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.
Whats 'romantic' about defending our right to own and carry military type arms?
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?
Sorry, just now I don't remember where I heard it, some years ago.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Q.E.D.
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.
"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.
I don't like that MEN thing. And the age....well, I plan to keep growing older.
JM.02
Well-regulated...well equipped and functioning in a proper manner
I hate you.
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.
Is that hate speech?
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?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
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?
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?
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.