Posted on 11/09/2007 3:17:09 AM PST by cbkaty
Which means you're saying the state gets to decide who is a member, and the state gets to decide what arms they can have. That's "agents of the state", exercising a power of the state, and "rights" don't apply.
No. The only exception allowing anyone to purchase an M4 is under the authority of the government - to wit, acting as agents of the state.
922(o)(2) This subsection does not apply with respect to (A) a transfer to or by, or possession by or under the authority of, the United States or any department or agency thereof or a State, or a department, agency, or political subdivision thereof;Whoever is buying an M4 under this exception does so under the control and direction of the government. This exception exists so someone can go to a Class III dealer and say "I need to buy an M4, and I'm doing this on behalf of the government"; the government decides how the M4 will be used, and can take it from that person at any time for any reason. If used outside governmental direction/authority/permission, the individual can be - and has been - prosecuted for violation of 922(o) as that action was not under the authority of the government. No matter how you slice it, the person is acting as an agent of the state, and NOT one of "the people".
Two posts got pulled. The first pretty flagrantly insulted (to wit: personal attack) another poster (I squeezed in a response before the post got pulled). Apparently the second was similar. He got a “time out”.
Nothing pisses off a bureaucrat more than someone who won’t just shut up and do what they’re told.
Civilians was his term, not mine. Quit your trolling.
So, the 2nd protects the right of the federal government not to disarm itself? Good thing they thought to put that in there, or the Army might not know it could issue weapons.
A ludicrous comment.
The People as a whole don’t have the balls for that. And for the few that do, by the time the Feds make their case, the world will think they were meth-making, kiddie-porn viewing, terrorist nutcases who just needed killing.
I have said that the second amendment does not protect the RKBA of civilians.
“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”
If it were a collective right it would read like this:
“A well funded continental army being necessary to the security of the free States, the rights of the regulated militias to be armed shall not be infringed.”
If it were collective then why does it state that a militia must bear arms, and the ability for a militia to bear arms shall not be infringed. That would be redundant. The only purpose a militia serves is to bear arms, I know a militia has to bear arms, you don’t have to tell me a militia bears arms. What kind of moron would write that?
Then again .... if they simply meant the people have the right they would have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Gosh. Why did they add all that Militia clutter?
Call me crazy, but maybe they meant the people, who are part of a well regulated state militia, have their right to keep and bear arms protected from federal infringement. I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.
They are organized, armed, and disciplined under the authority of the state government. It's a concurrent power.
“That’s one aspect of it. My take on it is that the problem is that we have people who promote the idea that our Constitutional rights, and the plain meaning of the Constitution is whatever the last thing the USSC said it was.”
I agree that a huge problem is that we have allowed the Supreme Court to become the end all to constitutional questions. They have created this power for themselves, and it needs to be removed.
Yes the militia is necessary for the security of a free state. Absolutely. A continental army can be defeated, a militia can never be defeated.
Sadaams army was defeated.
The Taliban militias haven’t been defeated, yet. I like Hunters plan, stand Iraqi army up to proportionally displace Americans. I know what Hunter is thinking.
≠
It is indeed! Maybe the Founding Fathers didn't spend time writing the 2nd Amendment just to assure a militia could do that which makes a militia a militia!
if they simply meant the people have the right they would have written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Gosh.
Gosh - THEY DID!
Why did they add all that Militia clutter?
Uh...maybe to make it clear that it's GOOD for the state to have armed citizens, so that a well-regulated militia could be raised on short notice? Ya know, make sure everyone who shows up to fight for the security of their free state would have arms when they arrived, instead of "I'm here ... hey, anyone got a musket I can borrow? no? so what am I supposed to do?" Having armed militia members is kinda a pre-requisiste to organizing them and marching 'em out.
Call me crazy
You're crazy.
but maybe they meant the people,
Ya THINK?
who are part of a well regulated state militia
How about the people before they're actively involved? Ya know, defending the state may need more people (and arms) than the officers planned, and it would be nice to be able to call on anyone - and I mean anyone - to pitch in on short notice (which they can't if they're not armed). Maybe not everyone had to be active participants, but could at least still be armed, familiar therewith, and not completely useless if called up.
I always thought it was a militia that was necesary to the security of a free state, not an armed public.
Here's a really wild notion: they're really pretty much the same thing!
I’m a programmer. They symbols mean the same thing.
To some degree. But Thomas Jefferson said "It is every Americans' right and obligation to read and interpret the Constitution for himself.". To some extent they have that power beacuse we do not exercise that right, and fulfill that obligation, and because we listen to those who submit that the Court's opinion is the only one of any consequence.
I agree, though I think that should be left up to each state. If the state wants their militia members to take their arms home for just such a reason, I have no problem with that.
"Here's a really wild notion: they're really pretty much the same thing!"
Not according to Hamilton in Federalist 29. He thought there was a big difference between "all the militia" and the select militia -- that being the select militia was organized, trained, and disciplined, with officers appointed by the state.
Whose arms?
Who selects?
If the state chooses who participates, and owns the arms used, then they’re not “the people” and no “right” is involved - they’re agents of the state using state-owned equipment, exercising a state power.
Of course it is. Welcome to Bobby World.
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.