Oklahoma State Militia : The education of MSNBC and Chris Matthews

Last night the leftist AP along with MSNBC decided to continue an attack on anyone who uses constitutional authority and a clear understanding of history with sarcasm and disdain. The latest target is a man representing a group of Oklahomans who want to re-activate the Oklahoma State Militia. During the conversation one line gave me pause to highlight precisely what the main philosophical difference is between those of us who are in the 9-12 / Tea Party movement and those on the left who after screeching “We have a right to debate and disagree” are now moving to quash that very right from their opposition by using pseudo-intellectual arguments and goading. The following is an excerpt from last night’s show, followed by the supporting documented arguments that apparently they don’t teach in journalism school.

4/13/2010, 3:40 p.m. PDT
Chris Matthews
The Associated Press
Date: April 13, 2010
Tran: 041301cb.461

Interview between Chris Matthews and Al Gerhart about a re-activation of Oklahoma’s state militia.

MATTHEWS: So what would be — what would be symbolic? I mean, is this a symbolic thing? I wonder what — luckily, we haven’t had wars since the Civil War that I can remember, but — in this country between the government and the states. But when can you imagine the states wanting to go to war with the federal government using armed force?

GERHART: I wouldn’t imagine they ever would. What our founding fathers envisioned — they never envisioned having a standing army. The Second Amendment was not about your right to shoot a burglar, protect your family. The Second Amendment was the right of the states to have a militia. What the founding fathers envisioned was all these state militias that basically kept the federal government in check just by their very existence.

MATTHEWS: Where do you get that history? Where is that history coming from? I guess I don’t know that history.

GERHART: Go back to school then, because the history is there.

……. Let the education begin

“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.”

In Part II-A of the Opinion of the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court cited this version of the 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.”

Cornell University Law School. Bill of Rights, United States Constitution.

The Kansas high court declared: “That the provision in question applies only to the right to bear arms as a member of the state militia, or some other military organization provided for by law, is also apparent from the second amendment to the federal Constitution, which says: ‘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.'”

City of Salinas v. Blakesley, 72 Kan. 230 (1905).

It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union “to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.”


Concerning the Militia
From the New York Packet.
Wednesday, January 9, 1788


Time after time after time our history is filled with patriots and statesman who have in their mind a vision of the precarious balance of forces. The Founders fought to escape a government that no longer listened to the governed and thus became a tyranny. Sincerely, none of them who had pledged their lives and their sacred honors to each other wanted to get right back into the same situation again. However, they also did not want the obvious chaos and anarchy that comes with an absence of organizational control. So, the balance was to give a limited power to a federal government for the overall control and governing of the country as a single unit, and simultaneously have the local people have the ability to protect their individual liberties by having the individual states govern the local levels. Each layer of government was supposed to have less and less say in the lives of the individuals as each layer applied to more and more people. When Chris Matthews said, “Where do you get that history? Where is that history coming from? I guess I don’t know that history.” in response to a reminder that the Founders never envisioned a standing army; but rather a local militia that could be in a rare event made to follow a national command; is not just ignorant, it is the very opposite of the Founders’ vision for our nation.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: