Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

To all Gun Control Advocates: The "Militia" is not what you think it is.
Free Republic | 04/24/2007 | Matt Brazil

Posted on 04/24/2007 7:13:04 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007

I'm sure many people at the NRA, GOA, or any other protector of the 2nd Amendment have heard this kind of argument before.

Will people please stop perverting the wording of the Constitution as a justification for any Tom, Dick or Jethro-Bob to keep an uzi under the bed? That "right" was created to allow a standing militia to be formed in defence of the realm in a young country with no standing army and an uncertain possibility of getting one, not to create a Wild West mentality by giving everyone an immutable right to access to guns.

In case you couldn't tell, I tend to visit message boards with rather liberal people. Mostly from other countries like Canada or Britain. It's no surprise; for one thing, I'm not surprised that this particular forumer thought the Constitution only guaranteed the right to a "militia".

It doesn't quite make sense. Let's look at the whole of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.

"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.

People. People. People.

Sure, there is a possibility that it refers to only people that serve in the militia. But also, that doesn't make any sense as well; if only members of the militia are able to bear arms, are they any different from the army that has no opposition from an unarmed populace?

But I digress.

When it comes to clearing up this confusion, I like to refer to the words of the men who lived back then, of the men who had delivered a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears to see this country rise. Let's see what they think of the "militia."

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).

Hmm. Nice wording, but no mention of a militia. Par for the course, says the advocate of gun control!

Let's continue.

When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment (Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788)

Oh my. This is unexpected.

The militia being comprised of the whole people? The gun control advocate might scoff now; what rubbish! Who was this fool named George Mason?

Only a man considered to be the Father of the Bill of Rights, a Founding Father who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And consider his viewpoint; the colonists of the rebelling American states were, by and large, not professional soldiers. They were ordinary civilians who decided to fight for their freedom.

In essence, the people were the militia. As George Mason said.

Shall we continue?

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
---Patrick Henry (At the Ratification Convention for the Virginia Constitution, 1788)

Patrick Henry. The man most famously known for the words "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Such strength of moral character. We could use that these days.

The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...it establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.

It has always amused me that so many liberals, who talk and act as if the Bill of Rights cover and condone everything, fight so vociferously against the 2nd Amendment. If they treated the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as they treated the 1st Amendment, they'd be making gun ownership mandatory.

The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. ---Thomas Paine

To the gun control advocate, I ask you; why is that, after a murder is committed with a gun, you seek to disarm everyone who didn't commit the crime? Such a gap in logic boggles me.

Finally, we come to Thomas Jefferson. What does he think of the Second Amendment?

No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson (Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334)

No man who considers himself free would dare surrender his right to self-defense.

So let's review.

Consider the people considered to be part of the militia: all of the citizens of the United States. Understood? This is what the Founding Fathers thought of the militia, for the men fighting against the Redcoats in the days of the Revolution were indeed a ragtag militia. Is that a fact lost on so many gun control advocates today?

Certainly.

But remember this; there will, in the future, be another Columbine. Another Virginia Tech.

In all liklihood, it will occur at a place where guns are outlawed; where the American's right to defend himself has been rendered illegal.

What a dreary thought.

I'll let the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment speak for me, thank you.


TOPICS: Your Opinion/Questions
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; banglist; guncontrol; stoprudy2008; virginiatech
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-145 last
To: Ultra Sonic 007
The Constitution does not "guarantee" the right to a militia. It assumes the existence of a militia. It does not guarantee the right because the militia is a definition, adult healthy males. That is not something that is a right to be guaranteed or allowed. It is a fact of existence. Well regulated is what the amendment hopes to ensure and that means the militia have military serviceable arms and training. The clause assumes the need for training but does not provide for it. Itdoes provide that the peoples' access to arms shall not be infringed so that that part of 'well-regulated' is taken care of.
101 posted on 04/25/2007 9:10:50 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
"-- around here romaniticization of the militia's role and effectiveness is still commonplace.

Whats 'romantic' about defending our right to own and carry military type arms?

102 posted on 04/25/2007 9:13:22 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 98 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
A militia should not have the fire power to overthrow a government, but rather to defend itself against one.

Actually, this statement is self contradictory. How can you successfully defend against an out of control government if you don't have an equal force of arms?

103 posted on 04/25/2007 9:14:03 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
"..any references on that?"

Sorry, just now I don't remember where I heard it, some years ago.

104 posted on 04/25/2007 9:14:40 AM PDT by Designer II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing
defeated the English, thanks to Minutemen and gorilla tactics

The Minutemen were truly bestial then, ripping apart the British soldiers with their 'bear' hands. Such tactics have been since refined into the modern guerrilla warfare.

105 posted on 04/25/2007 9:15:13 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: tpaine
Well put. -- I think we all can agree that C-N-B weapons should be reasonably regulated. --

Not quite. When the government maintains them for use by the standing army, so too must they also be available for the militia. That's the little guarantee the founders had in mind to make it certain that government remained the servant of the people, and not the master.

106 posted on 04/25/2007 9:15:21 AM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]

To: Lee'sGhost
"People — not militias."

At the time of writing the Consititution, the people are the militia, and vice-versa.

Only in our convoluted modern thinking has the term "militia" been misconstrued to mean conscripted soldiers.

107 posted on 04/25/2007 9:20:00 AM PDT by Designer II
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies]

To: arthurus
Free Image Hosting at allyoucanupload.com
108 posted on 04/25/2007 9:20:15 AM PDT by Dead Corpse (What would a free man do?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Nickh

I am trying to realate your comment to that of Ultra Sonic 007 to whom it is a reply and am quite at a loss.


109 posted on 04/25/2007 9:20:15 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: LoneRangerMassachusetts

Q.E.D.


110 posted on 04/25/2007 9:21:26 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
Did you ever hear of a group of Baptists in the North Carolina Piedmont called “The Regulators?” They were members of the church pastored by pioneer Shubal Stearns.

I cannot remember the exact year, but it was in the 18th Century not long before independence from England.

Shubal Stearns had a rather large church not far from current-day Asheboro, North Carolina. The Anglicans pretty much ran NC at that time and would use British militia to pester non-Anglicans, especially Baptists.

The Anglican clergy arranged for a contingent of British Militia to go to the Piedmont and put the Baptists out of buisness. Stearns himself, and many of his members were actually pacifists, but some of the Baptist men did take up arms to protect against the British, and were called, “The Regulators.”

The British troops did show up near Asheboro and were engaged by the Baptist “Regulators.” The Baptists lost the skirmish, but put a sufficient enough hurtin’ on the British that British Militia raids were never again carried out against Stearns’ people.

The incident is covered in a book by Dr. James Beller called AMERICA IN CRIMSON RED, published by Prairie Fire Press in Arnold, Missouri.

John Leland and the Baptists in Virginia had a lot to do with Madison and the writing of the Bill of Rights. I dare say that those men were well aware of the NC Baptist “Regulators” of Stearns’ mountain church when the Second Amendment was worded.

111 posted on 04/25/2007 9:30:16 AM PDT by John Leland 1789
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
The definition of 'militia' does not affect the operation of 2nd amendment at all. The first clause could read "All dogs, being canine,..." and would have the same effect on the second part- "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." The first clause merely puts forth the reasoning and necessity for the second. The second part stands very well alone.

"The weather being changeable, the right of the people to own clothing shall not be infringed" would not allow the government to confiscate or forbid clothing if the weather does not then vary nor does it require that people possess or wear clothing.

112 posted on 04/25/2007 9:31:26 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
The only problem with the militia definition is that it states able-bodied MEN of certain ages.

I don't like that MEN thing. And the age....well, I plan to keep growing older.

113 posted on 04/25/2007 9:31:41 AM PDT by Lazamataz (JOIN THE NRA: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit

JM.02

Well-regulated...well equipped and functioning in a proper manner


114 posted on 04/25/2007 9:32:04 AM PDT by T Wayne (If you know how many guns you have, you don't have enough!!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Nickh

I hate you.


115 posted on 04/25/2007 9:32:24 AM PDT by Lazamataz (JOIN THE NRA: https://membership.nrahq.org/forms/signup.asp)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Perhaps you should pay attention before you post. My comments were regarding the military effectiveness of the militia during the Revolution not about the Second amendment.


116 posted on 04/25/2007 9:36:20 AM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Defeat Hillary's V'assed Left Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 102 | View Replies]

To: Lazamataz
I hate you.

Is that hate speech?

117 posted on 04/25/2007 9:44:53 AM PDT by MARTIAL MONK
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
My tendency is to lean toward --snip -- a need to have some type of limitation on militias in comparison to a regular army.

