Posted on 06/04/2002 7:43:27 AM PDT by Wolfstar
|
Wolfstar's Note: Two hundred and twenty six years after the signing of our Declaration of Independence, few Americans are taught -- or bother to learn -- the meaning of our founding documents. I plan to research and post a series of "The truth about..." articles for FR on the premise that Constitutional scholarship is not just for elites. The founding documents were not intended for the people to read and say, "Oh, that's what those guys in Congress are doing." They were intended to persuade the people to agree, first to independence, then to form a union of 13 very different newly independent sovereign states and adopt a republican form of government. In order for us to protect — conserve — our heritage, we must first understand it. To begin with the most contentious of our rights: The early legislation posted below makes it crystal clear that the right to KEEP and bear arms was intended as a right of the individual, not the state. How else could every able-bodied man between 18 and 45 meet the requirements of this Act? Few ever comment on the fact that the right is not just to bear arms when necessary, but to KEEP arms. Yet "the right to keep...arms" is the pivotal statement in the 2nd Amendment. The counter argument gun-control types make is that "well regulated militias" evolved into the National Guard, so the 2nd Amendment is obsolete. Although it's true that the early state militias evolved into the Guard, in our time the state and federal governments provide their arms and equipment. Modern police agencies also perform much of the role militias once filled. However, neither a government-armed National Guard nor modern government-employed police are what the founders meant when they enshrined the right to KEEP and bear arms in the Constitution. Police agencies created and employed by governments did not begin to evolve until the mid-1800's when thousands began leaving the land and moving to cities during the Industrial Revolution. Since the dawn of humankind up to only about 160 years ago, the able-bodied males of a community took responsibilty for what we, today, call "law enforcement." (Part 2 of "The Truth about the 2nd Amendment" will discuss the evolution and purpose of militias.) In colonial times, militias elected their own officers and organized themselves according to local customs. However, experiences leading up to the War for Independence — as well as during the period when Washington worked to shape ragtag militias from all over the 13 colonies into an army capable of defeating the British — convinced those who wrote the Constitution that the new nation's militias needed some degree of standardization. Hence the term "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment. The founders feared and opposed a standing professional army. They believed citizen militias would be less tempted to trample the rights of the people because they were formed of and by the people. They were not employed by, hence did not answer to, a monarch or centralized government. This is what the clause, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the scurity of a free state..." means. Sections III and IV of this Act reveal what "well regulated" meant to the founders. In the following, blue bold added for emphasis, ellipsis show editing for brevity, the following is otherwise verbatim. Click above link to read the entire Act. |
|
Militia Act of 1792
|
|
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States. I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied...male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside...And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer...to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years...shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and esontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes. II. [Ed. Note: Click link above to read entire Act.] III. And be it further enacted, That within one year after the passing of the Act, the militia of the respective states shall be arranged into divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies, as the legislature of each state shall direct; and each division, brigade, and regiment, shall be numbered at the formation thereof; and a record made of such numbers of the Adjutant-General's office in the state; and when in the field, or in serviced in the state, such division, brigade, and regiment shall, respectively, take rank according to their numbers, reckoning the first and lowest number highest in rank. That if the same be convenient, each brigade shall consist of four regiments; each regiment of two battalions; each battalion of five companies; each company of sixty-four privates. That the said militia shall be officered by the respective states, as follows: To each division on Major-General, with two Aids-de-camp, with the rank of major; to each brigade, one brigadier-major, with the rank of a major; to each company, one captain, one lieutenant, one ensign, four serjeants, four corporals, one drummer, and one fifer and bugler. That there shall be a regimental staff, to consist of one adjutant, and one quartermaster, to rank as lieutenants; one paymaster; one surgeon, and one surgeon's mate; one serjeant-major; one drum- major, and one fife-major. IV. And be it further enacted, That out of the militia enrolled...there shall be formed for each battalion, as least one company of grenadiers, light infantry or riflemen; and that each division there shall be, at least, one company of artillery, and one troop of horse: There shall be to each company of artillery, one captain, two lieutenants, four serjeants, four corporals, six gunners, six bombardiers, one drummer, and one fifer. The officers to be armed with a sword...bayonet and belt, with a cartridge box to contain twelve cartridges; and each private...shall furnish themselves with good horses...and to be armed with a sword and pair of pistols...Each dragoon to furnish himself with a serviceable horse...a good saddle, bridle, mail-pillion and valise, holster, and a best plate and crupper, a pair of boots and spurs; a pair of pistols, a sabre, and a cartouchbox to contain twelve cartridges for pistols. That each company of artillery and troop of house shall be formed of volunteers from the brigade, at the discretion of the Commander in Chief of the State... and shall be uniformly clothed in raiments, to be furnished at their expense, the colour and fashion to be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade to which they belong.
IX. And be it further enacted, That if any person whether officer or solder, belonging to the militia of any state, and called out into the service of the United States, be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of an provided for at the publick expense. V., VI., VII., VIII., X, et. al. [Ed. Note: Click here to read entire Act.] |
Mr Madison (in reply to Mr Henry): "...They say that the state governments have no power at all over the militia. The power of the general government to provide for arming and organizing the militia is to introduce a uniform system of discipline to pervade the United States of America.But the power of governing the militia, so far as it is in Congress, extends only to such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States. "
You could also say that the King George's army evolved into the National Guard, and thus the 2nd amendment is vital.
Please, I mean no offense to the National Guard, but in the hands of a tyrant, the Armed Forces could be used against the American people.
I've always been insulted by Tom Brokejaw's idea that the WWII generation was the "greatest generation".
Granted, they defeated the Axis, however, service to the country in a time of need is a responsibilty of every able-bodied man/woman IMHO. I admire, respect and honor what my grandfathers achieved in winning WWII, but that doesn't put them into the "greatest generation" category.
