THE MOST DANGEROUS AMENDMENT?

“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.”
U.S. Const, Amend 2

In the run-up to and aftermath of the Supreme Court argument in the Chicago gun ban case, McDonald v. Chicago, I heard an anti-gunner refer to the Second Amendment as “the most dangerous amendment.” Then the Philadelphia Inquirer, a champion of the First Amendment, editorialized in the same vein, although it did not use those words. And it got me to wondering. . ..

The document that the Constitutional Convention of 1787 sent to the States for review and ratification was a framework for a central government of limited powers. However, a number of prominent Americans, particularly George Mason of Virginia, one of the drafters of the Constitution, were concerned about the absence in the document of any protections of the fundamental rights of free men. So distressed was he that he refused to sign the document in part because it lacked any provisions specifically protecting explicit States’ rights and individual rights to balance against the significantly increased federal powers conferred upon the proposed central government. Upon his return to Virginia, along with Patrick Henry and other anti-federalists, he pressed for such a statement. The result was a “bill” (or list) of 12 amendments to be taken up by the First Congress which sent them to the States in 1789. Based on the Virginia Declaration of Rights, which Mason had drafted in 1776, proposals 3 through 12 were ratified by the States by 1791 and are now known to us as "the Bill of Rights."

Allow me to digress. The second proposed amendment, which was also sent to the States in 1789 was finally ratified in 1992 as the 27th Amendment. That amendment limits the power of Congress to increase the salaries of its members by requiring one election to occur after a pay raise is adopted before it goes into effect. Significantly, Congress has not formally raised its own pay since ratification, taking only occasional “cost of living” increases based on inflation. Those pesky voters might object, eh?

To return to the topic, what is it that makes our liberal friends so fear the Second Amendment, while revering the First and Fourth through Eighth? Why do folks who find a “right of privacy” (never mentioned in the Constitution) which, they claim, “clearly” allows unlimited abortion nonetheless deny the very explicit statement of the Second Amendment?

I suspect that it is for the same reason that one “scholar” on a recent national news program opined that it is “unfair” for small States to have the same number of Senators as, e.g., California, thus enabling 20 small States to block “important, crucial” legislation such as his preference for national single payer health insurance. (Quaere: Has our educational system become so bankrupt as to fail to teach Americans our constitutional history—that the great compromise of 1787 envisioned exactly that result?)

The importance of the Second Amendment to the preservation of our liberties is demonstrated
every time a politician, sadly, usually a member of the Democratic Party, claims to know better what the people need than do individual citizens. That claim of a right of the elitist liberal ruling class to ignore the desires of the people is exactly what the framers knew they had to protect against by adopting the Bill of Rights.

And to ensure that the new federal government was never allowed to usurp the rights of the people, a right of the people to keep and bear arms was essential. After the Revolutionary War, most of the 13 States incorporated into their constitutions a “right of revolution.” The current Constitution of New Hampshire, adopted in 1784, provides in Part I, Article 10 that

Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.

The Constitutions of at least two other States (North Carolina and Tennessee) and 2 Commonwealths (Pennsylvania and Kentucky) still specifically recognize a right of revolution, described in the constitutions of the two commonwealths as “an inalienable and indefeasible right [of the people] to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may deem proper.”

Thus, the Second Amendment is actually the most important, the one that ensures all the others, and the least dangerous to the freedom and rights of the people. It ensures the survival of the protections afforded by the rest of the Constitution.

In 1989, as the Nation celebrated the bi-Centennial of the Constitution, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a ten-day series of articles on the Bill of Rights, one article per day. When it came to the Second Amendment, the writer was a law professor from the University of Pennsylvania. Expecting the worst, I was pleasantly surprised when the author, whose name I cannot find, wrote that the Second Amendment clearly protected an individual right.

In summing up, he wrote (as nearly as I can remember): “We have all seen the bumper sticker that says ‘When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns.’ If the Framers had written that bumper sticker, it would read ‘If guns are outlawed, only government will have guns.’ And that scared them a lot more than anything else!”