The 2nd is there as a last line of defense, not offense.
A militia should not have the fire power to overthrow a government, but rather to defend itself against one.

A howitzer in every home is too much. A hunting rifle is too little. I am not qualified to say what the 'right amount' is. I believe it changes with weapons and other technology and the balance is part of a political discourse.


We cannot have a "political discourse" because of your rejection of the basic constitutional principle that the 2nd is there as a ~first~ line of defense.

Who is qualified to say what the 'right amount' is? A majority?

118 posted on 04/25/2007 10:08:00 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing; justshutupandtakeit
We had just defeated the English, thanks to Minutemen and gorilla tactics -- not with ranks of militiamen using licensed government arms.
There is no question that their intent was to arm the individual citizens of our country.
6 SteveMcKing

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

justshutupandtakeit:
While 'gorilla' tactics might be effective in the jungle what won the Revolution was Washington's creation of the Continental army.
Militia was very ineffective outside of a few conspicuous exceptions.

justshutupandtakeit wrote:
Perhaps you should pay attention before you post. My comments were regarding the military effectiveness of the militia during the Revolution not about the Second amendment.

Your comments were in reply to Steve's, that: "-- There is no question that their intent was to arm the individual citizens of our country.
6 SteveMcKing --"

You were arguing against Steves 'romantic idea' that the intent was to arm citizens as militia:

"-- around here romaniticization of the militia's role and effectiveness is still commonplace.

Whats 'romantic' about defending our right to own and carry military type arms?

119 posted on 04/25/2007 10:41:16 AM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies]

To: archy

So then the primary reason for the guarantees of the 2nd ammendment is to allow the citizenry of the United States to resist effectively an unpopular and tyrannical central government and its standing army.

So then would it not follow that the citizenry must be armed with arms which would allow it to resist effectively the arms of the standing army of the central government?


120 posted on 04/25/2007 11:48:39 AM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 100 | View Replies]

To: Dead Corpse
How can you successfully defend against an out of control government if you don't have an equal force of arms?

Let's forget about the foreign enemy at first because under current circumstances that seems an unrealistic scenario for the next 75 to 100 years at least.

If we imagine a situation in which the US government suspended constitutional rights and declared martial law - for whatever reason - and the crisis that sparked this action ended (or was simply fabricated inthe first place), but the people in power were unwilling to return to the rule of law, this is what the 2nd Amendment is for.

Now the US government would still have access to the full arsenal of the US military. It is a force that no other military can currently match by a long shot. Therefore it can not be expected that the American people maintain an equally robust military capable of defeating our own military force.

One would hope that soldier themselves would be unwilling to kill American civilians, but you know what Abe Lincoln said, "you can fool some of the people all of the time." However, as we are seeing in Iraq, it does not take a modern, high-tech military to make it impossible to control even a relatively small country if the citizens are 1. unwilling to comply and 2. adequately armed.

IEDs and basic assault rifles are all that is necessary for the chaos in Iraq.

Now if we transpose a similar "insurgency" vis a vis Red Dawn in the US with citizen pitted against a rogue government, it would not take a force capable of actually handing a conventional military defeat on Us forces, but rather an insurgency that could not itself be defeated by those forces.

Thus there is no requirement for an offensive capacity, but rather only defensive. American citizens do not have to "take" Washington, but simply prevent Washington from "taking" them.

Come to think of it, this is true even under current peaceful circumstances.

121 posted on 04/25/2007 12:20:34 PM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (I don't care what side of the debate you are on: Weather is not Climate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 103 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard
So then the primary reason for the guarantees of the 2nd ammendment is to allow the citizenry of the United States to resist effectively an unpopular and tyrannical central government and its standing army.

I'd say it was meant more as a guarantee that the central government is thereby permanently reminded of the constitutional limitations on its power, and that should it attempt to usurp the Powers of the States, the people have the means to do something about it. Should the states be incapable of acting, the duty falls by default to the citizenry themselves.

Should the constitution promises of individual rights then be contravened or suspended, then it is not only those portions of the Bill of Rights that are affected, but the entire constitutional contract between government and governed that is thereby rendered moot, null and void. Neither can it be restored by simply restoring the rights previously suspended; the entire constitutional practice of ratification by each of the states would again be necessary for the constitution to again become valid.

