In other news, WP fronts word that the Pentagon is planning to delve deeper into homeland security with 20,000 specially trained troops, who will be stationed inside the United States by 2011 to help government officials respond to a terrorist attack "or other domestic catastrophe.
-- "Today's Papers" over at Slate
It is often said that the President is "our" commander-in-chief, when in actuality the Constitution says:
The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States
The stationing of 20,000 specially trained troops might be useful, though it does call to mind the usual fear of "standing armies," a sentiment that directly inspired the Second and Third Amendments, honoring the "militia" and the supremacy of the civil over the military power.
A "specially" trained group is just the sort of "select militia" that some feared, leading to the push for the reaffirmation of the "right of the people" to make up a "well regulated militia." Necessary tasks would be done, but in a somewhat different way. The recent Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding, this should be emphasized, not just the underlining right to own a firearm. See also, the use of the "militia" (that is specifically given domestic sounding tasks, such as executing the laws or repelling invasions) -- guard units -- for overseas missions, at times burdening domestic tasks such as dealing with national disasters.
The militia is basically us. Like our duty to serve jury duty, citizens also have a duty to serve in the militia when called to duty. And, being willing and able to do so, much like the average voter has a duty to be an informed citizen, even if not forced to do so. The feds also have the power to "call forth" the militia for national tasks, as they did, e.g., during the civil rights era. Or, when the Civil War broke. The people themselves, civilians usually, members of the active militia when necessary, would have a different mind-set and knowledge base than the select few who (honorably) volunteer. We rightly honor the military, but as with the police, they have a downside ... why have a Fourth Amendment, if police are just our pals, right?
Imagine, for instance, what might have been if local militia was trained and on the ready when Katrina hit. IOW, average citizens of each area, generally "off duty" going about their regular lives, but prepared when a disaster hit. Not outsiders or a select few who would swoop in to save them. A process, as some who demand the right to owe a gun for self defense (outside the likes of Mr. Burress*) will rightly say, that is an inexact science.
So, perhaps the 20,000 is a good idea. But, the training and preparation of the local militia is perhaps a more important one. Surely, in raw numbers as well as immediate effect, they will be very essential. A usual rejoinder tends to be that the military here would be a useful resource. So they say about the police ... how does that go in some places? It probably is not an all or nothing enterprise, especially in this age of national involvement in nearly everything, but we still should be on guard. And, realize it is but one tool after all.
A more democratic, or shall we say (with apologies), republican tool is also available.
---
* Violence, even at home, against sports figures suggest that it is not necessarily wrong for some players to think that owning a firearm is appropriate. It is a closer question, and concealed carry has been studied enough to suggest the fact is open to debate, if this is a good idea outside of the home.
All the same, even players supportive of their teammate were sure to say that there are limits in this area. "Well regulated" and all that includes licensing and safety issues, as Heller will tell you. Anyway, try not to shoot yourself in the thigh ... the foot is enough.