The 2nd Amendment by HKCavalier

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

A couple of points to make in regards to your queries:

1) My handgun, rifle, etc. is not even close to the technological equivelant of anything the military has. Because by guns are based on designs which are typically 50 or more years old, even a modern military sidearm outstrips the sophistication of my guns. However, it is still possible for me to kill someone. With planning, I could probably kill several someones. This is because at the end of the day, all firearms perform a similar function, which is to throw a projectile downrange. Having superior firepower doesn't act as a cloak of invulnerability. A soldier may have access to Combat Drones, Squad Machine Guns, Grenade Launchers, Tanks, Apache Helicopters, and Stealth Bombers. None of that will save him from being ambushed and sniped by a 1950's era bolt action deer rifle at 400 yards. Especially when trying to pacify a resistant urban populace, it is possible to be killed by technologically inferior opponents.

2) Once (if) resistance becomes widespread, you are going to have military personnel firing at and killing their fellow citizens, and watching their fellow citizens firing at and trying to kill them. A certain percentage of the officers are going to dislike that prospect. Some of them will go AWOL and support the resistance, some of them may bring entire platoons, companies, or brigades with them. Remember that in our last Civil War, a large amount of military officers defected from the official government and supported the rebellion.

3) Having a population in rebellion AND the support of defecting military assets gives the resistance a fighting chance. By no means are they certain to win. A gun, turncoat military support, and the will to fight are not magic success buttons. All of it together, and you still only have a chance at victory.

But without them, you've got no chance at all.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:32 AM

MALBADINLATIN

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
Y'know, when they can watch me from space weeding in my backyard, my gun is kinda beside the point, in'it?

Very soon they will be able to cook you from space, rendering the grenade launching M16 useless. I agree with you.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:one of 'em finally said, "I think it was also intended to protect people from their own government, right?" And these folks are not low-information voters, by a long shot!

I sense the characterization I'm to absoarb here and work into the question is that even the high information Liberals you spoke with don't understand whats behind the 2nd amendment. I am a whacked out far left loon that could be tipped with a feather over the edge into revolution land, and I understand fully the 2nd. As do almost all of the Liberals I know. I apologize HKC if that's not what you meant because I don't understand what a conversation with two Liberals you know has with the 2nd amendment question you asked.

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:No one argues in public that citizens need assault rifles 'cause those are the only kind that would have a prayer against government troops. We have an entire population that is completely mis/uninformed about this issue. And this isn't some obscure legalistic nuance, it's the freakin' 2nd Amendment to our Constitution! What gives?

I've never really bought the idea that a gun that you own will slay the tyrants of Government as they come after your property and your right to speak out like the goons sent by a railroad Baron in 1850, at least not these days. Now if you want to protect your home, 93% of civilian gun owners fail to discharge thier weapons when thier homes are invaded. So they're on thier own, you play with the bigs boys and you learn. In California our gangs get thier weapons from Mexico with thier drugs. So they're off the radar and always gonna have heavy weaponry.

I see this issue as very black and white. The 2nd amendment is there so Americans can defend themselves on thier property from whatever they percieve as a mortal threat. Specificity about what is an appropriate threat, and specificity about the appropriate weapon serves only to complicate. The occasional Tennesse bitter gun clinger nut job after Liberals using an RPG will have to be punished and unfortunatly written off as a cost of doing business for the 2nd!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:33 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Duplicate Post - Look Away!

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:44 AM

Quote:
No one argues in public that citizens need assault rifles

I do, it's one of my primary points of argument that the second specifically and intentionally includes military grade weaponry - an assertion which is backed up solidly by commentary from Madison in The Federalist Papers.

The battle of Kings Mountain undeniably proved that if comparably armed, ordinary citizens can kick the shit out of army regulars, and our founding fathers did NOT let that point escape them, as Madison explains in detail.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:51 AM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

As long as we're on the topic of assault rifles, I'd like someone to define what that is.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 11:54 AM

CITIZEN

An assault rifle is a selective automatic or semi-automatic firing rifle with stopping power between that of a pistol and a high powered rifle, firing shortened rifle rounds.

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:03 PM

Freedom is Important because People are Important

Hello,

I generally concur with this definition. Assault rifles are selective fire, switchable from semi-auto to fully auto.

Anyone dispute this?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:10 PM

Re: Tactical vs Strategic.

Sure, an assault rifle isn't gonna help you against an F117, but what it DOES do, is give as much parity as possible between you and the grunt on the ground, and there's a reason to have that.

I submit to you that the "Standing Army" the founders feared as the primary threat to liberty is not embodied in the US Army, but rather our Federalised, Militarised Police forces that see anyone not a cop as an enemy in their "War on (citizens) Crime".

If every Cop had to face a very real risk of getting shot when entering someones home and arresting them, do you really think they would bother enforcing so much of the nanny-nitpick shit that they do now ?

If every Cop was subject ON AND OFF duty, to the same restrictions on weapons we are, do you think they would accept this, or favor those restrictions ?

There's a check and balance here that long years of abuse have subverted.

There comes a time when "Officer Safety" is just an excuse for making sure they can "safely" enforce their will on us, whether it is legal or not - just ask the FLDS, right ?

I mean shit like this...
http://www.reason.com/blog/show/128482.html

Give me one, just ONE valid law enforcement use of a .50 Caliber Machinegun ?

