“put into place to guarantee the rights of the individual to be equally armed as military, both foreign and domestic, in the event that the citizenry might actually, at some point, have to fight their own government,”
So, we need to start facing facts that such “arms” include tanks, ships, fighter jets and the like. Even thousands of us armed with the best MIL-style autos are just going to get creamed by a few bombers overhead. Our little handguns aren’t going to cut it.
Unfortunately, far too many treat the constitution as a living document.
The tyranny of government, via laws in 1934, 1968, and 1986 have empowered government over the people, and now the people are at risk, being several degrees less armed than the power of government called the Army. Even less so when factoring in the AF, Navy, Marines, Coast Guard, National Guard, State Police, BATFE, FBI, US Marshals, Park Service, etc, etc.
I laugh when the potheads try to tell me that the Second Amendment is about the National Guard. LOL! It's obvious that they are clueless as to what the Bill of Rights is.
Clue: The Bill of Rights doesn't guarantee rights to the government. The Second Amendment was not written to guarantee the government the right to have a National Guard.
Reason prevails, in the purpose of the 2A, as stated in the post. What other reason for its high rank? A hobby? A collection? Hardly.
Even before the 2nd Amendment, Article I section 8 gave Congress the power “To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;”. A Letter of Marque gives an individual the power to make war in the name of the United States, most commonly allowing a ship owner to become a privateer and capture enemy ships. They didn’t do that with either stern language or muskets. Instead they had to own the 18th century weapon of mass destruction - the cannon - to capture enemy ships.
The Bill of Rights is an enumeration of the natural rights of man. These rights derive from God, NOT from government.
Privileges - such as a driver’s license - are granted by government and can be taken away.
If the government tries to deny the people their God-given rights it is their sacred duty to resist.
Now we only need out RINO representatives to make the same case and then call for the abolition of all gun (arms) control laws instead of what they will do and cave to the likes of that ugly wench senator from CA.
Various wordings of the Second Amendment were tried during its development. The end result *purposefully* leaves out any enumeration of reasons why an individual has the right to keep and bear Arms. Any reason *why* an individual may or may not keep and bear Arms, was left to the states and the people thereof, to settle among themselves.
The only enumeration in the Second Amendment focuses on what to do about a group of men under Arms - what is to happen when individuals who bear military grade Arms are in a group, and they *are* capable of exercising martial power. What *then,* was to become of that power?
The answer was, that both the states and the federal government would rely upon *the group* being formally mustered, well-regulated, well trained to Arms, well discplined, and answerable to civilian authority.
Both the states and the federal government sought unity of function and preparedness of the militia of each state. The state militiae should be “well trained to Arms” and be capable of, and mindful of, lawfully exercising martial power and respecting lawful civilian authority.
In the old days up to around WW-I times and for a while thereafter, there was a tradition of local militia drilling on the common, the town green, or the county fairgrounds. It gave people an opportunity to remain somewhat familiar with military duty; it helped to keep them from becoming too rusty. It demonstrated the proper practices and discipline *for all to see.*
It is a shame that most communities and counties and states got out of that practice.
All the uses of weapons, firearm or not, for non-military purposes, were left to be decided by the states and their people.
Again, there would be no condition within the Second Amendment, by which you do, or do not, have the right to keep and bear Arms; because, the Founding Fathers correctly anticipated that any such enumerated condition might be used as grounds for an individual to either be forced to bear Arms or be stripped of their Arms.
This thread discusses the ways in which insurgents might be able to attack off-duty military.
I reject the argument that it is even necessary to defeat our own military until such time as the military is used against the people.
That will not happen until civil disobedience makes it impossible for those "lesser magistrates" to accomplish the government's objectives.
Prior to the military occupation of Boston and the subsequent outbreak of hostilities which were the American Revolution, there were many incidents of conflict between the colonials and their "lesser magistrates". One example would be the treatment of those who accepted the job of distributing the tax stamps which were required on all official documents by the Stamp Act. Although I am not familiar with the particulars of this topic, I have seen political cartoons of the time depicting the tarring and feathering of these lesser magistrates.
We have already heard from at least one county sheriff in the U.S. that his office will not participate in government confiscation of arms. Those sheriffs who do not take such a stance become the "lesser magistrates" who will have to be convinced or coerced into supporting the people and not the government.
Those lesser magistrates who fail to uphold the Constitution will be expected to leave office.
Precisely. Read the discussion on whether or not there should be a standing Federal Army in the Federalist Papers, and this is evident.
"A well Regulated Militia..." was a well-controlled Army. (Think of what a regulator or regulations do--they control.)
It had little to do with training, but with the ability of the people by force of arms and sheer numbers, to prevent the Army from imposing tyranny as the British had done.
The founders recognized the possibility from the onset, and relied on the overwhelming force of arms in private hands to act as a deterrent to tyrannical government.
The Framers' original intent is discussed in this 1991 law-review (U. Penn.) article, which was about distribution of power in the Constitution, which reserved to the People alone the power of the ballot box, the jury box, and the cartridge box, the Second Amendment making the last absolutely secure from any attempt by Congress, the States, or any combination of politicians and magistrates to attenuate or abolish:
Instead of a Tea Party that focuses on fiscal issues, we need NRA candidates who truly believe that the Bill of Rights are PEOPLE’s rights, not government; and that the founders meant our citizens to be equally armed with the militia so we can take away an unjust government.
All one has to do is read the Declaration of Independence to realize that only government with an armed citizenry was the goal for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
One aspect I haven’t seen addressed much is the “wussyfication” of the populace. We have been properly brainwashed to think that there will never be a need for any kind of violence.
Violence, in and of itself has become evil.
“Again, it’s a very controversial subject. But if we’re going to have a debate about what rights we’re actually going to guarantee under the Constitution, then we need to have an honest debate about what the Founders were attempting to guarantee,” Swann said.
There is NO need for any additional debate, honest or dishonest...Period...
Accept the fact that the Second Amendment means what the SCOTUS ruled it to be, and shut the hell up about it!!! Period...
Otherwise...No one will win when they (we know who they are) decide to make a poor decision to try and remove that inalienable right...
No one will be happy after that...
Personally, I do not believe the informationally challenged in this country to be smart enough to understand this point before it is too late...And then the shock and awe to follow when we see the crumbling of our society reacts to our resistance will not surprise me, nor will I have ANY inkling of remorse or compassion for those who are late to the party...
Just my opinion...