A REVIEW: THE PACIFIC

When this man gets to heaven
To St. Peter he will tell:
“Another Marine reporting, Sir.
I’ve served my time in hell.”

Epitaph scribbled by a shipmate on the cross over a grave of a Marine on Guadalcanal

Starting this Sunday, March 14, HBO will present its 10 part series, The Pacific. It is the second part of the story that began with Band of Brothers in 2001. Spielberg and Hanks did a wonderful job in translating Steven Ambroses’ marvelous retelling of the feats of Easy Company, 506th Parachute Infantry to the screen. However, there has been some concern among WWII vets and others that that, considering the sorry state of education in America today, many folks might forget that at the same time, there was also a little ruckus going on in the Pacific in WWII. Disclaimer: my Dad made 5 opposed landings in WWII—Tarawa, Kwajalien, Saipan, Tinian, and Pelelieu, and I’m a Marine, so I may be over-sensitive. Nonetheless, it is an historical fact that D-Day on Iwo Jima was more deadly than D-Day in Normandy, and it is great that the rest of the story will now be told.

Following Ambrose’s model, the story will focus on three real Marines: Gunnery Sergeant John (“Manila John”) Basilone, Robert Leckie, and Eugene “Sledgehammer” Sledge. Gunny Basilone was awarded the Medal of Honor on Guadalcanal with the First Marine Division and was sent home. He insisted on returning to combat and was killed in action on D-Day on Iwo while serving with 1st Battalion, 27th Marines, 5th Marine Division. He received the Navy Cross posthumously. He is a legend in the First Marine Division (“The Old Breed”), my Division in Vietnam. Leckie, the author of Helmet For My Pillow, and Sledge, author of With The Old Breed at Pelelieu and Okinawa, also served with the First Marine Division. Both died in 2001.

The presentation of the story appears to have the same attention to detail that was so apparent in Band of Brothers. Watching the work they did to portray the effects of the Spring monsoon on Okinawa made me long for my old poncho. I suspect that anyone who watches The Pacific will quickly realize that Semper Fidelis is legitimately the motto of the Corps and that “the Hymn” isn’t kidding about Marines having the natural responsibility of guarding the streets of Heaven.

Finally, I hope the Spielberg and Hanks will find appropriate vehicles to portray the "Mighty Eighth" Air Force's air war in Europe, although the classic 12 O’Clock High will be a tough act to follow. Then I would like to see the gallantry of our Navy brethren depicted, perhaps through a recounting of the action in San Bernadino Strait (Last Stand of the Tin Can Sailors) and off Okinawa (Brave Ship, Brave Men). I once met one of the Aaron Ward sailors and the story of their 30 minutes of hell deserves retelling

At any rate, I think Band of Brothers and The Pacific will reveal to today’s America just how much we owe those men who won WWII. In a documentary about Pelelieu, Peter Graves summed it up by reading a letter from a wounded Marine aboard a hospital ship to his mother back in West Virginia.

He wrote “They say I’ll be coming home soon. Give my love to Dad, sisters, brothers, and kin folk. And if you see Parson Brown, tell him I’d like to talk to him when I get home. I want to talk about heaven. Tell him there is no need to talk about hell—I’ve been there.”

Semper Fi.

© 2010 Michael R. McCarty. All rights reserved.

PREGNANCY AND MALINGERING

Get ready for a firestorm from the left. MajGen Tony Cucolo, US Army, the Commander, Task Force Marne (I am betting he is CG, Third Infantry Division "The Rock of the Marne")headquartered in Tikrit, Iraq has announced a policy within his command that soldiers who get pregnant in theater, and those who impregnate them (if they can be identified) will face disciplinary action. I can already hear the howls from feminists.

But think about this: If a soldier shoots himself or herself in the foot, necessitating transfer out of theater and leaving the unit short-handed, he or she would face court-martial. Why then ought not a soldier who voluntarily incurs some other condition that results in a similar detriment to the accomplishment of the unit’s mission (which always takes precedence) face similar action? I thought the feminists wanted women to be treated equally and insisted that they be allowed to do anything a man can do in theater.