I hope to hell they got a guy who knows how to set headspace on that properly, or they're in for a damn rude and potentially lethal surprise.

There's a REASON us mere peons are supposed to be able to outgun the "authorities" and that is so that this country is run by consent of the governed, not by who outguns who.

And like it or not, that is where this is going, cause folk don't understand the reason behind the second amendment.

As for officers/units defecting...

I doubt it, in my own service time I was handed a questionarre asking that if the Govt banned guns, some US Citizens refused to hand them over and I was ordered to fire on them, would I do it ?

I went further than just no, I cited that I would remove the commander who ordered such, restrain them and hand them over at first opportunity to the civil authorites for trial.
(And cited the relevant UCMJ codes for that occurance, in fact)

And that was prettymuch the END of my chances for promotion - do you understand ?

They make sure those guys will do ANYTHING they are told, lip service to illegal orders to the contrary, they WILL do it, constant tests and reinforcement of that imperative overrides any mere lip service.

Tell me, during Katrina, did you see even one member of the 82nd Airborne ground arms and refuse to help confiscate weapons from citizens ?

Did even one desert, or try to stop it ?

And regardless of the bullshit shell game that THEY were not doing it, just escorting the guys who did, do you really think they would not return fire if engaged ?

Think of that as a test case - that is what WILL happen, and damn the law, damn the constitution itself, if the Gov ever gets the idea they can get away with it.

Unless you stand up for the second, they're gonna start to get that idea, and then things will really get nasty.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:15 PM

Full size rifle rounds, Cit.

M16/M4 fires .223 Remington (5.56NATO)
M14/FN-FAL fires .308 Winchester (7.62NATO)

The only real cut-down round is the soviet 7.62x39mm (as opposed to 7.62x51mm NATO aka .308 Winchester) which is used in the Ak-47/SKS series.

Assault rifle to me, is an automatic rifle with single and burst/full auto capability firing rifle class rounds capable of battlefield levels of penetration (i.e. III+ class armor), a minimum effective lethal range of 300 yards, and a magazine meeting or exceeding twenty rounds in capacity.

Does that suit for a definition, then ?

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:19 PM

CHRISISALL

Frem said it.
I agree with it.

isall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:31 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Only Militias Need Apply, Part I

As a student of history, I always believed the Second Amendment pertained only to militias but only after the Va. Tech tragedy did I decide to investigate for myself based on primary sources; here’s what I’ve found after weeks of research. The Second Amendment means what it says: “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.” Or in other words, the federal government cannot dismantle states’ militias by confiscating their weapons or over-regulating them into dissolution. The Second Amendment does not guarantee private individuals the right to obtain, carry or own firearms, and history and the law demonstrates this point. Almost never, in all the important documents, petitions and debates of the revolutionary era, was a right “to keep and bear arms” for private individuals discussed, nor did it appear to be one of the grievances the Patriots had against Parliament and the crown throughout the Revolution.

A modern romanticized myth holds that Revolutionary War militiamen were ad hoc bands of tavern-dwelling colonists, with their muskets at hand waiting for an emergency. State militias were in fact designated, codified fighting forces created, armed and operated by state legislatures and/or Committees of Safety with commissioned officers selected by legislators or elected by their own troops. Thomas Jefferson wrote about his state’s militia in his “Notes on the State of Virginia” in 1781:

“Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia. Those of every county are formed into companies, and these again into one or more battalions, according to the numbers in the county. They are commanded by colonels, and other subordinate officers, as in the regular service. In every county is a county-lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county, but ranks only as a colonel in the field. We have no general officers always existing. These are appointed occasionally, when an invasion or insurrection happens, and their commission determines with the occasion. The governor is head of the military, as well as civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”

The federal Militia Act of 1792 defined who could enroll in the militia, supply demands, organization, officer quotas, who was exempt from militia service and the powers the president had over the militia as commander-in-chief.

Private, individual arms regulation is nothing new, not even in English common law. The 1328 Statute of Northampton proclaimed, with brackets:

“Item, it is enacted, that no man great nor small, of what condition soever he be, except the king’s servants in his presence, and his ministers in executing of the king’s precepts, or of their office, and such as be in their company assisting them, and also [upon a cry made for arms to keep the peace, and the same in such places where such acts happen,] be so hardy to come before the King’s justices, or other of the King’s ministers doing their office, with force and arms, nor bring no force in affray of the peace, nor to go nor ride armed by night nor by day, in fairs, markets, nor in the presence of the justices or other ministers, nor in no part elsewhere, upon pain to forfeit their armour to the King, and their bodies to prison at the King’s pleasure. And that the King’s justices in their presence, sheriffs, and other ministers in their bailiwicks, lords of franchises, and their bailiffs in the same, and mayors and bailiffs of cities and boroughs, within the same cities and boroughs, and borough-holders, constables, and wardens of the peace within their wards, shall have power to execute this act. And that the justices assigned, at their coming down into the country, shall have power to enquire how such officers and lords have exercised their offices in this case, and to punish them whom they find that have not done that which pertained to their office.”

