Who Is Right about the Right to Bear Arms?

Stanford (Alumni Magazine) ^ | March/April 2006 | Stanford Magazine

[Dead Corpse]

Same stuff from the anti-gun crowd, over and over again.

I can't believe RP actually stated that mere local statutes can over turn State Constitutions and the Fed Con. That it is perfectly legitamate for the Commerce clause to be utterly twisted to give the FedGov essentially unlimited power.

And this jackass has the nerve to call himself a "conservative"?

[pop-gun]

Definitons:

1. militia=military service..part of an armed force of a country....no mention of a person's right here

2. "well regulated" ...no confusion there...who regulates has to be something above an individual

3."the right of the people to keep and bear arms"...AH>>>>THERE IS THE STICKER THE ANTI GUN CROWD CAN'T GET AROUND.

However, they try to connect #1 and #2 (INFERRING GOVERNMENT CONTROL) with #3....and that is JUST too much of a stretch.....even for the devious.

[King Prout]

which makes it "what the founders said, X 1!" ;)

[LilDarlin]

Good arguement and well constructed.
Be kind of fun for a group of US citizens to draft an original amendment today on - oh say...religious freedoms - that would make sense to or have any relevance for folks in the 23rd century; a measly 200+ years away.

[LilDarlin]

."the right of the people to keep and bear arms"...

Please define "arms" in terms of the 18th century American colonies; and in terms of say, 21st century US.

Interesting, no?

[LilDarlin]

Do you suppose we in the U.S. would be more free or less free without citizens owning all types of weapons.

I suppose it depends on the definition of "freedom"; and "more or less" free that what?

[tpaine]

LilDarlin says: (Being very feminine got me this far; it will take me the rest of the way, too!)

I'm just kind of curious here.

Does anyone suppose that the folks writing the 2nd Amendment in the late 18th century envisioned the type of "arms" we have available today in the 21st century?
And...if they could have, do you suppose the 2nd Amendment would have read exactly the same way?
Hmmmmmmmmmmm????????

LilDarlin, You're being very feminine. Your question got me this far; -- are you implying that 'we the people' shouldn't have the right to own the same weapons of war we give to our governments?
Perhaps, if you think about that, -- it will take you the rest of the way, leading you to the rational idea that in order to protect our liberties, we have to be able to defend them.

[Dead Corpse]

Actually, as per Art 1 Sect 8 and the 1792 Militia Act, any and all ACTIVE duty Militia are bound to follow orders from their elected officers. Note: the Militia is not the National Guard.

Inactive Militia are under no such stricture. So the active duty militia is "bound" to the civil authority. The inactive isn't. Therein lies a stumbling block for more than one persons arguments.

Of course, the protection is broad and general and applies to all US Citizens not subject to a criminal penalty. Regardless of the "home rule" status claimed by their city/State.

[LilDarlin]

are you implying that 'we the people' shouldn't have the right to own the same weapons of war we give to our governments?

Not implying anything, simply asking.
And...quid pro quo....if my government has nuclear weapons, then I want one (or more) also...or at least the right - using your arguement - to have them, personally!

[King Prout]

the militia is defined in US Code most recently as:

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:+10USC311

[CITE: 10USC311]


TITLE 10--ARMED FORCES

Subtitle A--General Military Law

PART I--ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS

CHAPTER 13--THE MILITIA

Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of
title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration
of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female
citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are--
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval
Militia.

(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85-861, Sec. 1(7), Sept.
2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103-160, div. A, title V, Sec. 524(a),
Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)


(NOT the standing armed force or military, my FRiend.)

Historical and Revision Notes
1956 Act

---

Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

---

311(a)................................ 32:1 (less last 19 words). June 3, 1916, ch. 134, Sec. 57, 39
311(b)................................ 32:1 (last 19 words). Stat. 197; June 28, 1947, ch. 162,
Sec. 7 (as applicable to Sec. 57
of the Act of June 3, 1916, ch.
134), 61 Stat. 192.

---

In subsection (a), the words ``who have made a declaration of
intention'' are substituted for the words ``who have or shall have
declared their intention''. The words ``at least 17 years of age and * *
* under 45 years of age'' are substituted for the words ``who shall be
more than seventeen years of age and * * * not more than forty-five
years of age''. The words ``except as provided in section 313 of title
32'' are substituted for the words ``except as hereinafter provided'',
to make explicit the exception as to maximum age.
In subsection (b), the words ``The organized militia, which consists
of the National Guard and the Naval Militia'' are substituted for the
words ``the National Guard, the Naval Militia'', since the National
Guard and the Naval Militia constitute the organized militia.

