On June 14, 1775, the Continental Congress adopted a resolution creating the Continental Army. This was a significant move in the formation of the United States, as it sought to unify the military forces of the 13 colonies under one command – General George Washington – in its fight against the British.

Before this, since the battles of Lexington and Concord on April 19, the Revolution had relied almost entirely on the efforts of local militia, groups of men who fought for their freedom with their own guns and their own resources. While these men were not part of the Continental Army, they were an effective force, and continued to be a vital part of the Revolution, even after the formation of the Army. But now, with a central command, there was the beginnings of a national armed force.

Later, after the Revolution was won, and the Constitution established, Congress sought to make right an oversight. It adopted the first set of ten amendments, known collectively as the Bill of Rights. One of those, the Second Amendment, recognized the part the militias played in the Revolution, when it said that the militia was “necessary to the security of a free state,” and it enumerated the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

So, how did we get to the “well regulated militia = National Guard” idea? This misunderstanding rises from the fact that most people don’t use the word “regulated” the way our founding fathers did. They used it in the same way we use it when speaking with a gunsmith about a double barreled shotgun or a double rifle. In that sense, to regulate these guns means to adjust them so that both barrels shoot to hit the same target point. A well regulated militia is then a group of citizens who are proficient in arms, and can all shoot well enough to hit the same targets.

Today’s “well regulated militia” means that we citizens, men and women, must be prepared to protect our homeland, the same way the militia did in 1775. We need to practice so we can all hit the same target point if the time comes. While fewer of us may come to shooting from a military background, this doesn’t excuse us from that responsibility, nor preclude us from that right.

Interestingly, exactly two years after the establishment of the Continental Army in 1775, the Congress adopted the familiar Stars and Stripes as the national flag of the United States.

While you celebrate Flag Day today, remember our army as well, and the well regulated militia that stands behind them.

Some of the people I had the great fortune of meeting at the LuckyGunner.com Blogger Shoot a coupe of weeks ago was Jennifer, who writes the blog In Jennifer’s Head, and her husband Evyl Robot Michael.

Yesterday, Jennifer asked in her blog for her readers to tell us her story – how did we get into the gun world? This prompted over 50 stories of how they started shooting. I even posted a link to my story, my first real blog post 3 months ago.

Many people who posted linked to their own blogs, and their comments sections had people posting how they got started. I didn’t count them all but there’s a lot.

One of the things that I noticed was a lot of the posts, maybe a third, represented what is becoming know as Gun Culture 2.0. I first heard this phrase used by Michael Bane, and it means those whose entry into shooting deviates from the traditional, established route of gun ownership. Traditionally people were around shooting all their life. Shooting was passed down from parents and grandparents, or perhaps learned in Scouts or 4H. There are also those who took up shooting in the military.

Gun Culture 2.0 are those like me who took up shooting because of a concern for personal protection. I even noted that several people mentioned Hurricane Katrina as a driving force in their decision. It was not a family tradition, and in some cases, people bought their first gun despite a family tradition of anti-gun attitudes.

Welcome to the fold, fellow members of Gun Culture 2.0. I look forward to meeting you!

Here is the subject of the next Scare Email that is going to show up in your inbox soon: another proposed UN small arms treaty. According to Larry Bell writing in an Op/Ed for Forbes Magazine, this treaty would

1. Enact tougher licensing requirements, creating additional bureaucratic red tape for legal firearms ownership.

2. Confiscate and destroy all “unauthorized” civilian firearms (exempting those owned by our government of course).

3. Ban the trade, sale and private ownership of all semi-automatic weapons (any that have magazines even though they still operate in the same one trigger pull – one single “bang” manner as revolvers, a simple fact the ant-gun media never seem to grasp).

4. Create an international gun registry, clearly setting the stage for full-scale gun confiscation.

5. In short, overriding our national sovereignty, and in the process, providing license for the federal government to assert preemptive powers over state regulatory powers guaranteed by the Tenth Amendment in addition to our Second Amendment rights.

Obviously these terms an unacceptable. Does such a treaty present a threat to our Second Amendment freedoms here in the United States? In my opinion, yes, and no.

Any research will show that the issue of whether treaties trump the US Constitution is divided. Personally, I believe they do not. However, I choose not to have to rely on some future Supreme Court to decide the issue, when to me, the best course of action is to prevent ratification of the treaty by the Senate, and, if possible, its presentation to the Senate in the first place.

Treaties are presented by the President to the Congress, and ratified by two thirds of the Senate. The current Senate is unlikely to vote for such a treaty. Despite the vocal exceptions like Schumer and Feinstein, the majority of the Senate remains pro-Second Amendment. This is logical, because the majority of the American people are pro-Second Amendment, outside of the areas represented by the obvious anti-freedom members.

It is up to us to contact our Senators and make sure they understand what is happening, and we let them know where we stand. I know that both of my Senators in Georgia, Johnny Isakson and Saxby Chambliss, are staunchly pro-Second Amendment, but I am writing them about this any way.

Despite the fact that the House of Representatives does not vote on treaty ratification, they almost certainly will have their say. I also plan to write my Congressman, Dr. Phil Gingrey. I will report the responses of my representatives here as they arrive.

Of course, the President presents any treaty to the Senate for ratification, so the opportunity is there to affect this, provided the treaty can be delayed until after the next inauguration in January 2013. The need to elect a President that reflects the love of freedom shared by the rest of the country could not be greater.

I believe if we act now and maintain contact with our Senators on this issue, we can hold off this threat. But it won’t be the last. That’s okay. This is part of the “eternal vigilence” that is required of us.