was called into federal service.
Article 16 of the Vermont Constitution spells this out even more precisely: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence (sic) of themselves and the State — as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.”
Note that the purpose of guaranteeing the constitutional right to bear arms is to defend, not resist, the national authority. Indeed, during the early days of the republic the militia was called upon numerous times to put down insurrections (Shay’s Rebellion, the Whiskey Rebellion and several others long since forgotten) that threatened a free people’s duly elected government.
As the United States expanded and became more involved in international affairs it became obvious that a permanent army and navy were necessary. But for a very long time, the Founders’ fear of a standing army persisted. After every war in the 19th century and the first half of the 20th century, America very quickly shrunk the size of the military once peace was declared. We tried to do the same thing after World War II, but our role in the Cold War made that impossible. Times had changed; the notion of mustering the militia as enemy bombers or nuclear missiles headed our way was, to say the least, quaint. Today a permanent military establishment is accepted as a matter of course by almost everyone. Indeed, polls indicate that Americans respect and admire the military more than just about any government institution (certainly far more than Congress).
Recently, there has been a concerted effort to decouple the two halves of the Second Amendment and treat the first clause as if it were some meaningless rhetorical flourish. It is commonplace to read blogs and tweets which claim that the amendment’s original intent was to arm citizens to resist governmental repression, and that the right to possess any weapon for that purpose is virtually unlimited. I think that interpretation is historically inaccurate and dangerous for several reasons.
First, consider the exact words and the historical context of both the U.S. and Vermont constitutions. A really strict constructionist might plausibly argue that the Second Amendment guarantees every citizen the right to a muzzle-loading musket so they can serve in the militia to protect the state against its enemies. Second, the notion that the right to bear arms is unlimited has the potential to make us much less safe. Does the Second Amendment guarantee everyone the right to possess hand grenades or a futuristic laser weapon the size of a cellphone? While it’s obvious that widespread availability of such weapons would be a prescription for disaster, there is no shortage of people who claim the Second Amendment guarantees their right to bear arms of any kind, and that any form of gun control violates the Constitution.
If you are fearful that the government is going to become despotic, the best protection is not a massive private arsenal. Abandon any fantasies you have about being a heroic freedom fighter hiding out in the mountains. Equipped with the most sophisticated surveillance technology available, someone sipping coffee in a building a thousand miles away will push a button and a drone strike will erase your hiding place before you know what hit you. Your best protection against military despotism, if that’s what keeps you up at night, is indicated in the Vermont Constitution. Free elections, the rule of law and constitutional checks and balances are the necessary tools to keep the military under the control of duly elected civilian authority.
However, the real threat to our safety and security isn’t the “Deep State,” whatever that’s supposed to be; it’s the next unbalanced malcontent with an assault style weapon that he purchased legally, without a background check, who decides to shoot up a school, movie theater or concert venue. That’s what keeps me up at night.
One final point; if you believe that putting more guns in schools is the best way to deter the next well-armed psychopath, let’s stop trying to do it cheaply. Asking a teacher to design challenging lessons, grade the pile of papers on his/her desk, coach tomorrow’s soccer game, and – in their spare time – prepare to stop an active shooter armed with an AR-15 is absurd. If we are at the point where we have to harden our schools because we’ve been foolish enough to make millions of weapons available to just about everyone on demand, let’s put trained police officers and professional security guards in every school and give them the technology and other tools they need to protect the students. It will cost a bundle of money, and our taxes will go up, but at least this would be a viable proposal.
