Posted on 04/24/2007 7:13:04 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
I'm sure many people at the NRA, GOA, or any other protector of the 2nd Amendment have heard this kind of argument before.
Will people please stop perverting the wording of the Constitution as a justification for any Tom, Dick or Jethro-Bob to keep an uzi under the bed? That "right" was created to allow a standing militia to be formed in defence of the realm in a young country with no standing army and an uncertain possibility of getting one, not to create a Wild West mentality by giving everyone an immutable right to access to guns.
In case you couldn't tell, I tend to visit message boards with rather liberal people. Mostly from other countries like Canada or Britain. It's no surprise; for one thing, I'm not surprised that this particular forumer thought the Constitution only guaranteed the right to a "militia".
It doesn't quite make sense. Let's look at the whole of the 2nd Amendment of the United States Constitution.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
People. People. People.
Sure, there is a possibility that it refers to only people that serve in the militia. But also, that doesn't make any sense as well; if only members of the militia are able to bear arms, are they any different from the army that has no opposition from an unarmed populace?
But I digress.
When it comes to clearing up this confusion, I like to refer to the words of the men who lived back then, of the men who had delivered a great deal of blood, sweat, and tears to see this country rise. Let's see what they think of the "militia."
Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive.
---Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787).
Hmm. Nice wording, but no mention of a militia. Par for the course, says the advocate of gun control!
Let's continue.
When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor...
---George Mason, Co-author of the Second Amendment (Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788)
Oh my. This is unexpected.
The militia being comprised of the whole people? The gun control advocate might scoff now; what rubbish! Who was this fool named George Mason?
Only a man considered to be the Father of the Bill of Rights, a Founding Father who wrote the Virginia Declaration of Rights. And consider his viewpoint; the colonists of the rebelling American states were, by and large, not professional soldiers. They were ordinary civilians who decided to fight for their freedom.
In essence, the people were the militia. As George Mason said.
Shall we continue?
Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined. O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if, to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people! Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourselves, are gone...Did you ever read of any revolution in a nation...inflicted by those who had no power at all?
---Patrick Henry (At the Ratification Convention for the Virginia Constitution, 1788)
Patrick Henry. The man most famously known for the words "Give me liberty, or give me death!" Such strength of moral character. We could use that these days.
The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...it establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2.
It has always amused me that so many liberals, who talk and act as if the Bill of Rights cover and condone everything, fight so vociferously against the 2nd Amendment. If they treated the Right to Keep and Bear Arms as they treated the 1st Amendment, they'd be making gun ownership mandatory.
The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them. ---Thomas Paine
To the gun control advocate, I ask you; why is that, after a murder is committed with a gun, you seek to disarm everyone who didn't commit the crime? Such a gap in logic boggles me.
Finally, we come to Thomas Jefferson. What does he think of the Second Amendment?
No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
---Thomas Jefferson (Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334)
No man who considers himself free would dare surrender his right to self-defense.
So let's review.
Consider the people considered to be part of the militia: all of the citizens of the United States. Understood? This is what the Founding Fathers thought of the militia, for the men fighting against the Redcoats in the days of the Revolution were indeed a ragtag militia. Is that a fact lost on so many gun control advocates today?
Certainly.
But remember this; there will, in the future, be another Columbine. Another Virginia Tech.
In all liklihood, it will occur at a place where guns are outlawed; where the American's right to defend himself has been rendered illegal.
What a dreary thought.
I'll let the men who wrote the 2nd Amendment speak for me, thank you.
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.