Why? Because the WWII generation also had a responsibility to carry on the traditions of the republican form of limited government. IMHO, they failed miserably in this task.
This is the generation that embraced the New Deal and the Great Society and the socialist agenda of FDR and Johnson. They were the first "gimme generation" and opened the pandora's box of unlimited government power, which has resulted in a mockery of enumerated powers.
This is the generation that raised the immoral children of the 60's, who were even more socialist than their parents were, and who are the politican's presently destroying our country.
This is the generation that today has the highest voting record. Yet what do they use their votes for? Do they see the error of their ways and attempt to turn the tide on the collective, socialist state we find ourselves in today? Shoot no! Instead they embrace it, and demand even more, thus further enslaving the American people so they can get free medicine and medical care.
Instead of demanding that their children sacrifice for them as they sacrificed for their children (as was tradition in this country for countless generations), they instead expect and demand that the government provide for their every need, thus burdening all.
This is the generation that fights tooth and nail against any changes in social security, even though everyone knows it is a miserable failure. This is the generation that will not allow their posterity to opt out of social security, or even allow us to have a measly two percent of OUR OWN MONEY to invest on our own. This is the generation which has allowed social security to go from a program that supplemented retirement income to a full fledged retirement account, thus burdening not only their children, but their grandchildren and great-grandchildren also. Why is this? Because of their own piss-pour money management which left them unprepared for their senior years.
For the WWII generation to be the "greatest generation", history would have been as follwed: The New Deal laws would have been overturned, the "great society" would never have taken place, there would have been no "children of the sixties", and the responsibilty of their well being in their senior years would fall upon their own family, with any further help needed being provided by local church congregations and/or other local means.
I have donned my flame retardant suit, so fire away!
Many citizens are terrorized, and worse, after reaching for the phone to dial 911, instead of reaching for their weapon.
Anyone who is against 'keeping and bearing' arms, and does not have a sign on his/her lawn stating this, is safe only because of those of us who do have weapons.
It amazes me that 'some' think the gun is the root of most crimes/accidents. The root to both the crimes/accidents, and the gun blame , is the same. Ignorance and arrogance.
My answer:
1. Buy all of the NATO style weapons you can afford to buy along with atleast 1000 rounds of ammo for each. Do so with no paper work at gun shows or from people in the newspaper.
2. Plant them (yes in the ground) spread in all four compass points from your house within 10 miles to make it easy to walk to.
3. Formulate a bug out plan with your family.
4. Learn to be alert - they will come at some point.
5. Try to find and develop a hide away for your close relations.
Oh yea and for all of you who think I am paraniod, Look at the fine job your government is doing to protect you so far!
If yes, please cite the law, I would like to read it.
TIA,
George Washington feared the potential tyranny of his own generals. Hence, to them he read aloud the terms of surrender imposed on the British while wearing bifocals to give himself a "weak" appearance. At the time he did not need them. Washington, a towering figure, reduced himself to the appearance of a meek professor in front of blood thirsty men hell-bent on revenge.
That is the point. Our founders understood that tyranny could emerge from any person emboldened with power. They designed the Constitution to arrest this part of human nature.
Many municipalities may allow you to keep arms, but jail you if you dare to bare them outside your home leaving you defenseless where you are most likely to encounter danger.
And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer...to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years...shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved.
Perhaps our governor should be sued for failing to fulfill his duty in this regard. He should update the required eqipment list and see to it that all men are being properly formed and drilled. I have not found where this has been repealed...
With that in mind, we can make the following statements.
1. "The militia" is every able-bodied man.
2. The militia were expected to provide their own weapons -- a reflection of fiscal reality?
3. The recognized need for a militia, coupled with the requirement for each member to provide his own weapon, forms the body of the 2nd Amendment. You can't have a self-armed militia unless its members are allowed to arm themselves.
The Militia Act of 1792 is no longer in effect, of course. There is no requirement for our soldiers to provide their own weapons, and from that perspective we may conclude that the original context of the 2nd Amendment has been overcome by events. Liberals take this one step further, to claim there is no reason for RKBA at all, since the gov't has taken over the duties implied by the 2nd Amendment.
A more general justification for the RKBA is along the lines you've provided in your discussion about the idea of a militia, as opposed to a standing army.
You'll find few FReepers who would disagree with that. But of course, we're not the ones you need to convince. Somebody who is against guns will take the arguments above, and quite properly conclude that there is no longer a need for RKBA. They will not be impressed by arguments about tyranny, either -- primarily because the leading gun control advocates are operating as the agents of the sort of organized forces the RKBA is meant to resist.
The difficulty here is that you're addressing this as a philosophical point that can be attacked logically. The weakness is obvious: there are reasonable arguments to be made for both sides, and the casual observer will be left with the conclusion that the RKBA is a matter of choice and convenience.
The Founders did not approach this problem philosophically, however. They had just fought a war, and had some very definite practical ideas about what it was they wanted to prevent, and a method by which to prevent it.
Unfortunately, the contemporary value and practicality of a "self-equipped militia of the people" is highly questionable. (Not mention that the word "militia" has been badly sullied by neo-nazi whackjobs.)
If there is to be a RKBA, you've got to find a practical and contemporary reason for it. Self-protection from crime and terrorism are the obvious choices. The remaining question is how to lift those issues from their current abode in the theoretical realm (where the liberals will always win) to the practical world.
Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined:
to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants;
they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked
with greater...confidence than an armed man. -- Thomas Jefferson
I have no doubt that if any of the founding fathers could see the finest of todays cops, breaking into peoples homes in the middle of the night wearing all black and ski masks for a drug raid), that they would reiterate that they wanted civilians to keep and bear arms(as well as be horrified of our current government).
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.