Pro-gun groups will tell you that keeping firearms in your home is the last defense against tyranny, as, they say, the Founding Fathers understood and dictators such as Hitler and Stalin understood - although you’d have a hard time convincing me that the Holocaust wouldn’t have happened merely if every Jew in Nazi Germany had a gun. Well, OK, tyranny is bad, I can understand that. Yet, does that mean I could shoot policemen who come to my house to arrest me for breaking a law I find unconstitutional or tyrannical? The Founders were afraid of the tyranny of the crown but also the tyranny of anarchy, of fanatics and factions trying to topple the government. Dozens of skirmishes were fought during the Revolution between vindictive armed mobs of colonists for revenge and property, especially in the rural South. In 1783, the Continental Army’s disillusionment with Congress’ inaction paying and supplying the military nearly compelled the Army to march on Congress in Philadelphia, but George Washington peacefully quelled the rebellion before it took root. In perhaps the most-read Federalist Papers essay, No. 10 by James Madison, the threat of factions is addressed: “So strong is this propensity of mankind to fall into mutual animosities, that where no substantial occasion presents itself, the most frivolous and fanciful distinctions have been sufficient to kindle their unfriendly passions and excite their most violent conflicts. … No man is allowed to be a judge in his own cause, because his interest would certainly bias his judgment, and, not improbably, corrupt his integrity.”

When discussing the militia in policy terms, the Founding Fathers nearly always used adjectives such as “well-regulated,” “disciplined,” “trained” and “organized,” knowing that militias would be useless if militiamen were ineffective or unruly soldiers. Washington wrote to Continental Congress in September 1776 about his concerns of the militias’ deficiencies: “To place any dependence on Militia, is, assuredly resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regularly train’d, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows.” Indeed, among the Patriots’ worst losses in the Revolution was the Battle of Camden, where the British routed ill-prepared and ill-trained militiamen.

The thing on every delegate’s mind at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787 was Shays’ Rebellion, an unsuccessful armed uprising of Massachusetts farmers, townspeople and even local politicians between Aug. 29, 1786, and Feb. 3, 1787, in an attempt to seize arsenals and close courthouses. High state taxes to pay off war debt coupled with property seizures for failure to pay these taxes sparked the insurrection. The fact Shays’ Rebellion had to be quelled by just a state-funded militia exposed how weak and ineffective the federal government and federal authority were under the Articles of Confederation. (Although the Articles ultimately failed, Article VI stated, “… every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.”) Washington wrote during the rebellion, “Without some alteration in our political creed, the superstructure we have been seven years raising at the expence of so much blood and treasure, must fall. We are fast verging to anarchy and confusion!” A vision of the young nation dissolving into chaos was very real at this time in American history, and there was a new emphasis on order and national defense. Washington, as president of the Constitutional Convention, probably said it best in a letter to Continental Congress President Arthur St. Clair at the convention’s adjournment:

“It is obviously impractical in the federal government of these states, to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all: Individuals entering into society, must give up a share of liberty to preserve the rest. The magnitude of the sacrifice must depend as well on situation and circumstances, as on the object to be obtained. It is at all times difficult to draw with precision the line between those rights which must be surrendered, and those which may be reserved; and on the present occasion this difficulty was encreased by a difference among the several states as to their situation, extent, habits, and particular interests.”

As early as June 1776, the Virginia Bill of Rights - which would become a blueprint for the U.S. Bill of Rights ratified in 1791 - stated in Article 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.” At the Constitutional Convention, delegates debated how militias should be trained and equipped, how much authority the federal government should have over them and how officers should be appointed.

Alexander Hamilton observed in Federalist No. 28, “If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression. … An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government.” Many Americans were weary of the idea of a powerful standing military but were guaranteed that their state militias would continue to ensure order and security. Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 29, quoting Article I § 8 of the Constitution:

“It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union `to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS. [original emphasis]‘ “

Madison, the Father of the Constitution, argued that a national standing army would never become so great and powerful that it would reign tyrannically, and the militias would aid the federal army against invasion. He observed in Federalist No. 46: “To these [invaders] would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” As a congressman in the 1st Congress, Madison proposed the Bill of Rights in a floor speech on June 8, 1789, including one article declaring, “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.” In his first inaugural address in 1809, Madison said an “armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics.” He again stipulated in his fifth State of the Union address in 1813 in the midst of the War of 1812: “The militia being always to be regarded as the great bulwark of defense and security for free states, and the Constitution having wisely committed to the national authority a use of that force as the best provision against an unsafe military establishment, as well as a resource peculiarly adapted to a country having the extent and the exposure of the United States, I recommend to Congress a revision of the militia laws for the purpose of securing more effectually the services of all detachments called into the employment and placed under the Government of the United States.” Throughout his two terms in office, Madison asked Congress to reorganize the militias, saying in his final State of the Union address in 1816, “An efficient militia is authorized and contemplated by the Constitution and required by the spirit and safety of free government.” Madison does discuss an armed populace in Federalist No. 46 as being beneficial for the nation, but again he discusses it in terms of militias:

“Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it.”

