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.
Where is that sentence is the 2nd Amendment. You appear to be pulling things out of your a. . . I mean air.
And why you can't/won't answer ours.
You are speaking in the plural as if someone else is involved in our exchange. It seems you might have a small megalomaniac complex. Or do you represent an organization?
It shall not be infringed. -- What more need be said?
As I said, you have a conclusion, but don't even understand my question.
Last time: Define "well regulated".
Maybe to make things less confusing and to shorten this thread a bit you can just take this last part of our exchange. I and the other Freepers are big boys and can look back at the other posts to see the entire exchange if required.
Wait. I just read your manifesto. Never mind. No point in this exchange.
I agree with you. The right clearly pertains to the people, not to some sort of standing militia.
But there is a more interesting issue, I think, and one that is not at all settled. And it defies black-and-white thinking. Which means alot of people won’t like to think about it at all.
The issue is, “What arms?” And I don’t think the founding fathers give us much to go on either. Was the original intention of the 2nd that the people be allowed to keep a musket, flintlock pistol, tomahawk, knife, and perhaps a military-style sword only? How about cannon? How about a warship? I suspect the original intention contained no restriction with respect to type of arms. Certainly, the language of the ammendment contains no such restriction.
But we have all accepted a de facto infringement, and one which is probably quite necessary. Let’s get absurd. Does an individual have the right to possess an atom bomb? Why not? It is a form of arms, no doubt. Should he have the right?
Okay. Nobody’s arguing for that. Except me maybe. Well let’s move to Abrams tank. Same questions as above. MLRS, mortars, howitzers, frags, chain-guns, air-superiority fighter jets, automatic weapons, semi-automatics with big magazines, with collapsible stocks, with pistol grips, with more effective ammuniation. Why do we have the right to keep and bear some arms and not others?
Well, no. Different militia units in different locales had different regulations; in some areas, as in the former French Northwest Territory area from Vincennes to Detroit, militiamembers were required to understand the French language commands of their French veteran officers; in most others English was the working tongue, though some Pennsylvania units probably condusted their operations in German. By 1774 Massachusetts began enlisting black freeman and former slaves in its militia companies; other communities forbade the participation of such. Too, some limited the enlistment to include only those who could demonstrate their ability with their weapon; speed of loading on command with a musket or accuracy with a rifle. In some jurisdictions ministers, teachers or public officials were exempt from militia service; in others they were not [and in some, the militia was considered so necessary that those who held positions of leadership were prohibited from holding other public offices.] And in some units, a *subscription fee* had to be paid upoin enlistment to cover the cost of uniforms and common equipment; other units paid a bounty to any warm body that showed up for duty.
In short: the regulations and standards of different militia varied considerably, tailored to the circumstances and resources of the communities from which they were drawn. State by state and town by town, requirements were far from simple, nor uniform.
You can make a pretty good argument that an *atom bomb* is not a *weapon* per se but a form of ammunition, some types of which can indeed be limited by treaty or law as inappropriate for militia usage.
Militia units and individuals might thereby have the means to deliver such ammunition, via aircraft, missile or some light artillery launchers, but their ammunition therefor would be limited to conventional warheads, unless some very drastic circumstances required otherwise.
Neither is the cost and proper maintenance of nuclear ordnance inconsiderable.
It means they keep their clocks and wristwatches wound. In this electronic age, it means that those with digital watches have fresh batteries in them.
Now you tell me: why is it vital that todays soldiers have exact, precise common timepieces? There is a very real reason.
Ah, no problem. Than the other rights for *the people* enumerated in the Bill of Rights apply only to the National Guard as well.
Nope. The NGUS is a part of the militia, but not all of it. And it has become a part of the standing army about which our founding fathers had some very particular concerns.
Interesting answer. Anything to back this up?
why is it vital that todays soldiers have exact, precise common timepieces?
Very clearly they meant for individuals to have cannon and ships of war, since the constitutional authorization for letters of Marque, and Privateers made it clear that some citizens would possess such equipment and resources, and that the private warfighting services of those businessmen could be purchased or leased as a function of government.
Aircraft carriers offer technological advances not really anticipated by the constitutional drafters, but back in the 1990s I used to put on a briefing [dressed in period uniform] of current USAF capabilities for George Washington's staff officers:
Now I got to let you in on a secret boys, and you'll think I'm funnin' you, but it's so: we got wagons what can fly. I know you can see the good of this....
