Taxicabs and guns help drive freedom
It has been several months since I attended a Friday evening lecture on the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights presented at the Coeur d'Alene Public Library. The scholarly presentation was devoid of passion and political ideology. It was delivered by an expert on the subject who was also an excellent speaker.
His conclusion, as I understood him, was that the writers of this important amendment were dealing with a problem of how to maintain a viable government (under circumstances which no longer exist) and the intent was not to allow ownership of weaponry by citizens, except as necessary to secure a free state by a well regulated militia. Also, current conditions, such as a high rate of suicide by firearms, should make private ownership of firearms if not illegal, then tightly controlled.
As a reference and review, let me state the simple yet complex sentence that has caused so much debate:
"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."
During the question and answer period, I was unprepared to present a contrasting point of view fearing I would waste others' time while I tried to explain why I felt the speaker's conclusion lacked completeness. Besides, I needed some time to present a concise reply with some logic, which would be as free of passion and political ideology as was the presenter's point of view. So, in the interest of completeness, I would like to offer a concept I believe is inherent in the Second Amendment.
In 1914 the Germans were pressing toward Paris. There were inadequate French troops to deny their overtaking the wellspring of French history, culture and life. In recognition of the danger, private citizens of Paris marshaled 150 taxicabs to transport to the Marne the needed resistance to the German invasion. In doing so, their "Taxicab Army" was deemed to have helped stop German troops from entering Paris.
This recollection of World War I history leads me to think that French law might well have borrowed from our Constitution in the following way:
"A well regulated highly mobile militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms own and drive automobiles shall not be infringed."
The concept that I believe was not addressed by the lecture was this. The writers of the Second Amendment were saying that free people can own arms and use them for commerce, pleasure, collection, self defense, etc. so when called upon to form a well regulated militia, they would be so eager to defend this and so many other manifestations of freedom that they would bravely respond when called upon.
The trust imparted by such a government would engender not only loyalty but also love.
In 1914, Paris was saved by the help of private citizens who stepped into the fray with needed transportation resources and then returned to their daily lives with their automobiles to be used in whatever way they would choose.
It appears to me that the writers of the Second Amendment were so concerned about the long-term survival of freedom that they made special note of who could keep and bear arms - the people. The entire idea behind the Second Amendment is based on the belief that a free state exists.
I can only imagine that the dismantling of the Second Amendment could only occur when the United States is no longer a free state.
Dick Sheldon is a Coeur d'Alene resident.