At the time the Federalist Papers were being written, anti-Federalists were concerned about federal control over state militias with the new Constitution, especially since the Congress could call up and regulate the militias - as mentioned in Article I § 8 - and the president would be commander-in-chief of the militias - as mentioned in Article II § 2 - as well as Article I § 10 stating, “No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, … keep Troops … in time of peace …” In the Federalist Papers, Hamilton cited the Necessary and Proper Clause of the Constitution as just cause for the federal government to rally the militias to enforce federal law, and John Jay argued that it would be much more difficult to muster and organize military defense against invasion if several militias fought independently against the enemy rather than together. Jay also wrote in Federalist No. 4 that if “our militia [is] properly organized and disciplined,” it will help bolster the new American Republic’s stature with the superpowers of Europe. Hamilton further observed in Federalist No. 24 that although the militias can help safeguard against invasion, rebellion and Indian attacks, the militias cannot be relied upon for all matters of national defense during peacetime.

“The militia would not long, if at all, submit to be dragged from their occupations and families to perform that most disagreeable duty in times of profound peace. And if they could be prevailed upon or compelled to do it, the increased expense of a frequent rotation of service, and the loss of labor and disconcertion of the industrious pursuits of individuals, would form conclusive objections to the scheme. It would be as burdensome and injurious to the public as ruinous to private citizens.”

Among other Founding Fathers, Washington said in his first State of the Union address in 1790, “A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others, for essential, particularly for military supplies.” Washington also extensively discussed militias in his sixth State of the Union address in 1794: “The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia would be a genuine source of legislative honor and a perfect title to public gratitude. I therefore entertain a hope that the present session will not pass without carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and thus providing, in the language of the Constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”

In his “A Summary View of the Rights of British America” in 1774, Jefferson criticized the King’s use of the British military in the colonies, writing, “Every state must judge for itself the number of armed men which they may safely trust among them, of whom they are to consist, and under what restrictions they are to be laid.” In his first inaugural address in 1801, Jefferson called “a well-disciplined militia” “our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war, till regulars may relieve them.” In his eighth State of the Union address in 1808, Jefferson said, “For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well-organized and armed militia is their best security. It is, therefore, incumbent on us, at every meeting, to revise the condition of the militia, and to ask ourselves if it is prepared to repel a powerful enemy at every point of our territories exposed to invasion.” Jefferson was particularly weary of powerful standing armies, and he shrank the federal military during his two terms as president. In his seventh State of the Union address in 1807, he said in regard to the possibility of war with France or Britain,

“When a regular army is to be raised, and to what extent, must depend on the information so shortly expected. In the meantime I have called on the States for quotas of militia, to be in readiness for present defense, and have, moreover, encouraged the acceptance of volunteers; and I am happy to inform you that these have offered themselves with great alacrity in every part of the Union. They are ordered to be organized and ready at a moment’s warning to proceed on any service to which they may be called, and every preparation within the Executive powers has been made to insure us the benefit of earl exertions.”

George Mason, author of the Virginia Bill of Rights and an anti-Federalist who pushed for a federal Bill of Rights, “introduced the subject of regulating the militia” at the Constitutional Convention, according to Madison’s notes. “He thought such a power necessary to be given to the [General] Government.” Mason wrote Jefferson in 1788, “There are many other things very objectionable in the proposed new Constitution; particularly the almost unlimited Authority over the Militia of the several States; whereby, under Colour. of regulating, they may disarm, or render useless the Militia, the more easily to govern by a standing Army; or they may harrass the Militia, by such rigid Regulations, and intollerable Burdens, as to make the People themselves desire it’s Abolition.”

John Adams discussed the militias’ benefits in his “Thoughts on Government” in April 1776:

“A militia law, requiring all men, or with very few exceptions besides cases of conscience, to be provided with arms and ammunition, to be trained at certain seasons; and requiring counties, towns, or other small districts, to be provided with public stocks of ammunition and entrenching utensils, and with some settled plans for transporting provisions after the militia, when marched to defend their country against sudden invasions; and requiring certain districts to be provided with field-pieces, companies of matrosses [artillerymen], and perhaps some regiments of light-horse, is always a wise institution, and, in the present circumstances of our country, indispensable.”

He also said in an address to Congress in 1797 when war with France seemed likely, “A naval power, next to the militia, is the natural defense of the United States. … I recommend to your consideration a revision of the laws for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, to render that natural and safe defense of the country efficacious.”

Patrick Henry - one of the most radical Founding Fathers - was so suspicious of the Constitutional Convention, he refused to attend and outright rejected the Constitution it produced. At the Virginia ratification convention in June 1788, Henry condemned what he saw as unchecked constitutional federal power over state militias.

“If the states have the right of arming them, etc., concurrently, Congress has a concurrent power of appointing the officers, and training the militia. If Congress have that power, it is absurd. … May we not discipline and arm them, as well as Congress, if the power be concurrent? so that our militia shall have two sets of arms, double sets of regimentals, etc.; and thus, at a very great cost, we shall be doubly armed. The great object is, that every man be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, etc.? Every one who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case. When this power is given up to Congress without limitation or bounds, how will your militia be armed? You trust to chance; for sure I am that that nation which shall trust its liberties in other hands cannot long exist. If gentlemen are serious when they suppose a concurrent power, where can be the impolicy to amend it? Or, in other words, to say that Congress shall not arm or discipline them, till the states shall have refused or neglected to do it? This is my object. I only wish to bring it to what they themselves say is implied. Implication is to be the foundation of our civil liberties; and when you speak of arming the militia by a concurrence of power, you use implication. But implication will not save you, when a strong army of veterans comes upon you. You would be laughed at by the whole world, for trusting your safety implicitly to implication.”

