Posted on 06/05/2006 12:35:33 PM PDT by neverdem
Well then Have at it and then get back to us with your findings. If you are honest, you'll see that Miller doesn't have anything to do with "discriminatory" or "nondiscriminatory" weapons. Claymore mines would fit the Miller Courts definition of weapons whose keeping and bearing is protected by the Second Amendment. Now reckless use or misuse of any weapon is not protected, only their keeping and bearing, just as neither libel nor slander is protected by the first amendment. (Something the folks at CNNTimeWarner should keep in mind)
Why restrict yourself to those. Larger weapons cannot be literally borne, but they can be kept. Private ownership of ships mounted with cannon was hardly uncommon. The Constitution itself, even prior to passage of the Bill of Rights, recognizes this when it grants Congress the power to Grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal. (The former authorize private citizens to attack shipping and warships of the nation's enemies. The latter is similar, but on land. We need a letter of reprisal with Osama's name on it. The private sector would have his head on a pike in short order, provided the reward was good enough).
Mentioning reward reminds me of the other role of the armed citizenry, other than individual self defense, that being as part of the Posse Commitatus.(usually shortened to just Posse). When called by the Sheriff, citizens were (and are) expected to turn to in order to enforce the law, catch criminals and so forth. This is distinct from the military defense role of the militia, even when not federalized, but is similar.
Can we leave the guns AND the constitution alone?
Actually rifles were not unknown, and were used by some units on both sides of the Revolution. They were not though suitable for the common solider, because until the invention of the Minie ball, they were very slow to reload. The ball, which fit tightly against the lands of the rifling, and down into the grooves a bit as well, had to literally be pounded down into the barrel.
Actually, they would have considered it a select militia, although it doesn't fit their model of such exactly. They are militia because they are not full time soldiers, as the members of the standing army are. The Framers, for the most part, did not think too highly of a select militia either, but for reasons that probably mostly don't apply to the National Guard of today.
And, in some states at least (including Texas) women as well.
It says "right of the people". "The people" includes at minimum the citizens. Of late the courts have stretched the definition to include some non citizens (legal resident aliens) and even illegal aliens in some circumstances. (Not the second amendment of course, Courts, especially the Supreme Court, avoid it like the plague).
Great link. Thanks.
Not true, there was a very small standing army, even under the Articles of Confederation. The Constitution, which predates the Bill of Rights by a few years, granted Congress the power to Raise and Support Armies (plural, thus our "Air Army" that we call the Air Force is Constitutional. A Navy (singular) is also provided for, and without the restrictions on biannual funding that apply to the Armies. In actuality, Congress funds all the services on an annual basis. (More control for them, more hearings where they can blow smoke, etc. They even have a double process where the money must be appropriated, and then authorization to spend it must be given. That means two sets of committees (more power and perks again) in each House. Generally an appropriations subcommittee and then a full committee on the Armed Services which handles the authorization. And of course more Bills Which Must be Passed, that they can use to hang pet projects and hold over the head of the President.
As we type, the Congress is playing games with the supplemental appropriation needed to fund the current War. The Army has announce Draconian cutbacks in "non essential" spending (including travel, spare parts for non deploying systems, and so forth) in order to continue getting beans, bombs, and bullets to the troops at the sharp end.
Mark Twain had it right, Congress is the only native Criminal class the US has.
there is NO "ambiguity" in the clear language of the text of the Second Amendment - there is only poor grasp of English in the minds of some of its readers!
<< The FRamers understood that the document would be modified over time if it was to remain relevant.
Typical lib BS. >>
Yep.
Absolutely.
And as demonstrative as its author's intellectual and moral bankruptcy and of the content of her character as is her inability to understand the crystal clarity of "the
right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
What's the bet she can, viewing it as she obviously does through the Liberal Psychosis' distorting lens, also find the "right" to willy-nilly slaughter infants among our Constitution's other crystal clarity ?
<< ... the 2nd Amendment clearly supports an individual right, not a collective one. >>
Not to argue with you nor to diagree with the thrust of your contention, the entire document rather absolutely forbids congress from taking certain actions than provides "rights," individually of course, to the rest of us.
Every American's Individual Rights derive not from the actions of congress -- nor yet even from our Constitution and/or other Founding Law -- but from a higher and more noble authority.
Those are the very words with which I was going to reply.
With all due respect. That is a very good reason to be for passing an amendment granting the federal government the power to infringe upon the right of the people to own those weapons that you do not favor. It is not a reason to interpret the 2nd Amendment in that way.
I've just read through this thread and am completely amazed that you four folks are the only FReepers that have touched on the real reason for the 2nd Amendment.
Like all of the other nine the 2nd is to enable us to protect ourselves from OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Many folks believe that it was included to insure we always had fresh meat on the table at mealtime....or that we could call up the militia in case of a national emergency or invasion.
The framers knew.....and the States verified....that the people needed some assurance that their newly formed Republic would not blossom into some kind of a tyrannical, uncontrollable, monster.....like a democracy. Thus, the Bill of Rights. In the first ten amendments the people were assured protection from their own government....and the States ratified it.
We so seldom hear this reason given and unfortunately most folks just look at you with glazed eyes when you mention it. Such a shame. Thank you for reminding us of the reason for it all!
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.