Posted on 12/22/2008 8:50:22 PM PST by A_perfect_lady
Freepers, I just had a thought, and I wanted to record it before it died of loneliness. Perhaps this has already been addressed, but it just occurred to me in a flash of light while watching an old All In The Family episode on YouTube.
Here's the single little lightbulb that just went on over my head: It was the gun control episode, and Meathead is pointing out to Archie that the part of the 2nd amendment that reads "a well-regulated militia as being necessary to the security of a free State..." Meathead's point, and it's the point that has been made by many meatheads, is that the Founding Fathers meant we could have a standing militia, NOT that individuals could own weapons.
When pressed, most people who support this view will go on to state that the National Guard is our militia.
What just occurred to me (and again, I apologize if this has been canvassed extensively and I just never heard it) is that there are limits and regulations about who can join the Guard. You have to be within a certain age range. You have to be able-bodied. In other words, you can be excluded and discriminated against if you are too old, or in a wheelchair.... maybe even for things like asthma and a heart condition.
Now... HOW can it be Constitutional for a right to exist that is limited to people only of certain age and medical condition? Does any other right operate that way? None that I can think of.
Thoughts?
nice.
I believe the Constitution and Bill of Rights are designed to apply equally to all citizens...but I might be forgetting something.
Anyway, in practice, of course, its not, abortion being the ready, tragic example.
Madame-
In taking the plainest view of the text, seems to me that the “well-regulated militia” is the people.
Well, but my point is arguing liberals using their own logic. They’re SO against discrimination, right?
Saw that episode when I was a little boy. Even then it PO'd me. What the "All in the Family" script writers would not dare admit is that, at the time the Constitution was written, “well-regulated” meant well equipped, and that this simply described the purpose of the 2nd Amendment - to create a large pool of well equipped militia. As for the militia, who are they? The are the people - ALL of the people who are not slaves or criminals (and Andy Jackson got a lot of help at New Orleans from criminals - pirates - and was glad of it!).
The actual purpose of the Second Amendment is documented in the commentary of the time, The Federalist Papers and The Anti-Federalist Papers. Funny how nobody goes back to the source...
Well yes, of course. To us. I’m trying to come up with an argument that will get to liberals. If nothing else, that will leave them stuttering.
The Bill of Rights refers to three entities by name: the States [individual states], the Federal government and “the People”. In each and every instance that an amendment refers to ‘people’, it has been interpreted to mean an INDIVIDUAL right. When referring to a power held by state governments, the word state is used.
The Second Amendment makes no reference to the states, but does refer to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is an individual right. It was understood to be so by the Founders. And since they had a healthy distrust of government to begin with, an armed citizenry was in accord with their ideas of keeping the government honest.
All this is premised, of course, on the doctrine of original intent. If one subscribes to the “Constitution as a living document”, all bets on its meaning are off. Then it depends on what five of the nine say it means.
1. The National Guard is not the militia. At the time the Constitution was written it meant all able bodied males (would now include women) over the age of 18. The National Guard did not exist when the Constitution was written.
2. Militias can be organized (recognized by the individual state) or an unorganized group. The definition is pretty loose and meant to apply to all citizens of legal age.
3. The 2nd Amendment is a way to determine the faith our elected officials place in “we the people”. Federal soldiers/workers/elected officials cannot be members of the militia. It’s an us and them sort of arrangement. When “they” begin trying to grab guns it means “they” do not trust “we the people” and are likely to try and take other rights guaranteed us in that most perfect document.
Every state and the federal statutes all define the militia thus:
1. The organized militia (national guard).
2. The unorganized militia (every able bodied man 18 to 45 years old).
What’s really comical about that episode is the writer’s complete ignorance of the Sullivan Act, which meant that Archie Bunker would have a felony arrest and conviction for owning the handgun.
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
My argument is, that's discrimination.
The Founding Fathers all believed in the personal right to self-defense because they knew that all forms of government (be they local, state or federal) are susceptible to corruption and tyrants.
It was their opinion that Americans should never live in fear of their government, but that government should live in fear of the American people.
So I’m 43. In three years... I lose my 2nd amendment right?
The Militia Act of 1903 organized the various state militias into the present National Guard system. The Army National Guard is part of the United States Army, comprising approximately one half of its available combat forces and approximately one third of its support organization. The Air National Guard is part of the United States Air Force.
Title 10 of the US Code states:
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.[14]
Many states also maintain their own State Defense Forces. These forces are federally recognized militia but not as an armed force service. Because of this, they are separate from the National Guard and are not meant to be federalized, but rather serve the state exclusively, especially when the National Guard is deployed or otherwise unavailable.
Over here on Free Republic we're pretty much preaching to the choir when it comes to RKBA issues. I can't think of any threads where RKBA is debated. It is pretty much accepted as fact that the right to keep and bear arms (RKBA) is an individual right protected by the Second Amendment. As such, many of us don't get to hone our debating skills when it comes to gun ownership. Nobody here to debate with!
Over at DU it's a different story. There's a few liberals who regurgitate the worn-out Brady talking points but there's also a pretty strong contingent of pro-gun democrats. They're quite vocal on the gun threads and don't shy away from hammering the gun-controllers in their party.
Go lurk over at the DU "Gungeon" and click on practically any of the gun threads to watch the pro-gunners duke it out and demolish the arguments of the anti-gunners. It can be quite entertaining and you'll pick up some good argument points.
I contend the State’s Governor must maintain control of the National Guard, NOT the Fed, if the Guard is to be considered a state militia as framed in the Constitution. With a little background:
“That the National Guard is not the ‘Militia’ referred to in the Second Amendment is even clearer today. Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to ‘raise and support armies’ and not its power to ‘Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.’ The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C. 311(a).
Title 32 U.S.C. in July 1918 completely altered the definition of the militia and its service, who controls it and what it is. The difference between the National Guard and Regular Army was swept away, and became a personnel pay folder classification only, thus nationalizing the entire National Guard into the Regular Standing Armies of the United States.”
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.