Neither would the U.S. government have any legitimate authority in the interm; the establishment of the government and of the United States itself, as described in Sections I, II, III, IV, V, VI and VII of the Constitution, would completely cease to be valid.

Thus the framers insistance that the people have the means to keep the Constitutioon alive, even if the Central government and those of the states did not.

So then would it not follow that the citizenry must be armed with arms which would allow it to resist effectively the arms of the standing army of the central government?

Exactly so. Or else there is no central government, just another criminal gang that's equipped and dressed a little better than most of the others.

122 posted on 04/25/2007 12:25:44 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Let's forget about the foreign enemy at first because under current circumstances that seems an unrealistic scenario for the next 75 to 100 years at least.

I would very strongly suggest that you do not completely disregard the possibility. All it would take would be for a Quisling government- and we have lately seen recently that there is no shortage of globalist renegades in either major party- to cede several southwestern states *back* to Mexico, and attempt to enforce the reconquista with U.N. *peacekeepers.*

In such an event, you can also depend on a very high liklihood of US troops under UN command being involved as well.

123 posted on 04/25/2007 12:38:32 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: arthurus; FoxInSocks; justshutupandtakeit
Such tactics have been since refined into the modern guerrilla warfare.

THANK GOD I am anonymous here... Small mistake, but I feel like an absolute @ss.

124 posted on 04/25/2007 12:44:39 PM PDT by SteveMcKing
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 105 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
However, as we are seeing in Iraq, it does not take a modern, high-tech military to make it impossible to control even a relatively small country if the citizens are 1. unwilling to comply and 2. adequately armed.

And three, entirely ruthless and resolute in their desire to prevail.

In the example of the 4-month Finnish Civil War of 1918, about 40,000, near 1 percent of the population of Finland, were killed, but less than a quarter of them were on the battlefield, most during postwar retaliation and executions of those found to have been treasonous. The US managed about a 2% fatality rate during the US *Civil War* of 1861-'65, but that was spread across an overall period of several years.

The current US population is right around 300 million. You can figure for yourself what a 1% fatality rate would work out to. Or worse.

125 posted on 04/25/2007 12:52:58 PM PDT by archy (Et Thybrim multo spumantem sanguine cerno. [from Virgil's *Aeneid*.])
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 121 | View Replies]

To: archy

So then the people ought to have the right to keep weapons systems effective agianst Abrams tanks, Apache helicopters, and Trident subs, is that right?


126 posted on 04/25/2007 1:07:59 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 122 | View Replies]

To: swain_forkbeard

Your post is an example of the oft used argument on the left -

if you can’t defeat the weapons that the military has, you might as well not be allowed to have anything.


127 posted on 04/25/2007 1:09:57 PM PDT by MrB (You can't reason people out of a position that they didn't use reason to get into in the first place)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 126 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007
I'll let the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment speak for me, thank you.

The "men" who are going to "speak" on this issue aren't the ones who wrote it. They're long dead and buried.

But rather, the ones who WILL determine what the language of the Second Amendment means will be the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court, when the Palmer case comes before them... as it must.

This should happen within 3-5 years, perhaps sooner, depending on how hard the principals of the case push the issue.

I will NOT predict how the Court will decide. Frankly, could go one way or the other.

I WILL predict that the decision will become one of the most important of the twenty-first century.

- John

128 posted on 04/25/2007 1:15:13 PM PDT by Fishrrman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: MrB

If you have been following the thread then you know this argument was developed based upon an understanding of the intended purpose of the 2nd ammendment - to allow the people to resist and defeat an unpopular and tyrannical central government and its standing army. Put simply, the framers considered that the arms available to the people would be commensurate to the armament of the standing army, but that the people would greatly outnumber the standing army. There is no restriction or distinction in the Bill of Rights, or in the supporting historical sources, as far as I know, concerning types of arms.

So please speak to the point. Where you may have encountered similar arguments does not change this one. You suspect my intention is to undermine the Bill fo Rights by forcing it to its logical extreme. I assure you, that is not my intention. But regardless of my intention, there is the argument itself.


129 posted on 04/25/2007 1:25:56 PM PDT by swain_forkbeard (Rationality may not be sufficient, but it is necessary.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 127 | View Replies]

To: tpaine

Talking with you never changes. You respond to something never said then procede to show that it was never said yet carry on as if it had.

I was speaking of the MILITA’S role in the Revolutionary War as your copy clearly shows. But you are so anxious to impress your imagined fan club that you MAKE UP something to attack. You don’t even need me so carry on.


