Posted on 02/24/2018 3:05:57 PM PST by Blood of Tyrants
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.
What does it mean? Well let's go through it.
“You’ll find it in the Declaration.”
I know. But he wrote “Constitution”. If it was just a slip of the pen, fine. But if he believes it to be literally true I want to see where.
“The government can’t grant you rights, only permission.”
That would depend on how one defines “rights” and “permissions”. Can or does a government (not “the government as there is more than one throughout space and time) grant the right to vote or the right that derives from a patent or copyright, or are they only permissions?
“The Bill of Rights recognizes rights that are inherent to the people, not granted by the Constitution. “
Yes and no. For instance, the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed is only inherent to people who have established a government that has all of that. The right to peaceably assemble is inherent to all.
Thanks for a detailed explanation. Your explanation explains precisely that the second amendment means exactly what is says, “shall not be infringed!”
When the second amendment was written the use of firearms was a given as it was used for hunting as an integral part of survival. This was about food and nothing to do with the second amendment.
We had just fought a war with the tyranny of England. This is the reason for the second amendment. Our brilliant forefathers knew a central tyrannical government be it England or internal was a threat to free men. Thus they gave us the second amendment.
A disarmed populace are nothing but sheep. An armed populace are sheep dogs with an attitude. The second amendment is about the ability to oppose and defeat tyranny and had not one damn thing to do with hunting for food. The second amendment is about freedom!
Ask Condi Rice...
“Maybe we should all form a militia.”
Maybe you are already in the militia, the unorganized militia at least:
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes (emphasis added):
(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.
If you’re in Texas, they have a militia too, called a reserve militia, in which you may be a member. I didn’t sort through the Texas code to get the details though.
Yes. The Declaration of Independence, which officially broke all political ties between the American colonies and Great Britain, set forth the ideas and principles behind a just and fair government, and the Constitution outlined how this government would function.
For Blood of Tyrants (Since some of us are quoting quotes):
“Well, this is another fine mess you’ve gotten us into.” (An anonymous Redcoat to his commanding officer on the way back to Boston from Lexington and Concord, 19 Apr 1775)
“Our constitution forbids a “Regular Standing Army.”
The United States has always had one.
The United States has always had one.
Article I Section 8:
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
It's a trick statement; the Constitution allows for an army, but it's funding must be approved every two years by Congress.
It's your call whether that counts as "regular" or not.
-PJ
-PJ
Most of the Constitution tells the Fed Gov what it will do. The Bill of Rights is the opposite... these are areas it either may not touch or under what conditions, it may.
LOL! And I thought that was Laurel and Hardy.
“It’s your call whether that counts as “regular” or not.”
Not mine; the Army calls itself that.
-PJ
2nd Amendment bump for later....
The National Guards formation predates the constitution by 150 years. The Militia was organized into regiments in 1636 by the colony of Massachusetts, Those three regiments still exist today in Massachusetts Army National Guard and are the oldest outfits in the Army still existing today. I am not trying to throw cold water on your argument but facts are facts.
This post is a deflection of the original point, which is the question of whether the Constitution forbids a standing army.
You should contrast the army with the next clause, "To provide and maintain a Navy;"
Note that there is no similar biannual funding for the Navy; the Navy was a "standing" Navy.
Put in context with the passages from The Federalist that I posted above, it's because the Framers didn't fear the use of a Navy by a tyrant to attack the People -- they feared a standing army. The Navy's purpose was to defend the country against invaders (from across the Atlantic Ocean); the militia's purpose was to defend the several states against an army coopted by a federal tyrant.
The Navy was continuously funded; the army had to be reapproved every two years.
-PJ
I was referring to the federal law that created the National Guard.
Permissions.
It is good to see some folks recall that the DOI is our founding document, NOT the Constitution!
The former recognizes natural truths and declares before God and the world our desire to adhere to that doctrine of individual freedom from the inescapably present central thirst for dominance.
The latter is simply the always imperfect political attempt to protect the former.
The Bill of Rights was an unnecessary mistake. Which has led to the incorrect assumption that the rights of states and individuals are limited and defined by the central/general government.
Today's topic is a perfect example. Here we are arguing over what the central gov't's role is in regulating our gun rights. When it has no role whatsoever.
The leaven of corruption often can sound good at first. But essentially, the BOR is to the Constitution what Rubio is to the Republican party.
The misguided legal doctrine of incorporation is to blame as well. If we believers in a Free Republic are to be honest about it, our respective states DO have a Constitutionally allowed role in regulating our guns - though we obviously should seek to ensure state level freedom in that regard as well. But the feds do NOT have such a valid role - AT ALL.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Hx23c84obwQ
A well regulated militia in this context is an army. Let Penn abd Teller explain it. They are dead on. (Language warning.)
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.