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

To: tpaine
I'm certainly not advocating any changes that would violate our liberties, but the reason why some people do is because it makes them more powerful and you less powerful. I think that's always the motivation.
70 posted on 12/06/2002 5:36:34 PM PST by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies ]


To: Dog Gone
In analyzing the Federalist papers, it is clear that the the "well regulated militia" clause of the 2nd Ammendment had to do with the interest of the Federal government in ensuring that State sponsored militia were, well,"well regulated" and not a mob which would threaten the authority of the Federal Government without some type of Federal control.

The fact that the officers of the state militias were appointed by the states was enough to ensure that the feds couldn't run the militias and force them to do things that weren't acceptable to the states(like ending slavery).

You have to understand that at the time the Constitution was written, the Feds were basically powerless and at the mercy of the States, a far cry from the situation today, this circumstance not an accident, by the way.

This being said, basing an opinion on whether individual citizens have a right to bear arms on the "militia" clause of the Constitution is patently absurd, individualownership of all types of arms was a fact of life as normal as todays citizen owning an automobile.

The right of an individual citizen to own a firearm is clear.

We are the people, our right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If 10,00 Floridians decide to form a militia, however, it will be subject to Federal control and authority in defense of the nation.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

This is so simple and self evident that it is astounding that leftist scum Federal judges in the 9th circus would dare to INTENTIONALLY obfuscate and usurp the intent of the founding fathers and the Constitution.

The Feds have no authority in the Constitution over the type of firearm an INDIVIDUAL may own, neither do the states except over citizens which are members of the militia when on duty.

76 posted on 12/06/2002 6:20:10 PM PST by Rome2000
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | 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