Constitutional Convention delegate Luther Martin refused to sign the Constitution because he believed it infringed states’ rights, including federal power over militias. He wrote in 1788, “… leaving the power to the several States, they would respectively best know the situation and circumstances of their citizens, and the regulations that would be necessary and sufficient to effect a well regulated militia in each - That we were satisfied the militia had heretofore been as well disciplined, as if they had been under the regulations of Congress …”

Federal Farmer was a series of anonymous essays from 1787-1788 denouncing the Constitution’s perceived flaws; to this day, no one is certain who penned them. “Each state must appoint regimental officers, and keep up a well regulated militia,” Federal Farmer No. 6 said. “The militia ought always to be armed and disciplined, and the usual defence of the country.” No. 18 argued that “the constitution ought to secure a genuine and guard against a select militia, by providing that the militia shall always be kept well organized, armed, and disciplined, and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms; and that all regulations tending to render this general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, or distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments in the community to be avoided.”

In other documents of the era, the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 stated, “The governor, for the time being, shall be commander in chief of the militia, appoint and commission all officers in the same below the rank of general officers; all general officers shall be appointed and commissioned by Congress.” There was no talk of a right to bear arms. In the laundry list of grievances in the Articles of Association adopted by Continental Congress in 1774 and in the Declaration of Independence in 1776, there was no talk of firearm “rights.” Nor was such a right addressed in the Albany Plan of Union in 1754, a compact of common military defense between seven Northern colonies, nor the Declaration of Rights of the Stamp Act Congress representing nine colonies in 1765.

Among the first 13 states’ original constitutions, each one addressed state militias differently, although most detailed how militias will be formed and their officers appointed, as well as what authority state legislatures and governors would have over them. (New Hampshire’s, Delaware’s and South Carolina’s constitutions made little mention of militias.)
? Article XXXV of Georgia’s ratified in 1777: “Every county in this State that has, or hereafter may have, two hundred and fifty men, and upwards, liable to bear arms, shall be formed into a battalion; and when they become too numerous for one battalion, they shall be formed into more, by bill of the legislature; and those counties that have a less number than two hundred and fifty shall be formed into independent companies.”
? Article XXV of Maryland’s ratified in 1776: “That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.”
? Article XVII of Massachusetts’ ratified in 1780: “The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.”
? Article XL of New York’s ratified in 1777: “And whereas it is of the utmost importance to the safety of every State that it should always be in a condition of defence; and it is the duty of every man who enjoys the protection of society to be prepared and willing to defend it; this convention therefore, in the name and by the authority of the good people of this State, doth ordain, determine, and declare that the militia of this State, at all times hereafter, as well in peace as in war, shall be armed and disciplined, and in readiness for service.”
? Article XVII of North Carolina’s ratified in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
Some states, however, have defined personal firearm ownership more so as an individual right:
? Article XIII of Pennsylvania’s in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.”
? Rhode Island used its original 1663 charter as its constitution until 1842. The former stated that the colonial government ought “to assemble, exercise in arms, martiall array, and putt in warlyke posture, the inhabitants of the sayd collonie, For theire speciall defence and safety.” The current constitution states explicitly in Section 22, “Right to bear arms. - The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
? Like Rhode Island, Connecticut relied on its colonial charter of 1662 until the adoption of a new constitution in 1818, which stated in Section 17, “Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defence of himself and the state.” The charter made no mention of firearm rights but called for the colony “to Commissionate, Impower, and Authorize such Person or Persons as they shall think fit, to lead and conduct the said Inhabitants, and to encounter, expulse, repel and resist by Force of Arms [any enemies].”

So it seems clear based on its history that the Second Amendment conditionally applies to state military or law enforcement forces if not simply state militias. Because there are no more militias akin to those of the Revolutionary era, does that render the amendment obsolete? Not quite.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:39 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”

So that means we all should have M-16's.

No, don't eff with me yo, I can read the sentence. Worst case I have to shell out the coin for it, but I get to have a major gat.

Bottom lineisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:42 PM

HKCAVALIER

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:
I sense the characterization I'm to absoarb here and work into the question is that even the high information Liberals you spoke with don't understand whats behind the 2nd amendment. I am a whacked out far left loon that could be tipped with a feather over the edge into revolution land, and I understand fully the 2nd. As do almost all of the Liberals I know. I apologize HKC if that's not what you meant because I don't understand what a conversation with two Liberals you know has with the 2nd amendment question you asked.

Sorry, Mal, for not giving more context. I like my neighbors--I was just using them as an example of generally well-informed people who haven't a clue really what the 2nd Amendment is about (and disdain it). They seem pretty typical in their ignorance, not as lefties, but as folk in general on the issue of the 2nd Amendment.

Seems to me that the 2nd Amendment gets at the heart of the founders' attitude toward government and would thereby be a cornerstone of American ideology, and yet so many folks are just completely on the moon in terms of understanding its significance.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 12:51 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But only if you belong to a well-regulated militia.

Quote:
So that means we all should have M-16's.

No, don't eff with me yo, I can read the sentence. Worst case I have to shell out the coin for it, but I get to have a major gat.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 1:03 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

HKC

I've read a fair bit of the historical background for the second amendment. What I posted (above) was just one source.

