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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.