130 posted on 04/25/2007 1:34:10 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Defeat Hillary's V'assed Left Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: SteveMcKing

Don’t. It just gave us wiseasses a target. Of course WE never gave anyone else a similiar one. At least in the last couple of minutes.


131 posted on 04/25/2007 1:36:43 PM PDT by justshutupandtakeit (Defeat Hillary's V'assed Left Wing Conspiracy)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 124 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

Without reading the whole thread, let me add:

Another reason not to bar any adult citizen from possessing arms is to maintain the tradition of arms so that the militia is a large, experienced population.

Youth should learn the lore, rules, and use of arms from parents and grandparents.


132 posted on 04/25/2007 3:03:27 PM PDT by rbookward (When 900 years old you are, type as well you will not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ultra Sonic 007

it’s interesting that the american leftist media translates

al sadr’s armed thugs as “militia”.


133 posted on 04/25/2007 3:07:56 PM PDT by ken21 (it takes a village to brainwash your child + to steal your property! /s)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fishrrman
-- I'll let the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment speak for me, thank you.

The "men" who are going to "speak" on this issue aren't the ones who wrote it. They're long dead and buried.

But rather, the ones who WILL determine what the language of the Second Amendment means will be the nine members of the U.S. Supreme Court...

Alas, if they judge wrongly, then the U.S. Supreme court will not have the last word on the meaning of the Second Amendment. Heaven forbid the people, possessing arms and willing to use them, should have to correct their misinterpretation.

134 posted on 04/25/2007 3:31:49 PM PDT by rbookward (When 900 years old you are, type as well you will not!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 128 | View Replies]

To: Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit
Hope this helps. Meaning of words change over time. From dictionary.com Regulated:.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

135 posted on 04/25/2007 3:52:31 PM PDT by Conservative4Ever (Hoping my 'carbon footprint' has crushed a few liberals)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: justshutupandtakeit
'Talking' with you never changes.
You made clear comments arguing against Steves 'romantic idea' that the intent was to arm citizens as militia. -- Now you deny it.

Guess what, everyone here can read what you wrote. You're fooling no one.

136 posted on 04/25/2007 4:52:00 PM PDT by tpaine (" My most important function on the Supreme Court is to tell the majority to take a walk." -Scalia)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: archy
The current US population is right around 300 million. You can figure for yourself what a 1% fatality rate would work out to. Or worse.

It really depends on whether the "insurgents" target civilians too. In the US, under such a circumstance, the government would likely establish concentration camps for the families and supporters of these insurgents. The death rate would be directly related to the conditions in these camps. The issue of retaliation would depend upon the brutality of the regime and its capacity to control information.

As previously stated, the strategy of non-compliant US citizens would be to create chaos and kill soldiers, not hand the occupying forces a traditional battlefield defeat. Moreover, PsycOps would be of utmost import to convince both soldiers and civilians that the government was on the wrong side. Even a dictatorship requires a functioning economy whichin turn requires workers. For propaganda purposes, I doubt "insurgents" themselves would target civilians; although a truly ruthless government would and then blame them. 3 millions deaths - or 1% - is an acceptable price to pay for the reestablishment of American constitutional freedoms as far as I am concerned.

As far as a foreign invader - you may be correct. However, nuclear weapons alter the equation; so long as there is no complete disarmament in this area, conquering a nuclear armed nation is a lose-lose situation. Although I HAVE always been very suspicious of Canada.

137 posted on 04/25/2007 11:41:44 PM PDT by Einigkeit_Recht_Freiheit (I don't care what side of the debate you are on: Weather is not Climate)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 125 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I hear people say that, but if that is true, then of what purpose is the preliminary clause?

This from me, a guy who thinks we can have crew served weapons because of the Letters of Marque and Reprisal paragraph. If we can’t have crew served weapons, then from where do the folks get the armed ships to act as privateers?