Here's your first clue:
What is your take on the "regulation" requirement?
It's easier to understand when you consider the historical context in which it was written. The colonies had just defeated the British militarily, but that victory had not come easily, for obvious reasons and unobvious ones---one of the latter being that it was very difficult to keep an irregular army (continentals + militia) supplied and on the field of battle. Think of it---there were no standards at all---militiamen, especially, carried their own weapons, meaning that those could be any caliber at all . . . same with heavy pieces, etc. Keeping this sort of rag-tag force on the field was a logistical nightmare.
Well-regulated, in the sense that it applies to the militia phrase of the Second Amendment, means well-ordered, so that such a force would be easier to supply and maintain on a field of battle. Not only in terms of supply, mind you, but in chain of command, too. Remember, also, that the Federal government planned to maintain a skeletal standing army (and no Navy at all), so the ability to whip the militias into a fighting force in the least amount of time was paramount. Hence, the requirement that the militia be well-regulated.
Concur. But here is one particularly relevant meaning from that period.
Now that was the type of thing I was looking for. Thanks.
He’s referring to my older phrase: “a well regulated militia is one that is trained well.”
In the context of the discussion - in HISTORICAL CONTEXT - that’s what well-regulated is referring to. And I compounded upon my phrase in post #49.
Which is why he says “ours”.
Is there anything wrong with my explanation in #49?
"To make regular". Read the Militia Act of 1792 for what civilians were expected to show up with in regards to equipment if they wished to join the organized militia.
In order for them to show up with arms, such arms were considered protected. However, it was also noted that arms of other types were equally protected at the time. It has only been since then that attempts by various anti-Rights judges, legislators and lobbyists that have tried to limit the protection for RKBA, the scope of that protection, and a redefinition of terms.
Don't play up the BS meaning by trying to invent something that isn't there. RKBA is what it means. Plainly. The Right of every Individual to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. End of story.
I DID answer you and my answer got erased somehow.
I wrote the following:
To answer your question - Coordinated attack. Did you ever hear the story of the time the German Kaiser went to meet the Swiss general. The Kaiser asked the general, “how many men can you mobilize in a week?”. The general replied that he could mobilize 1 million men in 48 hours. The Kaiser than asked, “what would they do if I marched 5 million men in here next week?”. The general replied, “They would each fire 5 shots and go home.”
Or, watch them squirm with this one:
“Because a pregnancy may have been caused by rape or incest, a woman’s right to an abortion shall not be infringed.”
Where is that sentence is the 2nd Amendment. You appear to be pulling things out of your a. . . I mean air.
Maybe to make things less confusing and to shorten this thread a bit you can just take this last part of our exchange. I and the other Freepers are big boys and can look back at the other posts to see the entire exchange if required.
How 'clever', you're confused and you admit it, yet you want me to "just take" your last part of our exchange to answer, ignoring your previous inconsistencies.
Never mind. No point in this exchange.
Thanks for admitting you're unable to make the points necessary to continue. -- Run along now, you're dismissed..
Again, I agree. The intention of the originators of the Bill of Rights did NOT limit the types of arms kept by the people. And I think it’s a little too clever to argue that the delivery method can be separated from the ammo. What is the use of keeping a musket if you may have no ball or powder? Together, it is all an armament. Besides, our law currently restricts not just ammo, but other things, like automatic firearms.
So we have accepted a restriction on our Constitutionally-guaranteed right, haven’t we? Why is that? What was the point of guaranteeing arms to the people, in the first place?
I challenge either of you to find one.(unless you consider an aversion to citizens possessing howitzers, F16s and nuclear weapons - which by the way is meant as a strawman argument - however, I have had Freepers defend the right of George Soros and MoveOn to own these)
I still think it is important to analyze the different aspects of what is a very short Amendment that is so incredibly important.
It is important to be able to understand each aspect of it. As mentioned, I am well past the militia part, but still haven’t found a completely well rounded explanation of the “well-regulated” issue. Saying it is “no longer relevant” doesn't’t work for me, because it opens up that argument for the entire Amendment.
My tendency is to lean toward the contrast with “irregular” (as Dead Corpse wrote) as well as 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 citizen should not be able to establish an arsenal of such power that a private army of mercenaries could threaten the country. But, the fire power available should be a deterrent great enough that no force, internal or external, could be certain of securing the country.
For me, that is “well-regulated”. 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.
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.