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?
**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. **
My retort to the idiot LIBS is ... “The founding fathers were pretty smart for old white guys. The bill of rights, as written are not rights given to the people.. the bill of rights are RESTRICTIONS on the Federal Government.. starting with ..1 CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW ...
Why, using the KING’s ENGLISH (which is grammatically Much more strict than ours,) would the 1st amendment limit the government, and then #2 would GIVE POWERS to the same Government, and then 3 thru 10 would then again, restrict Government Powers??
That doesn’t make sense in MODERN English... they’d Royally LAUGH AT YOU in the KING’s English. yes Pun intended.
As I’m doing NOW .... as I turn and walk away.
The currant statute here in Cali was dated in 1911 (I believe). That pretty much was the age limit of what the citizenry at that time expected to participate. The point is, is that the unorganized militia is the people.
The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right and cannot be limited by the constitution. The founders put the second amendment in there to restrict the government from infringing upon the rights of the people. Not to codify the rights of the people which pre-existed.
For those that believe the 2nd Amendment only applies to the Militia .... yes. I hold other opinions.
I realize that most people are assuming that "free state" is referring to the body politic, but the primary definition of the word state, particularly in the 18th cent., is "condition, or manner of existing."
By referring to a "state" of freedom, a specific manner of existing for "the people," such a reading would seem to reinforce more greatly the individual nature fo the amendment than would a reading that refers to a "free State."
Probably quite a stretch, I'm sure, but it just struck me that I've never seen that question addressed, even if just to refute it quickly.
The National Guard is under State Jurisdiction and essentially controlled by the governor. But because they are working for the state, and getting paid by the state, the Guard could be used as a tool of intimidation against citizens. So a “well regulated militia” might be construed as government controlled.
But the peoples militia is supposed to be the balancing force against government intimidation. The peoples militia is not paid by the controlling government, nor are they equipped. The peoples militia is intended to be independent of a tyrannical government. The Constitution and Bill of Rights granted power to “We the People” as the enablers and limiters of what government can control, provide etc.
The founders recognized that an out of control government, similar to the one we have today, needs to be challenged if necessary by armed citizens. Government is all about control and power today. without firearms, people are helpless to fight tyranny and regain control of the Powers granted to the People in the Bill of Rights.
We do all this gun control crap because the libs don’t want law-abiding folks to have guns to defend themselves. An explicitly stated fundamental right.
Yet when conservatives do the same thing on abortion, regulating or preventing it in certain cases, they scream about it being a fundamental right and how dare we do that, blah blah blah....
Where did the militiaman or minuteman of the war for independence get his rifle or other weapons? They weren’t issued to him by the government. He already had them for hunting and for self protection. So the militia is any able bodied person that is willing and able to defend themselves, their family and their country. Therefore, we don’t need the government’s permission to keep and bear arms.
BTW, the National Guard is only part of the militia, even as defined by federal law, rather than the original meaning.
Title 10 US Code [Armed Forces]
"Section 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 [which deals with membership in theNational Guard] 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."
Furthermore, each state has it's own defintion. Most states have another class as well, the State Guard. For example in Texas the militia is:
(1) able-bodied;
(2) a citizen or a person of foreign birth who has declared an intent to become a citizen;
(3) a resident of the state;
(4) at least 18 and not more than 60 years of age; and
(5) not exempt under Subsection (b) or (c) or United States law.
Note that this includes women. (b) lists exempt public officials, (c) exempts the mentally disabled.
Even old as I am, I'm still a member of the Texas Militia, at least for a few more months.
But again the second amendment, and it's Texas constitutional equivalent, protects a right of the people, or in the case of Texas, "Every Citizen", independent of membership in the militia. The Supreme Court even agrees.
Title 10, Section 311 of US Code lays out who is in the unorganized militia. Basically it’s all men 18-45, except those already in the military, plus female National Guard officers.
The way to understand the Second Amendment is to cast it in slightly different but grammatically equivalent terms:
“A well-educated electorate being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.”
The electorate is strengthened by guaranteeing the right to read books to all people, even those (like children) not part of the electorate; just as the militia is strengthened by guaranteeing the right to bear arms to all people, even those (like women) not in the militia.
-ccm
Do you know if any of this came into play during the DC case recently?
From http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwinA.htm
True Vs. False Militia & Why the Difference Matters, Part 3, 7-30-07
True Vs. False Militia & Why the Difference Matters, Part 2, 7-30-07
True Vs. False Militia & Why the Difference Matters, Part 1, 7-30-07
More insight http://www.committeesofsafety.com/Committees_of_Safety/Home.html
One of the blessings about being an ol' fart is I don't give a $h!t anymore .. phuque'em .. shoot the bastards.
(the gummint)
There's another angle even to THAT (il?)logic.
Many of us in rural America went to school with the sherriffs and cops .. and if it ever came down to a law ... and the locals were 'forced' by law to confiscate guns or arrest owners ... can we?
So age limits and such are probably NOT the original intent. Reading the founders papers, letters, books, and speeches generally clear these things up so we don't have to guess.
In those days, a person could be counted on to come to the aid of his country and neighbors. Unarmed was no good. In fact the idea of a standing army was a fearful thing to the patriot crowd. Your gun was insurance that you and your family would remain free. We weren't so worried about foreign invaders as much as government that wanted to tax and spend. I wonder who would get shot first if the Founders could see a trillion dollar bail out and the printing presses churning out dump trucks of money?
That and the fact that the Sullivan Act’s sole purpose was to protect Irish gangsters from Italian immigrants (who were inclined to shoot back rather than put up with criminal abuse...).
Meh. Go ahead and hijack it, no one here is getting my point anyway. I have a bunch of people lecturing me like I'm some newbie tentatively wondering if maybe I have a right to a gun after all. I'm not. I'm saying, is this an angle we've tried throwing at the libs yet? I KNOW their argument about the Guard being our militia is BS. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that. I know that.
What I'm asking is, have we tried this angle? Because the other angles aren't working on them.
Definitely. The age limits are merely for the *obligation* to serve in the militia when called. Or the posse for that matter. (Same people, different leadership, same guns too, those of the people)
That's why the right protected by the second amendment is said to be "of the people", not "of the militia". The right is protected, in part, so that a well regulated militia can be formed at need. Either by the government, a some level, or against it, as appropriate to the situation.
That's been changed, now it's all female members of the National Guard, not just female officers. See extract of 10 USC section 311 in post 29.
Yes, it was George Mason. See: Brainyquote
The Quote from Mason:
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
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.