Posted on 04/24/2007 7:13:04 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
Whats 'romantic' about defending our right to own and carry military type arms?
Actually, this statement is self contradictory. How can you successfully defend against an out of control government if you don't have an equal force of arms?
Sorry, just now I don't remember where I heard it, some years ago.
The Minutemen were truly bestial then, ripping apart the British soldiers with their 'bear' hands. Such tactics have been since refined into the modern guerrilla warfare.
Not quite. When the government maintains them for use by the standing army, so too must they also be available for the militia. That's the little guarantee the founders had in mind to make it certain that government remained the servant of the people, and not the master.
At the time of writing the Consititution, the people are the militia, and vice-versa.
Only in our convoluted modern thinking has the term "militia" been misconstrued to mean conscripted soldiers.
I am trying to realate your comment to that of Ultra Sonic 007 to whom it is a reply and am quite at a loss.
Q.E.D.
I cannot remember the exact year, but it was in the 18th Century not long before independence from England.
Shubal Stearns had a rather large church not far from current-day Asheboro, North Carolina. The Anglicans pretty much ran NC at that time and would use British militia to pester non-Anglicans, especially Baptists.
The Anglican clergy arranged for a contingent of British Militia to go to the Piedmont and put the Baptists out of buisness. Stearns himself, and many of his members were actually pacifists, but some of the Baptist men did take up arms to protect against the British, and were called, “The Regulators.”
The British troops did show up near Asheboro and were engaged by the Baptist “Regulators.” The Baptists lost the skirmish, but put a sufficient enough hurtin’ on the British that British Militia raids were never again carried out against Stearns’ people.
The incident is covered in a book by Dr. James Beller called AMERICA IN CRIMSON RED, published by Prairie Fire Press in Arnold, Missouri.
John Leland and the Baptists in Virginia had a lot to do with Madison and the writing of the Bill of Rights. I dare say that those men were well aware of the NC Baptist “Regulators” of Stearns’ mountain church when the Second Amendment was worded.
"The weather being changeable, the right of the people to own clothing shall not be infringed" would not allow the government to confiscate or forbid clothing if the weather does not then vary nor does it require that people possess or wear clothing.
I don't like that MEN thing. And the age....well, I plan to keep growing older.
JM.02
Well-regulated...well equipped and functioning in a proper manner
I hate you.
Perhaps you should pay attention before you post. My comments were regarding the military effectiveness of the militia during the Revolution not about the Second amendment.
Is that hate speech?
The 2nd is there as a last line of defense, not offense.
A militia should not have the fire power to overthrow a government, but rather to defend itself against one.
A howitzer in every home is too much. A hunting rifle is too little. I am not qualified to say what the 'right amount' is. I believe it changes with weapons and other technology and the balance is part of a political discourse.
We cannot have a "political discourse" because of your rejection of the basic constitutional principle that the 2nd is there as a ~first~ line of defense.
Who is qualified to say what the 'right amount' is? A majority?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
justshutupandtakeit:
While 'gorilla' tactics might be effective in the jungle what won the Revolution was Washington's creation of the Continental army.
Militia was very ineffective outside of a few conspicuous exceptions.
justshutupandtakeit wrote:
Perhaps you should pay attention before you post. My comments were regarding the military effectiveness of the militia during the Revolution not about the Second amendment.
Your comments were in reply to Steve's, that: "-- There is no question that their intent was to arm the individual citizens of our country.
6 SteveMcKing --"
You were arguing against Steves 'romantic idea' that the intent was to arm citizens as militia:
"-- around here romaniticization of the militia's role and effectiveness is still commonplace.
Whats 'romantic' about defending our right to own and carry military type arms?
So then the primary reason for the guarantees of the 2nd ammendment is to allow the citizenry of the United States to resist effectively an unpopular and tyrannical central government and its standing army.
So then would it not follow that the citizenry must be armed with arms which would allow it to resist effectively the arms of the standing army of the central 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.