Posted on 09/16/2008 6:12:07 AM PDT by TitansAFC
LOL! See #41. GMTA
"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power." Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84
The Constitutional Militia
The Framers feared two things: large standing armies and select militias. A select militia was an armed group formed not from the entire population of a jurisdiction by public notice, but selected by some method that might make them unrepresentative of the community, and a threat to lawful government or to the community. A regular standing army or police force is always a select militia, and it may serve the will of those in power, and be used against the people.
It Takes a Militia
Although the National Guard is sometimes referred to as the modern-day militia, it is in fact a federal force, subject to the control of the president in almost the same fashion as regular troops. The patina of state control that remains is almost entirely cosmetic. As Yale law professor Akhil Amar writes: "Nowadays it is quite common to speak loosely of the National Guard as `the state militia,' but 200 years ago any band of paid, semiprofessional part-time volunteers, like today's Guard, would have been called 'a select corps,' or 'select militia'--and viewed in many quarters as little better than a standing army.
Google search results "select militia"
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People." Tench Coxe, 1788.
“Real courage is found, not in the willingness to risk death, but in the willingness to stand, alone if necessary, against the ignorant and disapproving herd.” Jon Roland, 1976
>If “Obeyme” gets elected, the 2nd amendment will be only one of many aspects of American Exceptionalism that will be forcibly degraded, at (ironically) gunpoint if necessary.<
If that’s the case then the enforcers will become, IMO, authorized targets. They can decide for themselves what end of the range they want to be on. Take the badge off and become a shooter, wear it and be a target.
This Obama statement was from earlier this month, and there was a FR thread about it.
This Obama statement was from earlier this month, and there was a FR thread about it.
>If I saw Barack as a huge champion of the First Amendment, I would agree. I am not that big on this Admendment either for free speech reasons, but this is a pattern of Obama being anti-flag. The no hand over the heart during the national anthem. Refusing to wear a flag pin on his lapel. The painting over of the flag on his plane. The Che Guevara flag in his campaign offices. Obama dishing America on foreign soil. And now this. Just the pattern that shows his underlying lack of pride in America.<
His millions of supporters feel the same lack of pride in America. Somethings wrong in America when a Marxist/Communist is a presidential nominee.
If I had to bet, she'd be in favor of repealing lots of the federal gun laws, and of cutting back the batphockers.
Strange, but I still don’t feel comforted by the latest Delphic pronouncements from the Magic Marxist. I guess if I really must give up my guns, I’ll start with the bullets.
The proper answer would be: "The Second Amendment of the Constitution would forbid it, backed up by millions of citizens who have taken oaths to defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic."
Obama is just of poor calibre. /rimshot
The first 10 amendments were required to secure enough support to ratify the Constitution. Take any of them away, and the agreement falls apart and people & states reject the resulting authority. You of course will object with “but a proper repeal of the 2nd would be according to the agreed-on rules” or some such, failing to note that it is only mere voluntary cooperation that holds it all together, and there are enough who would cease cooperation (starting with Wyoming and a whole lotta individuals) that enforcement of a no-RKBA Constitution would fail fast.
On top of that: the 2ndA only _recognizes_ a right, it does not grant it (contrast subsequent amendments granting voting “rights”). Repeal the 2nd, and RKBA nonetheless remains as a right - which a great many would fight to protect. The 2ndA exists primarily to remind the gov’t that the right in question does exist, and if it is not protected by the gov’t it WILL be protected by the people (which is exactly what sparked the creation of this country in the first place).
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.