Posted on 04/04/2006 11:24:00 AM PDT by Merchant Seaman
Translating that to today is the problem. And in some respects that continues to provide the gun control advocates more ammunition (so to speak), in that they use the relationship of a "militia" to the right specified. Few today believe or support the idea that groups or militias outside of the national guard is good for the security of the nation. So continuing to support that actually hurts the goals of the gun rights advocates.
What's secession have to do with this? If a state created a militia, it would have a readier means to defend its freedom than it currently has. Whether it would actually use it for that purpose is another matter. Any tool is ultimately only as good as the person or persons using it.
The voting booth is really the only option that remains to handle grievances with the federal government, or even state and local governments.
Right. Elections are now cancelled. Now what are you going to do?
I am simply trying to get you to address reality. What state would spend the resources necessary to put together a trained militia outside of the national guard, that was large enough to defend itself against the US military? It sounds nice, but put it into today's reality.
Right. Elections are now cancelled. Now what are you going to do?
You don't have much confidence in the Constitution do you? Who would cancel the elections? The President doesn't have the authority, nor does Congress.
That is a simple question to answer. It was directed at the racist terrorists attacking Freedmen in the South in order to deprive them of the rights of citizens.
If you are unaware of the realities of the time you had best educate yourself before wasting our time with this crap.
FEDERALIST No. 28 Excerpt (Hamilton)ML/NJIf the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
FEDERALIST No. 46 Excerpt (Madison)That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterrupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.
If the U.S. military was hellbent on waging total war against that state, with the goal of laying it completely to waste if necessary, then I suppose there wouldn't be too much the state could do about it. Short of that, a militia could be effective at preventing a military takeover, by making the cost of doing so more than what the military might be willing to bear.
You don't have much confidence in the Constitution do you? Who would cancel the elections? The President doesn't have the authority, nor does Congress.
And if he does it anyway? Just look around the world at the number of times someone in power has instituted draconian controls despite not having the "authority" to do so. What matters is not authority on paper, but loyalty and obedience forged partly out of habit and partly out of fear. That's how it's always been.
Try this link into www.constitution.org.
ML/NJ
Thanks
GE
But you do agree the President can send the NG overseas as the CIC, don't you?
However, the use of an armed population to keep government in check is the only reason we still have the resemblance of freedom left here in our country.
I think I was in agreement up to that point. The most dramatic change in our country post Civil War was the FDR years which created a "super" central government. Nothing since then has come close. I simply cannot fathom a single law ever enacted, or any that were proposed but not enacted because of the fear of an armed populace. I doubt the most faithful 2d Amendment senator or congressman believes that.
I believe that it would be stunning to our founders that this is even being discussed.
I don't disagree with that, but our country has developed and evolved, politically, culturally and technologically to a point none of the founders could have contemplated.
My disagreement, I suppose, with your position is that if we change our position away from why this prohibition of government action was specifically called out, then there is no other position to take.
The reason I try and distance myself from the first clause is that to some, a reason is necessary and that is the reason. The gun control lobby can easily show that the reason is no longer valid, and I imagine most would agree with that. But a right is a right. A right needs no supporting clauses. A right can be stifled through force, but never taken away. It simply exists. The BOR did not grant any rights, but merely acknowledged them. If the 2d Amendment is different from the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, then perhaps it is not a right but a privilege, which can be taken away.
If he does anyway, he would more than likely be removed from office. Every officer of the government and the armed forces takes an oath to support and defend the Consititution of the United States, not a leader. If that leader violates that oath, it is difficult for me to see a scenario that would lead to every officer in the armed forces and the government to violate that oath simply to follow a leader hell bent on a violent takeover of the government.
Yes, it's done in many countries, where their constitutions are either nonexistent or have no meaning. Ours does, even if we don't agree with the interpretations of it from time to time. The separation of powers goes a long way to preventing what goes on all the time in third world countries.
Congress is the ONLY judge to the proper ratification of an amendment. Hence any claim of improper ratification is automatically null and void.
But in the final analysis, it's still just a piece of paper. All it takes is for a charismatic leader to convince his subordinates that it's necessary for them to take action in order to preserve the Constitution, and if he comes across as convincing enough to them, human nature is such that it would be very difficult for an individual subordinate to object. The whole art of controlling people is to make individuals feel isolated and powerless, even if they're numerous. That task is made all the easier when people lake the effective means to defend themselves.
As for the likelihood of it happening in the first place, all it takes is another crisis, like another terrorist attack or series of attacks. How many times do you hear it said "The Constitution is not a suicide pact", or that the President's critics are no better than traitors? It may be just idle talk now, but these things have a way of getting all the more serious as the fear factor gets ratcheted up.
Yes, I agree that there is such a thing as American exceptionalism that provides us with some protection from a lot of the same pitfalls that other countries fall into. But that exceptionalism doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it doesn't come from the ether. It has existed because we as a culture have placed such a value on freedom that we're willing to defend it. It's not something that should ever be taken for granted.
Just curious. Can you think of any that are not being enforced because of an armed populace? We agree on rights. I would just add that we not refer to governmental powers as rights, since the government was created by the people, and exists at the pleasure of the people. So the government can be granted authority and powers, but never rights.
Thanks for the discussion.
Says who?
I certainly can't prove that it can never happen, but if it does, no state "militias" are going to be any match. It is very difficult in a republican form of government, and especially in this republic, with all of its checks and balances, including those within the military (National Security Act of 1947). People worried that Nixon would "take over" or start a war to keep from being impeached. The same was believed of Reagan, Clinton and now GW Bush. But it simply isn't going to happen. And I fear for the future of the 2d Amendment if it is linked to the need for a militia that doesn't already exist.
It has existed because we as a culture have placed such a value on freedom that we're willing to defend it. It's not something that should ever be taken for granted.
We are in agreement here.
That's where I disagree. State militias could make the cost of doing it more than it's worth. The condition of fighting for your home and liberty makes for an effective force multiplier.
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.