Posted on 01/18/2013 12:14:05 PM PST by RightFighter
Yes. They can and they have. Not much during the past Century though...
So we pretend they popped into existence just as if they'd been full nations with all the powers and authority confirmed by the various world treaties that underly the existence of the very concept of nationstate.
Try Peace of Westphalia.
This is the best and clearest summary on the 2nd I’ve ever read.
Let’s get this going viral.
bump
BTTT
"Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States — reserving to the states, respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress." By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defense is unlimited."
"If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither — this power being exclusively given to Congress."
"The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression. Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. Sometimes, the oppressed have got loose by one of those bloody struggles that desolate a country; but a willing relinquishment of power is one of those things which human nature never was, nor ever will be, capable of."
Thanks for a great post RightFigher.
Our Framing generation abhorred standing armies. Despite their mixed performance at best during the war, there was no way the Anti-Federalists would allow the new government a loophole to disarm the militia. That would invite the scourge of standing armmies to enforce the law. In addition to attempted disarmament by the Brits at the opening of the Revolutionary War war, our foreign ministers to France and Spain had seen what happened when only the government owned weapons; that was not going to happen here.
By supporting the militia, the Second Amendment ensured the government would never have a monopoly on force. It is a personal right that served the fundamental purpose of government, the protection of our lives.
Thanks for the ping, 1010RD.
Whatever you want to believe.
So what is it you were trying to say?
Thank you. It appears those at the time were tying the second amendment to specific provisions in the Constitution. By the way, didn’t Patrick Henry oppose the Constitution?
I believe you mean Miracle at Philadelphia.
Ping
That was my thought when I was a teen.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms regulates the militia and government.
I could have sworn I typed that correctly...
Well, time for my Metamucil.
Had he and a few other Whig patriots attended the Constitutional Convention to which they were appointed, there is little doubt the Convention would have drafted a different product.
Are you a lawyer?
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.