I hope that the National Command Authority backs General Cuculo on this one.

BACK ON SESSION

[START vent] I was installed on Sunday to fill an unexpired one-year term. Last night was my first meeting. This morning I am asking God if He really wants me to do this--the rancor and discord was disheartening. I think at one point I was called a liar and a con man, but I'm not sure. I'll resort to Matthew 18 to sort that out. Merry Christmas!!![END vent]

BATTALION S-4

As I write this, it is the 41st anniversary of my arrival in Vietnam. On my Face Book page, Reformed Catholic reminded me that I had started this project last year at this time. After I got through my days in the bush with the Marines of Charlie Company, 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, I took a break. But now, I think it is time to finish up my time “down south in the Republic.”

After I returned to An Hoa from Embarkation School, I was “transferred” from Charlie Company to Headquarters and Service Company (H&S Company). Major Pat O’Toole was acting CO, Colonel Riley having been transferred while I was in Okinawa. The Battalion staff, consisted of Lt. Tom Pottenger (a TBS classmate) as Adjutant and S-1 (Personnel Officer), Major Bob Kerzic as “the Three” (S-3—Operations Officer), and I was now “the Four” (Logistics Officer). There was no officer available to fill the S-2 (Intelligence Officer) billet, so the “Two Chief,” an NCO performed that function.

I had no idea how to be the Four, but fortunately for me, Captain Castagnetti was soon assigned as Regimental S-4. Three-Five’s four was a Captain who had shepherded our little gaggle of lieutenants down to An Hoa the previous December. Those two Captains took me under their wings and I began to learn how to be a staff officer. In particular, Captain (soon to be Major) Castagnetti began to “invite” me to his bunker for a nightly “four” school. The many things I learned, from references to Marine Corps publications to tricks of the trade, stood me in good stead for the rest of my career.

A few days later, we got a new Battalion Commander. Lieutenant Colonel Joseph K. Griffis is one of those men who make a mark on a young man’s life. He was a veteran of WWII (as a very young enlisted Marine) and Korea. Joe Griffis was a hard man who knew the hard business of war. And as young men often do, we failed to realize just how lucky we were to have him as “the Old Man.” Fortunately, we had the privilege of being his boys for another 39 years.

In 1969, he wore a trademark blue bandana at his neck and insisted that every man in the battalion carry a rifle unless he was actually carrying a crew-served weapon. (That would later cause me some grief, but that is a story for another day.) He himself had acquired a M-16 carbine, another trademark.

As a result of his arrival, Maj. O’Toole came back to An Hoa and resumed his position as Executive Officer. The battalion continued to operate in The Arizona.

I did not really like being a staff officer. It was tedious and not very exciting. Then I heard that 1st Reconnaissance Battalion was looking for platoon commanders. That struck me as a perfect solution.

A reconnaissance platoon commander led recon patrols deep into enemy-controlled territory. A team of six to eight Marines with a Corpsman would be inserted into an area for several days to seek out enemy positions, snatch prisoners, and call in artillery on enemy formations. It was lonely and dangerous work, but it sure beat manning a desk. All I had to do was get the transfer.

I can best tell what happened in this way. In 1999, the 1st Marine Division Association held its annual reunion in Philadelphia. I had been a Life member since 1969 but had never attended a reunion. Robin Montgomery called me and asked me to attend so that we could vote for his platoon sergeant who was running for Vice President.

SWMBO came into town for the banquet on Saturday night. That afternoon we were in the Charlie Company hospitality suite when in walked J.K. Griffis. He was greeted warmly by a number of folks. I caught his eye.

“Sir, you probably don’t remember me, but. . .”

“Of course I do, Mac. You were my Four!” After 30 years!!! I started to introduce SWMBO when I was grabbed from behind in a monstrous bear hug.

“Mac, Mac, you sonuvabitch! I was hoping you would be here!” It was Colonel O’Toole.

SWMBO’s eyes were like dinner plates. I began to introduce her to a grinning Colonel Griffis and the XO. Pat O’Toole turned to SWMBO. “I am so pleased to meet you,” he said. “Let me tell you about the crazy sob you married.”

