“The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good”
— George Washington
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government”
— Thomas Jefferson, 1 Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334
One should be very suspicious when an armed government demands that its citizens disarm.
I get a chuckle when libtards say no hunter needs a so-called assault weapon. Last I checked, the Second Amendment wasn’t about hunters’ rights!
In America citizens are entitled to protect themselves.
As any rancher, farmer or homesteader in the southwest along the border can attest the U.S. government is failing in the job to protect its citizens, and as long as drug cartels are crossing a semi-automatic rifle is a citizen’s best protection against a dangerous menace.
The fact is that cops can do little to protect citizens in the first instance but only show up after the fact — whether along the border or in any city — when it’s often too late.
“Sensible” is libspeak for “the camel’s nose”.
Of course, the mind manipulators want the gullible to think it’s all about hunting.
Elite liberals walk around telling each other how smart they are --- until some of them start believing it...
The purpose of having citizens armed with paramilitary weapons is to allow them to engage in paramilitary actions. The Second Amendment is not about Bambi and burglars whatever a well-regulated militia is, it is not a hunting party or a sport-clays club. It is remarkable to me that any educated person let alone a Harvard Law graduate believes that the second item on the Bill of Rights is a constitutional guarantee of enjoying a recreational activity.
Elite liberals walk around telling each other how smart they are --- until some of them start believing ...
I may join the NRA now, but sometimes they sound too much like mere hunters...
It is about defending USA and each one of us, from enemies foreign, domestic and in our neighbors.
If Mr. Williamson thinks that we must defend our self against the state. What is an example? It what situation would it be 'legal'? Does he infer we need revolution? I curious what he is actually suggesting instead of merely the typical armed citizen defending himself with a gun against a criminal. He could bring up Indiana passing laws for the homeowner to defend themselves[against illegal LEO], even so that is limited in scope, and depended on a 'law'.
Nothing else need be said.
The “state” is not as much a threat as the criminals that it coddles and enables. The campaign against the 2A is mostly to disarm victims so they don’t inconvenience the criminals as much. Without the 2A we would not have “home invasions” making the news as they do now, because they would be common. Without the 2A many women or elderly would be revictimized regularly. There would be the same media blackout of violent crime for the suburbs that we now get for the big cities. Most importantly there would be immediate prosecution of any possession of firearms or any components to send a lesson to the law abiding that would far exceed sentences given to violent criminals.
“There is no legitimate exception to the Second Amendment for military-style weapons, because military-style weapons are precisely what the Second Amendment guarantees our right to keep and bear.”
And the definition of arms is, see tag line.
It is beyond the time for reason, much less compromise with these zealots. We barrage our elected officials with electoral threat, and we mercilessly punish those that don’t toe the line - PERIOD!
Save that, we ignore their new laws and do not comply willingly. The time for discussion is over; we’ve seen the ‘discussion’ that Feinstein wants.
In The Federalist #8, Alexander Hamilton states the fear of having a standing army.
The institutions chiefly alluded to are STANDING ARMIES and the correspondent appendages of military establishments. Standing armies, it is said, are not provided against in the new Constitution; and it is therefore inferred that they may exist under it. Their existence, however, from the very terms of the proposition, is, at most, problematical and uncertain. But standing armies, it may be replied, must inevitably result from a dissolution of the Confederacy. Frequent war and constant apprehension, which require a state of as constant preparation, will infallibly produce them. The weaker States or confederacies would first have recourse to them, to put themselves upon an equality with their more potent neighbors. They would endeavor to supply the inferiority of population and resources by a more regular and effective system of defense, by disciplined troops, and by fortifications. They would, at the same time, be necessitated to strengthen the executive arm of government, in doing which their constitutions would acquire a progressive direction toward monarchy. It is of the nature of war to increase the executive at the expense of the legislative authority.
The expedients which have been mentioned would soon give the States or confederacies that made use of them a superiority over their neighbors. Small states, or states of less natural strength, under vigorous governments, and with the assistance of disciplined armies, have often triumphed over large states, or states of greater natural strength, which have been destitute of these advantages. Neither the pride nor the safety of the more important States or confederacies would permit them long to submit to this mortifying and adventitious superiority. They would quickly resort to means similar to those by which it had been effected, to reinstate themselves in their lost pre-eminence. Thus, we should, in a little time, see established in every part of this country the same engines of despotism which have been the scourge of the Old World. This, at least, would be the natural course of things; and our reasonings will be the more likely to be just, in proportion as they are accommodated to this standard.
THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert; an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS."
Hamilton then argues that the formation of the militia by itself should be enough to prevent a standing army from forming.
Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.
``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.
A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?
If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.
What is almost always overlooked by these articles and debates is the simple fact that the Second Amendment does not CREATE the right to bear arms. The wording is not “... shall have the right...” It is “...THE [emphasis mine] right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” The wording assumes the fundamental pre-existence of the right, and the mention of militia is merely one justification for it remaining in place.
Considering the advances and abundances in sources, means and tools of surveillance, precision and/or standoff attack munitions of all size, weapons of mass destruction and a full spectrum of non-lethal means of restraint, control and coercion, I think it’s high time that we examine the rapidly diminishing effectiveness of our 2nd amendment rights to keep and bear arms as a protection of our liberties. I think we may need a new constitutional amendment to check and balance the rapidly increasing powers of the state. To start with we need to carefully define the conditions in which habeas corpus can be suspended or martial law imposed.
Forming the militia through the National Guard is an interesting idea, but it would take a red-state governor with big brass ones to pull it off.
Once upon a time, there was the Regular Army (Air Force, in my case), and the Reserves. The National Guard was a separate animal, with retired or surplus equipment and considered the “poor sister” of the regulars.
Nowadays, the Guard is just another form of Reserves. Service members (I do believe) can now switch from Regular to Reserve to Guard with little effort and their equipment is much improved. The National Guard is now an integral part of the military, as seen by how often the various Guard units are “called up” and sent overseas. (Without even a declaration of war or national emergency ... how odd.)
So, to organize a militia through the Guard, I believe some daring governor would need the blessing of the Pentagon, since the brass pretty much “owns” the Guard these days. And if the Guard answers to the Pentagon, can we really call them a “militia” anymore?
I’m sure I’m wrong on a couple of these points, but I’m sure FReepers will be oh-so-quick to correct me. lol