Posted on 04/24/2007 7:13:04 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
I have said nothing to indicate you don’t support the 2nd Amendment, have I? If so, I sincerely apologize.
You just asked about the meaning of well-regulated, and I provided one. I expanded on my explanation in post #49.
The right to possess arms is presupposed by the amendment.
That is why the courts side with it. It preexisted the constitution and is/was assumed to be a requirement of a free country.
My daughter was told at school that if needed the government would supply weapons to the citizen and that was the meaning.
I showed her some other perceptions on the facts.
And Baron Von Stuben's training them in military discipline.
In the context of 18th century military-speak, the term "well-regulated" meant that each firearm has had its sights properly aligned, and that the owner knew how to properly load and fire his weapon.
No sorry, you didn’t. It was tpaine who seems to be a tin foil candidate.
And I think I thanked you and if I didn’t, thank you.
Well put. -- I think we all can agree that C-N-B weapons should be reasonably regulated.
-- In fact as you indicated, some types of small arms ammunition have even been limited in the past by treaty or law as inappropriate for military usage. But seeing that those days seem to be gone, 'we the unorganized militia' should not be limited by rules that no longer apply to gov't troops.
I don't think there was any intention to restrict this amendment to military significant arms. True, there is no mention of hunting. Hunting, in those days, was a necessary and routine part of living, not a recreational activity. It may not have been obvious to anyone living the the 18th century that it would ever be different. The mention of the militia is there to emphasize one particular reason for gun ownership (which they considered particularly important), BUT NOT TO EXCLUDE ANY OTHERS, as they made abundantly clear in the second clause.
Now this is a solid argument. Can you help me with any references on that?
Indeed. Sloppy syntax on my part. The word “include” should have, well, been included somewhere in my garbled sentence.
yeah but these people don’t really believe that guns are the same as books.
Just so. And of course, turn about is fair play.
One thing to remember in all of this is that not all rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are guaranteed absolutely. Most famously, perhaps, is that freedom of speech is in no way absolute---one cannot incite a riot by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, of course.
There is also the issue of “organized militia” and
the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia consists of all able-bodied men (now probably women too) who can bear arms.
The concept of the militia goes back as least as far as the Anglo-Saxon fyrd - all able-men capable of bearing arms who were subject to call up by the Anglo-Saxon Kings in case of war or invasion. Their first line of defense was the Housecarls or personal retainers, followed by their theigns and earls with THEIR personal retainers and then by the local fyrd.
Liberals and anti-gunners in general either know nothing about our genesis as a people or choose to ignore the facts with which they disagree.
yup, mea culpa. I was already called on that (unintended) meaning of my post.
Historically, “arms” (originally bladed weapons and later firearms) were restricted, especially on the European continent to the elite. In the historic context, the 2nd amendment was a radically inclusive statement: making sure that the government recognized that the new Republic would not tolerate such divisions among its citizens.
But, the amendment clearly meant to include (though not limit to) arms in common use by the militia at the time (ie, “military arms”). As an aside, but along these lines, it has seemed to me for the past decade or so that one of the greatest outrages against the US constitution is California’s ban on civilian ownership of the standard infantry rifle of our time: the derivatives of the Armalite AR series.
Post in haste, repent at leisure, I guess.
Typically, now that you've withdrawn from our discussion, - you're making personal remarks without even the courtesy of a ping. -- What's your problem with what I posted to you?
What's "tinfoil" about it?
Here’s the short version.
It’s the “Bill of Rights.”
Rights for whom?
People — not militias.
Period.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."
Alexander Hamilton and Von Steuben (his close friend) wrote the Manual of Arms used to train the US army for the first half century or more. Only through the professionalization of the military were we successful.
But around here romaniticization of the militia’s role and effectiveness is still commonplace.
One thing to remember in all of this is that not all rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights are guaranteed absolutely. Most famously, perhaps, is that freedom of speech is in no way absolute---one cannot incite a riot by yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, of course.
Correct, but there are limits put on such legislation;
Justice Harlan said it best:
"-- [T]he full scope of the liberty guaranteed by the Due Process Clause `cannot be found in or limited by the precise terms of the specific guarantees elsewhere provided in the Constitution.
This `liberty´ is not a series of isolated points pricked out in terms of the taking of property;
the freedom of speech, press, and religion;
the right to keep and bear arms;
the freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures; and so on.
It is a rational continuum which, broadly speaking, includes a freedom from all substantial arbitrary impositions and purposeless restraints, . . --"
In the words of Native American Spokesman Tonto, What you mean *we*, white man?
Why is that?
Some people either never took a particular oath, never took it seriously if they did, or have perjured their oath:
"I, (NAME)(SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the Army of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of Major do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God."
(DA Form 71, 1 August 1959, for officers.)
What was the point of guaranteeing arms to the people, in the first place?
Per those who developed the Second Amendment:
James Madison, considered to be the Father of the Constitution, and the primary author of the Bill of Rights:
"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 the common liberties and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
--James Madison, Federalist No. 46, 1788
Patrick Henry:
"My great objection to this government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights or of waging war against tyrants."
--Patrick Henry, Virginia's U.S. Constitution ratification convention, June 5,1788
Thomas Jefferson
-- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book, 1774-1776
The Federalst Papers:
"In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself. A dependence on the people is, no doubt, the primary control on the government; but experience has taught mankind the necessity of auxiliary precautions."
Publius, Federalst Papers No. 51 Feb.8, 1788
Tenche Cox [supporting Madison's Bill of Rights] "Whereas civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as military forces, which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
--Tench Coxe, Federal Gazette, June 18,1789, writing in support of the Madison's first draft of the Bill of Rights
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.