Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: StJacques
But with those two points in mind, the only real debate we should be having is over what constitutes the proper mode of regulation -- and we all believe in regulation whether we recognize it or not because none of us (God I hope) would permit ordinary citizens to pack 80 mm howitzers -- and how that regulation can best be implemented.

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

I think it was fairly clear that the founders intended the militia to have access to modern military arms, and that the militia did not answer to the government.

IOW, yes, if some people got together to form a civil militia then it should legally be allowed to procure field artillery if it so decided. As long as it was well-regulated, and by that I mean reasonably disciplined, the government wouldn't legally have a leg to stand on. That, of course, wouldn't stop them from arresting everyone involved.
38 posted on 06/05/2006 1:04:21 PM PDT by JamesP81
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies ]


To: JamesP81
"Who are the militia? . . ."

I would say the "law-abiding citizenry" are the milita. Which I think translates to "ourselves" from the quote you posted.
43 posted on 06/05/2006 1:06:56 PM PDT by StJacques
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson