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.
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.
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.
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.
THANK GOD I am anonymous here... Small mistake, but I feel like an absolute @ss.
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.
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?
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
it’s interesting that the american leftist media translates
al sadr’s armed thugs as “militia”.
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.
Guess what, everyone here can read what you wrote. You're fooling no one.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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.