On Facebook, where I can often be found expounding on issues that I imagine many of my friends would simply rather ignore, I’ve gotten involved in a conversation about Baltimore’s crime rate. Well, not that, exactly, because the discussion has devolved into an argument about gun control and whether it is constitutional.

One of the points included a reference to United States v. Miller.

I think I’ve read the Wikipedia page before, but today’s read of the statements brought new insight which would, I imagine, cause all other arguments to fall apart:

Imagine for a moment that men and women who keep such arms do so at the pleasure of the military and can thus be called to serve BECAUSE they keep them.

Think on that for a moment. Chew it thoroughly. Because the first part, so often missed, regarding the Second Amendment involves the existence and necessity of a well-regulated militia. The whole amendment reads thusly:

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.

Now I’ve read some things that are concerning the true meaning of “militia” in context of the Bill of Rights when it was originally ratified in December 15, 1791, submitted by James Madison prior to his presidency and while the U.S. Constitution was still in its infancy. I’ve come to associate the term Militia with the Southern Militias whose specific purpose was to put down Indian uprisings and keep the slave population enslaved.

Fast forward a few hundred years. We don’t have a slave population (at least, not the way we once did in this country) and we haven’t had a civil war in 150 years. And our guns aren’t muskets anymore.

Just the same, imagine for a moment that such a burden is actually placed on the gun owners themselves. As a gun owner, you are expected to render your services up to the U.S. of A. at any moment simply because you own a gun.

I wonder just how fast we would see the backpedaling on the sanctity of the Second Amendment and gun ownership in this country. After all, if we have militias why do we need the National Guard?

If the rights and responsibilities of gun ownership include an instant ticket to the draft, how fast would the National Rifle Association’s tune change?

In fact, I wonder that this actual approach has not yet been tried by gun control advocates, because it sure makes sense to me.

We could decommission more of our standing troops in favor of employing those with guns to serve in the National Guard at the will of government. We could save a whole bunch of money, keeping those weekend warriors who don’t have guns at home and deploy only those with guns into battle. Training would fall on the government. No more out of pocket costs for weapons or ammo. We’d have no trouble eliciting gun registration because that’s what guns are for, after all: The protection of our sovereign territory.

If the purpose of owning a gun is to protect the country (as a well-regulated Militia ought to do), it only makes sense that gun owners should expect to be pressed into service anytime, anywhere.

Am I right?

Slate.com: Rethinking Gun Control – Surprising findings from a comprehensive report on gun violence.