During WWII the German army required a close combat rapid fire weapon suited for the urban conditions in which they found themselves-such as at Stalingrad. Accordingly, the Nazis came up with the world's first assault weapon suitable for the close combat conditions soldiers find themselves in city fighting. The Germans presented a revolutionary new rapid fire gun to replace the short range, inaccurate at distance submachine guns they were employing. It was called the Maschinenpistole 43 (MP 43). Initially against its development, Hitler test fired the weapon himself and was so impressed with its capability that he renamed it the Sturmgewehr or "storm rifle", and it was then designated the StG 44.
 |
| Sturmgewehr 44 Photo Courtesy Dept. of Defense |
Its Russian counterpart-a weapon known for its simplicity and ability to fire under any condition was the Kalashnikov or AK-47 named for its inventor, Mikhail Kalashnikov. Designed after the StG 44, it was first employed by Russian forces in 1945 for the same purposes as the German assault rifle-to kill humans in close quarter fighting.
 |
| AK-47 Wikimedia Commons |
This leads to today's dilemma in the United States. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right to bear arms thusly:
"Amendment 2.
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."
All state militias were regulated by the Militia Act of 1792.
What does this mean to the citizen? Does it mean the citizen can buy, maintain, and keep a surface to air missile, nuclear submarine, or an M1-A1 Abrams tank? No, such weaponry is clearly in the purview of the professional military. A militia though was to be formed in the case a dictator or king took it upon his or herself to take power from the People. The People would have been readily armed and trained sufficiently enough to form a militia to oppose such a coup. But in 1903 the various state militias were seen as insufficient and poorly trained as modern military units supporting a modern army. They were incorporated into the Army under the reforms initiated by Secretary of War Elihu Root after the Spanish-American War showed the inconsistencies of militia training-although the Rough Riders under Teddy Roosevelt fought bravely as did other volunteers.
What does the 2nd Amendment mean today, and how does it mesh with Root's reforms that were made into the law known as the
Militia or Dick Act of 1903? The Militia or Dick Act of 1903 along with its 1908 Amendment divided the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, defined as all
able-bodied men between the ages of 18 and 45, and the Organized Militia, defined as state
units receiving federal support. A one-time grant of $2 million to
modernize equipment was authorized by Congress, and states were allowed to use federal funds to pay for summer
training camps. The War Department funded attendance of Guard
officers at Army schools, and Regular officers would be detailed to serve as
inspector/instructors of the new states' Guard units. Joint Regular-Guard
maneuvers and training camps were mandated. In return for all this, the act gave the President
the power to call the formerly organized states' militias, now combined into the National Guard for
federal service for up to nine months' service to repel invasion, suppress
rebellion, or enforce federal laws, but not for service outside the United
States. National Guardsmen are required to answer a presidential call or face court-martial, and
the various states had to organize, equip, and train their units in accordance with the
organization, standards, and procedures of the Regular Army. If National Guard
units failed to meet certain standards of training and administration as set by
the War Department or today's Department of Defense, they would lose their federal support. The 1908 amendment dropped the prohibition on National Guard units ability to serve outside the territorial limits of the United States making them, in effect, a reserve branch of the Army under orders of the President. Militias were effectively abolished, and the 2nd Amendment was effectively skirted, but the right to bear arms has been continuously upheld by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The authors of the 2nd Amendment could not have anticipated the technological achievements of modern weaponry. Assault weapons such as StG 44, AK 47, Uzi, MP 5, M-14, and so many other automatic, high capacity guns could not have been foreseen by lawmakers in the 18th century, and if they had such foreknowledge, would they have chosen to limit the ability of the men they were writing laws for to bear such arms? Probably not. They feared the overreach of King George III of England and his imposition of a state (Anglican) religion upon them. If such weapons were available to Revolutionary soldiers and militias they would have certainly been utilized.
Fast forward to the Arab Spring. Had such an event occurred in the United States, would the People of this Nation, if faced with a tyrant such as President Assad of Syria have denied themselves the use of such weapons? Of course not. But we in the United States
choose to settle our differences peaceably and under the aegis of the laws we have demanded our legislators enact and our executives enforce and our judiciary to find Constitutional and to fairly and honestly apply to all citizens within this Constitutionally inspired democratically represented Republic.
Therefore, it is without reason for any citizen to be in need of a war inspired weapon meant to kill as many human beings as its magazine will allow. Just as it impossible to believe that anyone capable of planning a mass killing for any obscure reason, be it justified or not, should be found not guilty of such a heinous crime by reason of insanity; it is impossible for this writer to believe anyone for any reason has the right to bear a weapon of war such as an assault weapon. Should the People find the need to rise up against its government, the People will find a way to acquire the weapons necessary to achieve their goal.