Robust militias under state control were a major presence in the early US. The US national government recognized the good (taking care of local defense and policing, helping with national defense) AND the bad (the potential for militias to break into warring factions, or for states to challenge the legitimacy of the national government). To try and strike a balance they put the militias under Federal control but set up structures for states to induct and promote the members of the militias.

The 'well regulated militia' no longer exists, but the second amendment addresses those very entities.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 2:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”

So that means we all should have M-16's.

No, don't eff with me yo, I can read the sentence. Worst case I have to shell out the coin for it, but I get to have a major gat.

That is EXACTLY the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment...

Not only that , but some of the citizens in your squad should be equipped with , and trained in the use of the M240 SAW , plus whatever anti-armor and anti-aircraft weapons comprise the state-of-the-art today...

I've scarcely ever seen a more damning misinterpretation of facts than demonstrated by Rue's entire post , above...

Doesn't matter how many facts some folk turn up , when they only use them to draw wrong conclusions...

It was an unequivocated position that the 'militia' was comprised of " the whole body " of THE PEOPLE , and more particularly , the able-bodied free men of the respective States...

Further , it is similarly well-known , and beyond equivocation , that the second clause of the 2nd Amendment states ,
" the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear Arms , SHALL NOT be infringed..."

“ That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state…” These are the words of the Virginia Bill of Rights in July 1776.

The first State of Virginia Militia Act of 1777 states, “If any soldier be certified to the court martial to be so poor that he cannot purchase such arms, the said court shall cause them to be procured at the expense of the publick, to be reimbursed out of the fines on the delinquents of the county, which arms shall be delivered to such poor person to be used at musters, but shall continue the property of the county; and if any soldier shall sell or conceal such arms, the seller or concealer, and purchaser, shall each of them forfeit the sum of six pounds. And on the death of such poor soldier, or his removal out of the county, such arms shall be delivered to his captain, who shall make report thereof to the next court martial, and deliver the same to such other poor soldier as they shall order.”

" The great object is, that EVERY MAN be armed. But can the people afford to pay for double sets of arms, &c.? Every one Who is able may have a gun. But we have learned, by experience, that, necessary as it is to have arms, and though our Assembly has, by a succession of laws for many years, endeavored to have the militia completely armed, it is still far from being the case."-- Patrick Henry, Virginia Debates on the Federal Constitution, 1788.

" The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them. The government is administered by the representatives of the people, voluntarily and freely chosen. Under these circumstances, should any one attempt to establish their own system, in prejudice of the rest, they would be universally detested and opposed, and easily frustrated. This is a principle which secures religious liberty most firmly. The government will depend on the assistance of the people in the day of distress. " --Zachariah Johnson, Virginia Debates on the Federal Constitution, 1788.

“ It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it… ”
--George Washington, 1783.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 2:15 PM

SWISH

Quote:
Originally posted by HKCavalier:
is mere gun ownership a sufficient safeguard anymore?

It's not at all. Because they don't even need to show up at your door with "state of the art bang-bang" these days. They just need to nominate some inbred religion-spouting freak who represents your rights in no way at all but hey - you'd have a beer with him/her and he/she talks tough, so you'll fall in line and vote that way!

Don't need guns to conquer the sheeple...

Have to say, I used to be much more in support of gun control, but the current administration, and my time lurking on these boards, has made me reconsider. I admit, I'm like the ignorant neighbors in that I never thought of the 2nd Amendment in relation to casting off a government out of control. Midwest upbringing - I never thought such a thing would be an issue. Sadly, I'm seeing the necessity these days.

God, that's scary.

I don't know. I still think laws like: "ye shall buy no more than 2 assault rifles in one day unless ye apply for special license" or: "ye shall have some training with guns equivalent to folks training to drive a car" aren't out of line. I mean... is that really too much?

-confused and undecided swish

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 2:59 PM

CHRISISALL

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But only if you belong to a well-regulated militia.

Where I sign up?

Chrisisgettinagatisall

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 3:08 PM

"We'll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false." -- William Casey, Reagan's presidential campaign manager & CIA Director (from first staff meeting in 1981)

I notice that in all of your definitions of "assault rifles", you all mention a select-fire or full-auto or "burst" capability. No weapons with that capability have been allowed to be imported into this country since 1968.

My Norinco MAK-90 (a Chinese version of the venerable Avtomat Kalashnikov AK-47 - or rather, the "Modernized" version, the AKM) has none of those capabilities. It is a semi-automatic, self-loading rifle with a 30-round magazine. Yet, in the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, it was no longer allowed to be imported into this country.

Now, it IS possible to have a full-auto machinegun, legally, to this day, but it will cost you a bribe - er, I mean "fee" - paid to the BATF, along with getting your local Sheriff or Chief Law Enforcement Officer (CLEO) to sign off on it. Needless to say, it's not very easy or common to have full-auto firearms, and it's definitely intended that way.

In all honesty, I'm not too keen on getting my hands on a full-auto machinegun or assault rifle, since it's damned near impossible to stay on target when firing on full-auto. It's much more efficient to have a "burst" capability of either two or three rounds, which puts two or three rounds downrange quickly, and doesn't pull you off-target.