138 posted on 04/26/2007 9:09:46 PM PDT by donmeaker (You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

Constitutionally we can have crew served weapons. For the first hundred years and more there was artillery in private hands with no government interference. It fell out of fashion because of the expense and the fact that the Indian Wars were winding down and the possibility of invasion of the country was receding to insignificance. Liberals are horrified at the implication of the 2nd Amendment. They see everybody and his brother owning F-22s and 105 mm howitzers and blasting away at each other in road rage disputes. Liberals have no God and therefore no morals and no inner controls. To them all extremes are not only thinkable but inevitable if there is not a strong government to keep the people tightly controlled. The first clause, as I have explained many times, merely gives the reasoning for the second clause. It assumes the militia because the militia is all able-bodied men and asserts that for the militia to be effective, which it also assumes to be vital, the RKBA is not to be infringed. It is a stronger prohibition than any of the others because the others all say “Congress shall make no law...” which allows that a state or a city or a Water Control District could make a law. The second says “...shall not be infringed” which allows of no infringement by anybody. If the sheriff says you can’t have a gun he is infringing. He does not get an exemption from infringing. Nor does Mayor Daley or Rudy Giuliani.


139 posted on 04/28/2007 5:03:30 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 138 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I have no G-d, but am full of controls. I don’t get to ask for forgiveness, nor can I depend on faith, sacrifice, pilgrimage, or magic to redeem any mistakes I make.

I agree with your view of the constitution. Further, I don’t see how under the 14th Amendment, the states can claim authority to deny their state citizens/residents rights guaranteed under the Federal Constitution.

I don’t see too many people owning F-22s, as they are pretty expensive. Most thugs are less dangerous with fully automatic weapons, as they can’t aim worth crap. As for the 105mm howitzer, they don’t conceal work a hoot, and you need a team of folks to get them to fire, even if you don’t do the “forward observer” routine. Feeding them is a major chore too, which is why the “Caissons go rolling along”.

But boy-howdy, have you seen all the odd kinds of ammunition available for the 12 gauge/18mm smoothbore?


140 posted on 04/30/2007 8:29:41 PM PDT by donmeaker (You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: ZULU

The current definition of “Militia” can be found in Title 10, section 311. It only includes women if they are in the National Guard, but includes men from 17 to 45, and to age 65 if they have prior service as an officer (I think that would include noncommissioned and warrant officers as well as comissioned officers).

I don’t recall if women who have served as an officer are still eligble to age 65, but it would make sense of they were. Again, I would prefer to add all women, and not just women who are in the National Guard.

I think the Militia act of 1792 can also be found so that you can refer to the original intent of what the Militia meant at the time that the Constitution was adopted.


141 posted on 04/30/2007 8:38:09 PM PDT by donmeaker (You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

It defines the use of the militia and its treatment rather than defining exactly what constitutes “militia”.

Also, if you will note, the Bill of Rights dates from 1789 and the Militia Act dates from 1792. The Constitution cannot be amended without going through the Amendment process.

Ergo, if the Miltia Act in any way interfers with the original intent of the Founding Fathers as expressed in 1789, it is unconstitutional. But since it does not appear to address what constitutes the “militia” as referred to in the Second Amendment, it is not an issue there.

I maintain that the “militia” as referred to in the Second Amendment, refers to all able-bodied free males capable of bearing arms. Such individuals were subject to call out in an emergency to maintain order and protect the state.

This concept goes back to the Anglo-Saxon Fyrd. One of the things which distinguished the Roman polical society from that of the Germanic tribes was the fact that the Germanic tribes were in effect, nations in arms. All free born men and sometimes women, owned and carried weapons and were familiar with their use.

In Ancient Rome, even as far back as the Republic, only soldiers were armed. During Republican Roman times, all citizens bore that burden, but the carrying of weapons by citizens outside of a military context was forbidden. During the Empire, Augustus “relieved” Roman citizens of even that right of serving in the military and replaced them with a professional military force drawn mainly from the provinces. As time progressed, civilian Roman citizens became more and more unfamiliar on a personal level with the use of weapons.

The English tradition of the fyrd was carried on by the “Trained Bands” of London and even in the time of Henry VIII, all free male citizens were required to practise weekly with the longbow and keep a functioning longbow and supply of arrows and be ready to serve at the call of the king.

The idea of disarming the public probably had its beginnings in 18th Century England with the creation of professional standing armies. But even in the 1600’s and 1700’s Britain provided weapons to its colonial subjects for use against French and Indians. Even when those arms were provided under military discipline in formal militia units, discharged veterans were often permitted to keep Brown Bess muskets for personal use. Many of the militia units that fought in New England and New England farmers who shot at retreating British troops from Concord were using French and Indian War era Brown Bess Muskets of a pattern provided to them or their fathers a generation or so before. As a matter of fact, until the French began providing Charleville Muskets, Brown Bess left-overs or crudely made Colonial Committee of Safety Muskets patterned after Brown Bess Muskets were used by American colonials against the British.

