Posted on 11/02/2001 2:54:29 PM PST by Fixit
Stay Safe !
F, Exactly so! "Arms" are, have been, and always will be implements of war. Which is why "the people" as INDIVIDUALS must NEVER be barred the ownership of arms. IF as this guy submits, "only militias" may bear arms, then there is NO doubt that those militias WILL take over government itself. Whether that "militia" be federal {Taliban}, or local, they WILL RULE!!! Those who are given that power ALWAYS DO!! Throughtout history, there have been NO EXCEPTIONS!!! The ONLY thing that has prevented this in this country for over two hundred years {The LONGEST and only standing form of government "under constitution"}, is "the right of the PEOPLE {individuals} to keep and bear arms. Peace and love, George.
Spawn of John Dean and YALE LAW....... BARF!
The writers make their own case against themselves.
They note that the militia was the people, and the people were the militia.
Then, they simply skip to to the silly conclusion that a right of the people applies only to militia, but not to individuals!
Pure sophistry.
Agreed. Militia is not a military term, it is a popular term used to define the entire body of able-bodied otherwise rightfully armed men wo have the right and responsibility to enforce the security f the “state” (meaning organized body politic of a town, county or state) when necessary. Their right to arms is an individual right, as arms are carried by a person, the person acts as the “arm” of the state. States ( body politic) has a right to protect itself as a more abstract idea using men at arms, whether part of a military or from its citizenry at large as the case may be, against threats to that “state’s” safety.
Why cannot the left understand this simple vertical concept of right to arms? (Person, community, county, state, nation)
Oh, I know, they want the state ( the administration thereof) to be all powerful and able to wield force only on its own accord. The demise of the militia occurred at the enactment of the and creation of the “National Guard”, which eliminated for all intents and purposes the local militia ( whether volunteer or organized or simply the arm man at home. The most insidious bane of liberty for freemen.
Only a few states’ have “militias” at all- mostly called state guards or similar.
The Selective Service Act is often used to describe the “militia” but that is a false proposition, surely the draft is important in case of national mobilization, but it is not a militia for any practical purpose.
Okay, probably already replied to, but:
1. Militia is the body of able bodied men. This body is not only the militia but the posse comitatus ( power of the county) able to effect any number of causes at law and justice in and of themselves- not a lynch mob, mind you, but the citizenry whose duty it is to rule themselves. The militia is an extension of that just as the legislature, the executive and the courts are. In federal terms, the military ( formal organization) is subject to civil power, in local terms, they are the civil power. This is where the extension of personal rights equates to collective powers.
2. The 2A does not state “limited” it states “shall not be infringed” so yes, there is an unlimited right to arms- remember that we are not talking about organized/crew served weapon systems in specific, although in general they too are in the clause as “arms”. Of course there are restrictions- the people being referred to does not include incarcerated or incompetents, but that status is only determined by courts- adjudicated as disenfranchised ( argument for restoration of rights of convicts is of course a hot button issue) but not one left orphan by the founders- until the later 19th and 20th century permanent restrictions, convicts certainly were re-enfranchised, some by nature of release from custody, others by petition.
3. Ah, what is an “arm”? Well, what is “press” or speech”? Is there a difference? I do not think so. Of course, thermonuclear weapons were not envisioned by the Framers, nor were electronic communications nor high speed printers etc. So, arms must mean anything that one can use for self or state defense- some would argue the M1 Abrams is included, others just small arms suited for dismounted infantry use.... Hard question for many on both sides of the question. Personally, I think small arms suited ofr personal use to include crew served weapons- like what we have in the nominal light infantry of today- Rifles, pistols, machine guns up to 50 cal and perhaps, even explosive weapons like the Mk 19 AGL and other sorts of explosive devices for defense or offense uses.... ( Kevlar and asbestos underwear on now) all of these types of systems and items were in use at the founding- mines, torpedoes grenades etc.
4. No, the NRA is a useful tool of course, but they are a self-perpetuating entity as well. As long as gun rights organizations adhere to the basics of a) restrictions of arms are dangerous and unconstitutional for anyone other than those in custody or incompetent and b) that restoration of rights ought to be the standard, I think they serve a purpose. As it is, most gun groups accept and even write stuff like the GCA, NFA and FOPA etc, as compromises to retain soft gun rights types.... ( but that is just my opinion-which you are paying nothing for but since you asked).
Finally, no gun rights group is standing firm on the 2A- everyone has compromised all the way to where we are- some 20k gun control laws and proof positive that they do not work- what has been shown over and over again to work is liberal gun laws that empower the citizen to be armed almost anywhere they have a right to be ( with some exceptions). The crime rates have plummeted since the 1970s highs to rates lower than the those of the 1950s/60s, so something is working ( with the obvious contrasts in restrictive /cities to those less or least restrictive, for the most part. The compromise is the art of the businessman, not the free citizen of a free nation under laws. Statist (left or right) forces always want individual rights privileges and immunities to be compromised “ for the good of society” they say, but evidence usually if not always proves the opposite case, but the spiral continues.
Hope this helps or at least doesn’t harm.
Selective Service is TOTALLY dependent upon the idea of the militia being the entire body of citizens capable of bearing arms.
The 13th Amendment bars "involuntary servitude". What, then, would allow the government to draft people involuntarily into the military? The Constitution's Article I Section 8, and Article II section 2, covers calling forth the Militia into federal service. That is what Selective Service does. It is the mechanism by which members of the Militia are called into federal service as needed.
Equating Civic duty to slavery is rather funny. Slaves don’t get benefits nor the right to fight for liberty by their master. Still, I understand the argument,if only in leftist terms.
I note that this article was published in 2001, before the 2008 Heller decision.
The Heller decision cleared most of this up. :) Not ALL of it, but most of it.
And that makes me very happy.
Yes, thanks for clearing that up.
...hell yep !
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.