Keeping and bearing arms...or quartering

I said that 9-11 wouldn't have happened if the Second Amendment right was truly practised, but I meant citizens actually belonging to a universal militia: not toting around handguns or even rifles. What I mean is citizen soldiers who would be trained to use the type of hardware necessary to shoot down wayward aircraft. While someone who was based at Sandy Hook during the days when it was active said the missiles they had wouldn't have been able to shoot down the 9-11 liners.

That said, the latest local news is that the British Military has the lethal force option if the Olympics are threatened. Rapier Missiles as well as Starstreak Missiles installed on council housing--much to the chagrin of the tenants--are part of the Olympic Security plan. The missile sites have been published, which sort of defeats the purpose. Although, I'm sure people wearing berets and multicam outfits moving large objects would catch people's attention.

Is this show of force really necessary? After all, actually shooting down a wayward airliner would cause a significant amount of casualties in a densely built up area. The real issue would be which would have a larger casualty rate: shooting down the airliner, or having it crash?

In the US, the tenants of the council flats could have used the Third Amendment to have prevented the stationing of the missiles on their property. But isn't the real issue community defense? Part of the reason that the Second Amendment as it was originally understood fell into disuse was that most people didn't want to put forth the effort necessary for a proper civilian defence. As the tenants pointed out, having these weapons on their property also made them a target.

The thing is that a well regulated militia means that the people are trained in the type of arms used for national defence, whether that is the infantryman's rifle or air defence missile systems. As another blogger pointed out, The response to the Second Amendment was the Militia Act of 1792 which required:

that every eligible man be enrolled in the citizen militia and required they must PURCHASE a flintlock and ammunition for their service, report for frequent musters—where their guns would be inspected and registered on public rolls.

The problem is that militia service is compulsory, not optional, there is a compulsion to do one's duty for protecting the homeland. That means giving up one's time for training and drill in whatever type of unit one is assigned.

It's not about gun rights, it's about the type of military establishment would exist in the United States.

See also:

• Are Olympic missiles just for show?