1958 Act

---

Revised section Source (U.S. Code) Source (Statutes at Large)

---

311(a)................................ 32 App.:1. July 30, 1956, ch. 789, Sec. 1, 70
Stat. 729.

---

The words ``appointed as . . . under section 4 of this title'' are
omitted as surplusage.


Amendments

1993--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 103-160 substituted ``members'' for
``commissioned officers''.
1958--Subsec. (a). Pub. L. 85-861 included female citizens of the
United States who are commissioned officers of the National Guard.


(as you can see, the definition of the militia as all male citizens 17-45 is of very long standing)

[Joe 6-pack]

"Good arguement and well constructed. Be kind of fun for a group of US citizens to draft an original amendment today on - oh say...religious freedoms - that would make sense to or have any relevance for folks in the 23rd century; a measly 200+ years away."

If you look not only at the words and writings of our founders, but also at those of the European philospohers of the Enlightenment, they were quite adamant about "self evident," and "inalienable," meaning just that...Too many Americans have failed to study, much less read the Constitution and the Declaration, and are easily manipulated by the charlatan scholars who offer to tell them, "what it really means."

[Supernatural]

>"more or less" free that what<?

More free than the citizens of Red China, Cuba, the former U.S.S.R., the citizens of Iran, the citizens of Cambodia under the Kymer Rouge, etc.

If you don't like U.S. citizens owning firearms, you are free to move to one of the above mentioned countries and enjoy the "freedoms" those countries give you. See how you like it there. Try Cuba or Communist China. Enjoy the life of the "land of the free" under communism.

[King Prout]

yep - see recent USC citation at #150

funny how almost no one (except the hardcore 2Am folks) refers to the actual legal definition of Militia in these arguments

[Supernatural]

(as you can see, the definition of the militia as all male citizens 17-45 is of very long standing)

This law is the same exact one on the books in Pennsylvania as defining the militia. Probably on the books in every other state that has ratified the federal Constitution too.

[bondjamesbond]

Some 220 years later, legal scholars government bureaucrats are still trying to figure it out (how to take the guns, in spite of what it says).

There. Fixed it.

The Second Amendment was written just after the mass of citizens rose up to overthrow their duly constituted and legitimate government. Clearly the purpose of the militia was to operate as a check on government power. Also clearly, that need has not diminished over time.

[pop-gun]

Definitons: 1. Militia=military service..part of an armed force of a country....no mention of a person's right here.

2. "Well regulated" ...no confusion there...who regulates has to be something above an individual, i.e. county, state etc

3."the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"...AH.....THERE IS THE STICKER THE ANTI GUN CROWD CAN'T GET AROUND.

The Bradies, ACLU etc try to connect #1 and #2 ....with control over #3 and this requires pure sophistry.....for any court to accept.

#3 IS ROCK SOLID AND HORDES OF LAWYERS HAVE FALLEN ON ITS CLARITY.

[King Prout]

*shrugs*

I just cannot *conceive* of the reason why all those hoplophobic "constitutional scholars" never mention this simple fact of a well-defined term.

[LilDarlin]

(as you can see, the definition of the militia as all male citizens 17-45 is of very long standing)

They've raised the social security qualification age for all folks born after - I think - 1937 upwards.

One would think they'd raise the age of the "oldest" qualifiable militia also. Heck, we have master seargents older than 45!
And why just "male"??

[Dead Corpse]

If you can own buy them with your own cash, store them without causing direct harm to your neighbors, and have some place to fire them off where the fallout won't give people in the next county/State/Nation cancer...

Go for it...

[LilDarlin]

If you don't like U.S. citizens owning firearms, you are free to move to one of the above mentioned countries and enjoy the "freedoms" those countries give you. See how you like it there. Try Cuba or Communist China. Enjoy the life of the "land of the free" under communism.

Whoa there, hoss!

I was asking you to define the terms you used in your arguement; I said nothing about being against the 2nd Amendment.

Seems you've a bit of the "lynch mob" mentality about you..."My country - right or wrong!"?? "Shoot first, then ask questions." etc...