“He had been the Four for a week or so. One Friday morning, he reported to me with an AA form (Administrative Action form) requesting a transfer to Recon Battalion. I tore it up and told him ‘You’re the Four. Now get back to work.’”

“But he wants to argue. ‘Major,’ he says, you can’t do that. The book says you can forward it recommending disapproval, but you have to forward it.’ I said ‘The hell I can’t. You’re the Four. Now get out of here.’ There was no way we were going to lose him.”

“Well, the next Friday morning, there he is again. I tore up his AA form and we had the same conversation. The next week, I had something going on with Regiment, so I told one of the S-1 clerks to go up and tell Mac that I was busy and that he should just go ahead and tear up the AA form himself.”

“And, Mrs. Mac, the crazy sob did just that!”

Unlike most sea stories, that one was spot on. The room erupted in laughter. A couple of guys said “So. It was you. He has told that story for years!” I was home again.

A few days after the “AA form incident,” I went on R&R to Hawaii and by the time I returned, I knew that I was the Four for the duration of my tour. In retrospect, it was right for me.

© 2010 Michael R. McCarty. All rights reserved.

THE DESPOTIC CONGRESSWOMAN JANICE SCHAKOWSKY

I just heard Rep. Janice Schakowsky (D.ILL) being interviewed on POTUS (XM 130/Sirius 110). The issue was, of course, the massive restructuring of the American economy that the Democratic Party is attempting to foist on us in the form of so-called “health care reform.”

The specific topic was whether or not the missing Senate bill (set to be unveiled by Harry Reid and his cohorts 36 hours before the Senate votes on the measure) can withstand a cloture motion. Under the Senate rules, a filibuster can be ended only if two-thirds of the Senate votes for “cloture,” i.e., to limit debate. Right now, Sen. Ben Nelson of Nebraska has stated that he will not vote for cloture if the Senate bill does not contain language similar to the Stupak amendment which was added to the House bill.

Tim Farley was talking to Rep. Schakowsky about the possibility of compromise on the issue. He referred to the warning by former-President Clinton to the Democratic party that “America can't afford to let the perfect be the enemy of the good.” (In so doing, he was paraphrasing Admiral Sergei Gorshkov, a tactical and strategic genius and one of my heroes, believe it or not. The Admiral said “Perfect is the enemy of good enough.”)

Rep. Schakowsky, demonstrating an astounding ignorance of American history complained that the real problem at hand is the rules of the Senate. In particular, she is incensed that “a Senator from a small state” can hold up what she thinks is the most important legislation of the past 70 years. (I wonder if that member of the Democratic Party base—the NAACP—would be willing to put the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act lower on the list?)

Apparently Rep. Schakowsky has never studied the Constitutional Convention of 1787. She espouses the demand of the large states that they control the Federal legislature—a demand that failed in the convention. The idea of a Senate in which the States were represented equally balancing a House of Representatives whose membership was based on population was just one of the checks and balances written into our Charter. Now, Rep Schakowsky wants to rewrite 220 years of Constitutional history so that what she deems “best” for the Nation need not be subjected to any such checks on an unbridled central government.

She should know better. Shame on her!

4th ANNUAL SAPPY CHRISTMAS SONG CONTEST

I'm probably preaching to the choir, but Quotidian Grace is sponsoring her 4th Annual Sappy Christmas Song contest. The prizes are mundane, but the honor associated with writing doggerel and drivel is really heady. Give it a look.

OLD DOGS AND NEW TRICKS

Well, Jumper Girl has worn me down. I am now, tentatively, on Facepage or Facebook or whatever.

The darn thing has way too many moving parts. I have hundreds of people who now want to be my “friend,” including numerous of JG’s teenage friends. I think not. I am an old dog—I do not want to learn new tricks.

But the games are fun, and I can IM (wow, catch that use of internet slang!) SWMBO which is often the only way we can communicate without teenage interruption. So, off we go, into the 21st Century. But I miss my fountain pen.

