I found a Tweet to an interesting Mother Jones article entitled “How the Left ‘Blew It’ On Gun Control,” by Dan Baum. (Yeah…Mother Jones. The Marxist armpit of American publications. I was surprised, too.) I had not heard about Mr. Baum’s writings, given that he was a writer at the New Yorker, normally a dry, boring magazine for the lunatics living in NYC who think literary culture is the epitome of civilization. (It ain’t.) But he at least gets the 2A and the insistence by Liberty-minded folks upon preserving the culture of firearms use in the United States.
But he did have one interesting section on the NRA that got me to thinking. Mr. Baum is half-right about this–and half-absolutely-freaking-wrong on the other half. Here is the exchange:
MJ: What would an organization that represents the views of responsible gun owners look like to you?
DB: It would look like the NRA before 1977. I think it’s appropriate for the NRA to be vigilant against gun bans. I began my book-writing career with a book about the drug war, so I have a deep-seated aversion to banning things. I think it’s counterproductive. I think it’s un-American. I think it’s stupid. I would like to see the NRA back to promoting the discipline sport of safe firearms handling and shooting. To tell you the truth, I think shooting is a great sport. It’s a really fun and valuable thing we have in this country, and young people aren’t very interested in it. But man, shooting is a great thing for kids. Shooting is incredibly disciplining.
I immediately thought, “Okay, if the NRA goes back to a firearms instruction organization, okay, sure…but who then is going to deal with the issues currently handled by the NRA’s Institute for Legislative Action, the infamous gun lobby?”
It’s almost like Mr. Baum, who enjoys firearms, doesn’t want any organization to actively fight for them. Er…so, if firearms were to be confiscated or removed, how then would you enjoy them, Mr. Baum? Really, sometimes these Leftists are the dumbest fucks alive. Talk about a world-case class of cognitive dissonance…bozo.
But this exchange got me thinking. Why did the NRA create ILA in 1977? For one reason: no one else was stepping up to defend the Second Amendment and its concept of a citizen’s militia.
And why is that? It’s because no official body has actively defended the concept of a citizens’ militia since the 1903 Dick Act was passed establishing the National Guard over the state militia units that made up our nation’s military forces during the 19th century. It’s why we wound up with odious garbage such as the 1934 National Firearms Act, or the Nazi Weapons Law-based 1968 Gun Control Act. Or the 1986 Hughes Amendment, one of the greatest acts of treason ever committed against the United States Constitution.
So…here is my proposal to not only defend the Second Amendment, but give it a reason–a real reason for existence–and most importantly, to give it the legal and military force needed to defend, preserve, and expand upon its concept of civilian military forces entirely separate from the United States Armed Forces.
We need to expand government (says the hard-Right libertarian).
We need a U.S. Department of the Militia (USDM).
This body would encompass in some way state military forces, as well as training of civilians in proper firearms use, military tactics appropriate to the force, and long-distance marksmanship.
It would also in some way have a similar function to NRA-ILA, but with laws backing up its existence, its use of firearms, and its ability to protect the Second Amendment with not only legislative lobbying power–but legal force to stop any attempts to undermine the Amendment and its purpose.
It would also have military force to enforce this protection. And this military force would use laws entirely separate from those being enforced by DOJ or any other law enforcement or military organization.
More on this later. I need to noodle it for a while.