So the concept of allowing citizens to bear arms, to be familiar in their use, to be subject ot call out in times of local or national emergency was deeply rooted in English tradition.

As a Country who roots are in the England of the time frame in which this was common, there is little doubt in my mind what the Founding Fathers intended with the Second Amendment. They wanted free born citizens to be able to own arms and be familiar with their use in the event they were needed for local or national emergencies.

Further, if you read the Declaration of Independence carefully, you will note the statement about the people having the right to alter or abolish a tyrannical form of government. OBVIOUSLY, without arms and the familiarity with their use, such would be impossible. This adds an additional spin on the subject.

Finally, as products of The Enlightenment, the Founding Fathers and the documents they created were based on the fact that man is born with certain inherent rights, given him by God, not the State, and that accordingly, only God not the State can take them away. The right to self defense is one of these inherent God-given rights.


142 posted on 05/01/2007 6:43:59 AM PDT by ZULU (Non nobis, non nobis Domine, sed nomini tuo da gloriam. God, guts and guns made America great.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: donmeaker
have you seen all the odd kinds of ammunition available for the 12 gauge/18mm smoothbore?

Just about anything you can dump down the muzzle. My Grandpa had an old 8 and a short-barreled .75 caliber musket. He demonstrated for me some interesting loads in the woods in Maine 50 years ago.

As a conservative, you partake of Christian Civilization and have internalized the mores that come with that. Whether those internal controls and outlook are God-given or just invented by our Judeo-Christian cultural ancestors they have made this civilization possible. The left has rejected not only God but everything about their heritage. They do retain some of those interior controls but do not trust them because they see them as irrational and do not understand them. They believe only in positive controls by men and believe also that all unenlightened men are ravening beasts if not restrained by their betters. Many disdain him but Thomas Hobbes is their prophet. And where do these "betters" come from? Well, they come from good families and go to the right schools...and these same folks claim to be the ofranchisees of Reason.

143 posted on 05/01/2007 7:00:13 AM PDT by arthurus (Better to fight them over THERE than over HERE)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I have an aquaintance who suggests that the Left wants to recreate the Southern Plantation: They live in the Big House, and make the decisions, and in return we get to work and live off what they give us.

Rather a lot of the Southern Plantation used religious justifications for the continued bondage of the Sons of Ham. Sure, you don’t agree with that, and I don’t agree with it either. I figure that any religion is not rational. You can follow it all you want. Once anyone uses a text not subject to criticism, and the non-rational as their basis for decisions, they can get any answer they want. Insanity rules.

The real strength of the Founding Fathers is they knew what didn’t work. They knew that religious control of Government didn’t work. (the example of Islam.) They knew that government support of religion led to corrupt religion. (The example of the established Church of England) They knew that pure democracy led to 51 percent voting themselves the assets of others(the example of the Italian republics). They knew that hereditary monarchy led to corrupt government(The example of England). They knew that inherited aristocracy led to corrupt government (the example of Russia). They knew that legislators would meddle with the administration of justice, and would meddle with the foreign policy/military policy(the example of England). They devised a system of limited government powers, with separate functions to limit the ability of corrupt politicians. It failed immediately, but didn’t fail catatrophically until the War of the Rebellion. When put back together, the centrifugal forces were attenuated, to avert another rebellion, but the centralizing forces had less counter. The government has continued to fail, but its failure has been slower than the failure of other governments.


144 posted on 05/01/2007 6:13:07 PM PDT by donmeaker (You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: arthurus

I like the notion of unenlightened men as ravening beasts if unrestrained by their betters. I think of “Enlightened Men” as ravening beasts unless restrained by other ravening beasts.

My duty to my children and my neighbors is to assure any who consider oppression as their calling, that such a path would be nasty, brutal, and short. Hobbesian, in other words.

Firearms are 14th Century technology. Anyone with a brain, a lathe a hammer, and some common steel shapes can fabricate a fully automatic machinegun. Gun Control is a fantasy. In England the thugs are turning to that approach, as the Government is posting ever more cameras, and extending regulations to kitchen knives.


145 posted on 05/01/2007 6:18:24 PM PDT by donmeaker (You may not be interested in War but War is interested in you.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-145 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson