Posted on 04/05/2018 6:12:42 PM PDT by Kaslin
Let's begin with the simplest of observations. Our United States Constitution serves two distinct purposes.
The first is to explicitly enumerate the powers and procedures of our nation's central government, which was defined as the three distinct bodies (which, by the way, two thirds of the high school students currently lecturing us about the Second Amendment cannot name) – the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial, with levels of authority descending in that precise order.
The second is to explicitly enumerate the limitations of that central government's power, which is the sole reason why our Bill of Rights exists. The Constitution would not have been ratified in 1791 without the addition of these first ten amendments. Therefore, our Constitution would not exist without the limitations to our central government's authority described therein.
Some miss this simplest of understandings.
Take Brett Arends, who, in 2016 after the Pulse nightclub massacre in Orlando, committed to a different argument at Market Watch. He argues that the Second Amendment does not describe a "limitation" of the federal government's authority, as is commonly understood of each of the other nine amendments in the Bill of Rights. Rather:
The Second Amendment is an instrument of government. It's not about hunting or gun collecting or carrying your pistol into a saloon. The Founding Fathers left it up to us to pass sensible laws about all these things. The Constitution is about government.
His argument as to the veracity of this statement is among the more laughable things you'll ever read. He cites Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 29, cherry-picking choice phrases from the essay, filling in the gaps with his own thoughts. For example, Arend writes:
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
To repeal Indians and Mexicans.
Yup, and in this way, it clarified exactly what the militia was, its made up of individuals who are armed with personal weapons.
Someone with any knowledge of the history of the American Revolution, would know that the 13 British colonies that rebelled to form our country were ruled by loyalist British governors - who controlled their militia.
In many colonies armed American revolutionaries had to fight loyalist militias who were fighting with the British army. And in the colonies were colonial militias deserted the Crown in mass to fight for independence, they were no longer legally colonial militias.
Would are founding fathers have forgotten those armed patriots who were not in the militia - but fought the British colonial militias - and deny them the right to bear arms.
Would areOUR founding fathers...
Look, the new federal government needs to be in control of armed soldiers. We will need them to keep the nation safe from those who would do us harm. It is obvious this will concern many of you in the light of what we just went through to escape the tyranical Brittish government. Tus we need a way to guarentee the people are safe from abuse from this regulated militia being used to form a similar tyrany here. Therefore we hearby declare explicitly, and in no uncertain terms that the right of the people to keep and bare arms will never be infringed. End of story. Period.
I agree with William Sullivan, the author, and the FRiends
who posted. However, the article and most of the posts
are unnecessarily tortured. Why trifle with Alexander
Hamilton and Federalist #29? I’ve posted this many times
but I’ll do it again. The Father of the Constitution is
considered to be James Madison, the other main author
of the Federalist Papers. In Federalist #46 Madison tells
us how the cow ate the cabbage when it comes to
Americans owning firearms.I detect a slight gloat in his
tone when comparing Americans to other. The money shot
is toward the end so you might want to look up the
Federalist #46 At Wikipedia. To me this blather regarding
Fed #29 is a side show.
"The government was worried about it taking its guns away from itself."
The National Guard can be Federalized with a phone call.
To understand the Second Amendment you must read other documents of that era. The Declaration of Independence (1776) is a very important document when it comes to understanding the Second Amendment (1793).
These two document although written 17 years apart were drafted, debated, and approved by the same cadre of men with a common core of social and combat experience.
The preamble to the Declaration talks about the right of the people to overthrow their government and establish a new government that they think will better serve their needs. To do that the citizens must be effectively armed. The 2nd Amendment addresses this. BTW the contemporary (1770’s) term militia meant just about every freeborn male person.
“But, I am Canadian, so what do I know?
You do not know CRAP about the “militia” that existed in the United States. The predominant use of the militia was to fight the Indians and were also used in the Mexican War. I have ancestors who were in the “militia” who fought the Indians in East Texas and the Mexicans in Mexico.
They responded to the call to duty for a 90 day period, brought their own rifles, ammunition, horses and supplies and went to battle knowing that some of them were probably not going to come back.
Since you’re Canadian, what is your country’s concept of the militia? Is it all able bodied males of a certain age, or is it the RCMP, who rules all of your lives?
Hint: the Russian word for “police” is “militsiya”.
Enjoy your Trudeau.
;^)
RE: D.C. -v- Heller, the Supreme Court Of the United States held:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller#Decision
Doesnt say the militia was meant to repel just indians and Mexicans. It may have been used to repel those groups, because they were needed for them.
My reading suggests anybody, like the Japanese during WWII if they had invaded America.
We dont have a concept, because our government was given to us. Unfortunately the only real option is to separate, likely become another State. The only two provinces really worth taking is Alberta and Saskatchewan.
The Militia IS THE PEOPLE. In order to form a militia, THE PEOPLE must be able KEEP arms at all times to be able to effectively BEAR arms.
What is so hard to understand about this?
Agree completely that Federalist 46 is more on point than 29.
It’s actually Hamilton that wrote it, though.
“You cannot invade America. If you do, there will be a rifle behind every blade of grass.”
Cueing “Yamamoto never said that!!!” in 5..4..3..2..1....
But "Bills of Rights" are not. It is revealing to look up the bills of rights of the various colony-nations after the Revolution but before the Constitution. Many of them mention RKBA, though not all.
Old joke: An American is traveling west on the Canadian Pacific railroad. At one stop he gets off and asks, “Where am I?”
A local replies, “Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.”
The Yank mutters, “Hell, I’ve come so far west they don’t even speak English!’
;^)
Spelling Saskatchewan is how we separate Canadians from Americans pretending to be Canadian.
I found that over at Instapundit. Whenever I see something I think is pretty good, I’ll copy it to the various websites I frequent. Spreading memes is one way we can fight back a little bit.
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.