CITIZENS BEWARE: CONGRESS IS STILL IN SESSION

For so long as any Congress is in session, especially the current one, the wallets of the American people are in danger. No one loves to spend someone else’s money like a member of Congress. Nothing gets their juices going like a big pot of our money that they can lavish on folks other than the people who earned the money and paid it in taxes.

The latest case in point is the Troubled Asset Recovery Program.

TARP, as it is known, was created to remedy the serious problems created by Chris Dodd, Barney Franks, and others of their ilk. Playing the racial prejudice game so beloved by liberals, they forced through a series of laws that mandated that banks must make mortgage loans to people who could never qualify for those loans. When questions were raised, Barney, Chris and others claimed that the objectors were simply prejudiced against poor people of color.

As a result, lenders soon held huge blocks of bad paper. As the housing market tumbled, there was no way that the properties that served as collateral for the loans could cover the value of those loans. Without some help, the holders of these “troubled assets” were likely to fail. Starting in October, 2008, and continuing through the change in administrations, the complex plan was designed to keep lending institutions afloat and to encourage lenders to continue to offer credit necessary to move the economy.

Well, it appears to have worked. Lender after lender has begun to repay the loans to the Treasury, i.e., to us, the taxpayers whose taxes were the source of the loans. Mission accomplished.

“But wait a minute,” says the Congress. “You mean that there is going to be hundreds of billions of dollars just laying around?” They are grinning like a kid at Christmas. Never mind that the whole idea of TARP was to make loans and then recover the money to repay the loans. They now want to use this “windfall” to fund “job creation” programs. Just because the money was meant for one specific program will not stop these profligates from spending it on their pet causes.

When they rail against the deficit, they are lying. If they were really interested in the deficit, they now have hundreds of billions of dollars to pay it down. Don’t hold your breath.

But there had better not be any suggestion that we have to impose a new tax to “pay” for Afghan operations. They have plenty of extra cash laying around.

SIMPLE CITIZENSHIP

In his classic Street Without Joy (La Rue Sans Joie), Bernard Fall wrote of an experience he had in Saigon in the early 50s. He was at a French Officers’ Club, watching several Frog officers and their ladies at play. An old Cambodian Master Sergeant respectfully approached one of the officers with a document for signature. The Frog rudely dismissed the Sergeant, berating him for interrupting his recreation and telling him to wait until the officer was ready for him. The Sergeant waited for several hours.

At 5:00pm, the sound of the French bugle call for evening colors wafted over the trees. Fall could see the tricolor being lowered. The Master Sergeant snapped to attention, while the Frogs and their ladies ignored the flag.

Fall wrote that he knew at that moment that the French experiment in Indo-China was doomed.

Yesterday, as I drove past our local elementary school—at which SWMBO is a one-on-one aide and Bionicle Boy is a student—I noticed that the National Ensign was tattered and torn. I went into the office to see if anyone had noticed. (Marines are pretty flag-conscious, but I have come to learn that most civilians are not.) The secretary apologized and noted that she would order a replacement.

This morning, on my way to the VA, I saw the old flag still flying, albeit at half-mast. I called SWMBO and asked her to find out who had died.

Her reply e-mail was to the effect that the flag was stuck at half-mast because as it was being lowered for replacement, the halyard had become stuck. Then she added, “Next time you are tempted to complain, please don’t. 'The office' has told teachers that ‘some parent’ complained about the condition of the flag. The staff is buzzing, suggesting that ‘If the parent is so concerned, he should just go out and buy a flag himself!’”

I made time in my schedule to drop in on the Principal. He was very cordial, apologized because he had not noticed the condition of the flag, and cordially declined my offer to buy a new flag. I left satisfied by his response (and his obvious leadership).

But what does it say about our sense of nationhood when teachers belittle a fellow citizen simply because he sought to correct a situation in which the Flag Code of the United States is being violated? See, 4 USC §8k. "The world wonders. . ." (100 irrevocable lifetime macho points for anyone who can explain the final quote as it aplies to US history.)