Posted on 07/13/2006 12:51:11 AM PDT by neverdem
Citing a source that doesn't support you makes makes no more sense, even for a self-professed anarchist.
Squeek for me again Roscoe. I like having a pet troll that squeeks on command.
Sadly, the second amendment is pretty much useless. Without question, a big part of the reason for the second amendment was to prevent and protect against a government gone wild.
So I don't think some dude on his back porch with a .22 and 500 rounds is gonna do a whole lotta damage against a group that has full auto weapons, stun grenades, gas, night vision technology, etc, etc, etc.
Anybody who does think so is smokin somethin...
BTW... I also own a good gillie suit, Gen II NVG's, and several other perfectly legal "toys".
I'm certainly not unarmed myself. But I think you have to admit that if they were standing outside with bullhorns telling you to come out unarmed OR ELSE, it would be suicide to resist.
Yes, you might take a couple of them with you. But your chances of ever seeing daylight again are pretty slim.
In those cases, knowing when to get out of dodge BEFORE the gendarmes show up is the trick. If a blanket prohibition goes into effect, it's time to bug out.
I post this link because it would take too much time to actually write myself (I'm lazy tonight). I also suspect, reading from some of the weaseling you've provided in other posts, that you will ignore the article. Read it or don't. I don't care. But there might be others on this thread that would read it and see the militia BS you're posting for what it is. There are several other scholarly works on that same website which also bolster the arguments made by Halbrook in the above work.
However, a well placed shot gets you the full auto weapon, stun grendaes, gas, night vision technology, etc. of the former warm body carrying them.
Ever hear of the 'Liberator' pistol? It was crude, fired one bullet at a time, and the Allies originally intended to drop them all over occupied territory. The idea was simple: " Kill the soldier with the automatic weapon. Now you have his automatic weapon. "
Also, there is also the Battle of Athens, Tennessee to consider. The JPFO has it on their website.
It's not just a corny Hollywood plot device from some E-ticket barbarian movie.
It is the WILL to use a weapon that makes a weapon dangerous. Without the strength of mind, it's just a useless lump of steel. Proper application of this philosophy is what you describe here.
I read it. I note with interest that when discussing the Virginia debate, the author left out Thomas Jefferson -- a prominent Virginian, yes?
Jefferson proposed that the 1776 Virginia state constitution contain the (oft-quoted) phrase, "no free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." That's pretty clear as to the intent, yes? I'd say that makes your point, correct?
What is not oft-quoted is that his proposed amendment was defeated. Instead, the Virginia state delegation opted for:
"SEC. 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
I have stated time and again the the individual RKBA is protected by each state's constitution. Any quotes you have from proposals for early state constitutions regarding the RKBA do indeed support this. I have no problems with that.
But to say that some prominent individual proposed some amendment to a STATE constitution saying that individuals had the RKBA in no way supports the same for an amendment to the FEDERAL constitution. For example: Certainly the Founding Fathers supported the police power of each state to protect the health and safety of its citizens -- but to take those words of support and then apply them to, say, the General Welfare Clause of the U.S. Constitution thereby giving the same police power to the federal government would be disingenuous at best. Apples and oranges.
The founders supported the individual right to keep and bear arms. That right was defined and protected by the state constitution. It was enforced by state law, subject to challenges to the state supreme court. Period.
The second amendment protects the integrity of a state Militia. Your cite mentions two extremely weak cases, one of which is a fourth amendment case referencing the second amendment in passing. I can cite two dozen very strong second amendment lower federal court cases saying that the second amendment does not protect an individual right. That doesn't mean I like it, contrary to your insinuations. It just means what is, is.
The Militia of the U.S. Constitution (and second amendment) no longer exists. The National Guard has taken its place. To say that able-bodied citizens constitute the "reserve militia" is all well and good, but the second amendment refers to a well-regulated Militia with officers appointed by the state which this "reserve militia" is not.
The U.S. Supreme Court, of course, will be the final arbiter. I would consider it to be unwise, given previous rulings, to demand that the USSC define the second amendment for every citizen.
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.