The weapons that are commonly referred to as "assault rifles" in this country absolutely do not meet the definitions most people have for such things. What they really mean when they talk about banning "assault weapons" is short, scray-looking "black rifles" with the capability of firing more than one shot without reloading or recocking. My MAK-90 and Saiga 7.62x39 would qualify under the definitions given in the latest proposed version of the Assault Weapons Ban, which was introduced this year (June '08) by none other than four REPUBLICAN Congressmen. Who was it that was talking about Obama wanting to grab all your guns? Seems several of the Republicans share a vision of an unarmed America. Also, it should be noted that John McCain himself co-authored (with Joe Lieberman) a VERY restrictive gun-control bill some time ago, which fortunately died a well-deserved death without ever coming up for a vote.

So far, it seems only my Mosin-Nagant M44 is "safe" - although it packs a helluva lot more wallop (7.62x54r cartridge), is accurate at much greater distances (400-600 meters), and still carries five rounds in its internal magazine. But because it's a bolt-action rifle, it doesn't get looked at the same way. The SVD Dragunov uses the exact same round, but because it's a semi-auto and uses a 10-round magazine, it's persona non grata in this country. But you can still get a Romanian-built knockoff of it (although with a different bolt and receiver consisting of a beefed-up AK mechanism with long-stroke gas piston system), which is reportedly quite accurate, able to repeatedly hit a target the size of a dinner plate at over 1000 metes (more than half a mile). That rifle, variously known as the Romak III, PSL, FPK, or SSG97, is next on my "must-have" list. Hey, when you're getting ready to defend against the zombie hordes, you need to have layers of protection. Romak from 1000 yards to around 500, Nagant from there to around 150 yards, AK from there to around 15 yards, and then it's on to the handguns, bayonets, swords, and battle-axes.

One thing that should definitely be noted about the old Assault Weapons Ban, and that definitely tends to get overlooked, is that it was only a ban on IMPORTING such mean and nasty-looking rifles. You could still buy one, brand new, as long as it was American-made. The ban was more about protection of American manufacturers than it ever was about safety. And the latest version doesn't look to be any better, even if it is far more all-encompassing.

Trust me, if it ever came a day when I really NEEDED to use my guns to defend my freedom, I'd much, much, MUCH rather have a trusty AK-47 at my side than any version of the M16/AR15 platform. You can club someone with the AK, you can steadfastly refuse to clean it for years, you can bury it in mud or sand, you can even run over it with a tank - and it will still keep working. The Mosin-Nagant, on the other hand, even if you don't hit your intended target with it, will still deafen them for the next four months, so they'll be easy to find again and finish off. Just follow the sound of someone yelling "WHAT?!" at the top of their lungs, and you know you've got 'em.

(By the way, only about half of the above post was serious; you decide which half.)

Oh, and the part about cut-down rifle rounds? I guess that leaves things like the Saiga 12 semi-automatic shotgun out of the mix, then - even though it LOOKS like an AK47 and uses the AK's design and mechanism. Saiga also imports versions in 410 and 20 gauge, as well as in calibers .223, .308, and 7.62x39mm, and rumor has it there's a 5.45x39mm coming next year. Of those, I'd only count the 7.62 and 5.45 rounds as being "cut-down" rifle rounds - and it doesn't seem to hurt their lethality too much (U.S. military issue is currently the M16A4, which uses a 5.56x41mm round). What it DOES do is make it much easier to carry a great deal of ammo on your person, and to have them handy in 30-, 40-, and 50-round magazines, and even in 75- to 100-round drum magazines.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 3:35 PM

Quote:
I've scarcely ever seen a more damning misinterpretation of facts than demonstrated by Rue's entire post , above...

I concur - one reason it wasn't so widely discussed is that it was assumed so deeply there was no need to, both the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists were extremely in favor of private ownership, but did feel the need to pound out the whole militia aspect to prevent us having "Standing Armies" which are so dangerous to Liberty...

As for why private ownership wasn't debated, why would it be ?
Tell me, does anyone debate your right to own a pair of blue jeans ?
No, it's THAT assumed, and at the time so was private ownership of firearms - how the hell else were you supposed to put dinner on the table ?

Which we have, not only in the persona of the US Armed Forces, but also in our Police, which are MUCH closer to the sum of those expressed fears of our founders than our actual military.

In fact I would ask you to read this particular paper by Roger Isaac Roots.
ARE COPS CONSTITUTIONAL?

Of particular interest is section 722.
POLICE AS A STANDING ARMY

EXCERPT:
"If pressed, modern police defenders would have difficulty demonstrating a single material difference between the standing armies the Founders saw as so abhorrent and America's modern police forces. Indeed, even the distinctions between modern police and actual military troops have blurred in the wake of America's modern crime war. Ninety percent of American cities now have active special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams, using such commando-style forces to do "high risk warrant work" and even routine police duties. Such units are often instructed by active and retired United States military personnel.

In Fresno, California, a SWAT unit equipped with battering rams, chemical agents, fully automatic submachine guns, and 'flashbang' grenades roams full-time on routine patrol. According to criminologist Peter Kraska, such military policing has never been seen on such a scale in American history, "where SWAT teams routinely break through a door, subdue all the occupants, and search the premises for drugs, cash and weapons."In high-crime or problem areas, police paramilitary units may militarily engage an entire neighborhood, stopping "anything that moves" or surrounding suspicious homes with machine guns openly displayed.

Much of the importance of the standing-army debates at the ratification conventions has been overlooked or misinterpreted by modern scholars. Opponents of the right to bear arms, for example, have occasionally cited the standing-army debates to support the proposition that the Framers intended the Second Amendment to protect the power of states to form militias. Although this argument has been greatly discredited, it has helped illuminate the intense distrust that the Framers manifested toward occupational standing armies. The standing army the Framers most feared was a soldiery conducting law enforcement operations in the manner of King George's occupation troops — like the armies of police officers that now patrol the American landscape."

Now, keep that FIRMLY in mind as I quote Excerpts from Federalist #29 - Hamilton.

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are
even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of
the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed,
composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the
views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia
may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen."

Sounds a lot like Police to me, what about you ?

"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."

So much for THAT idea Alex, the idea that we needed no restrictions and should just trust in their good nature worked out REAL well, didn't it ?

And that whole never, ever being under Federal control worked out too, eh ?

Oh and tell me, does YOUR State get to appoint it's military officers ?
Is it ALLOWED to by the FedGov, hmm ?

"If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism,
what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the
militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and
hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery
upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of
the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a
project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to
make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed
people?"

Oh I don't know Alex, how bout asking them members of the 82nd Airborne who were busy helping confiscate guns, ehe ?
"Oh that'll never happen, trust me" is NOT sufficient protection, ever.

But here is where it gets good....

Federalist #26, Hamilton
"It is remarkable, that even in the two States which seem to have meditated an interdiction of military establishments in time of peace, the mode of expression made use of is rather cautionary than prohibitory. It is not said, that standing armies SHALL NOT BE kept up, but that they OUGHT NOT to be kept up, in time of peace. This ambiguity of terms appears to have been the result of a conflict between jealousy and conviction; between the desire of excluding such establishments at all events, and the persuasion that an absolute exclusion would be unwise and unsafe.

Can it be doubted that such a provision, whenever the situation of public affairs was understood to require a departure from it, would be interpreted by the legislature into a mere admonition, and would be made to yield to the necessities or supposed necessities of the State? Let the fact already mentioned, with respect to Pennsylvania, decide. What then (it may be asked) is the use of such a provision, if it cease to operate the moment there is an inclination to disregard it?

Let us examine whether there be any comparison, in point of efficacy, between the provision alluded to and that which is contained in the new Constitution, for restraining the appropriations of money for military purposes to the period of two years. The former, by aiming at too much, is calculated to effect nothing; the latter, by steering clear of an imprudent extreme, and by being perfectly compatible with a proper provision for the exigencies of the nation, will have a salutary and powerful operation.

The legislature of the United States will be OBLIGED, by this provision, once at least in every two years, to deliberate upon the propriety of keeping a military force on foot; to come to a new resolution on the point; and to declare their sense of the matter, by a formal vote in the face of their constituents. They are not AT LIBERTY to vest in the executive department permanent funds for the support of an army, if they were even incautious enough to be willing to repose in it so improper a confidence. As the spirit of party, in different degrees, must be expected to infect all political bodies, there will be, no doubt, persons in the national legislature willing enough to arraign the measures and criminate the views of the majority. The provision for the support of a military force will always be a favorable topic for declamation. As often as the question comes forward, the public attention will be roused and attracted to the subject, by the party in opposition; and if the majority should be really disposed to exceed the proper limits, the community will be warned of the danger, and will have an opportunity of taking measures to guard against it. Independent of parties in the national legislature itself, as often as the period of discussion arrived, the State legislatures, who will always be not only vigilant but suspicious and jealous guardians of the rights of the citizens against encroachments from the federal government, will constantly have their attention awake to the conduct of the national rulers, and will be ready enough, if any thing improper appears, to sound the alarm to the people, and not only to be the VOICE, but, if necessary, the ARM of their discontent.

Schemes to subvert the liberties of a great community REQUIRE TIME to mature them for execution. An army, so large as seriously to menace those liberties, could only be formed by progressive augmentations; which would suppose, not merely a temporary combination between the legislature and executive, but a continued conspiracy for a series of time. Is it probable that such a combination would exist at all? Is it probable that it would be persevered in, and transmitted along through all the successive variations in a representative body, which biennial elections would naturally produce in both houses? Is it presumable, that every man, the instant he took his seat in the national Senate or House of Representatives, would commence a traitor to his constituents and to his country? Can it be supposed that there would not be found one man, discerning enough to detect so atrocious a conspiracy, or bold or honest enough to apprise his constituents of their danger? If such presumptions can fairly be made, there ought at once to be an end of all delegated authority. The people should resolve to recall all the powers they have heretofore parted with out of their own hands, and to divide themselves into as many States as there are counties, in order that they may be able to manage their own concerns in person.

If such suppositions could even be reasonably made, still the concealment of the design, for any duration, would be impracticable. It would be announced, by the very circumstance of augmenting the army to so great an extent in time of profound peace. What colorable reason could be assigned, in a country so situated, for such vast augmentations of the military force? It is impossible that the people could be long deceived; and the destruction of the project, and of the projectors, would quickly follow the discovery."

For all his expounding that it couldn't happen, it more or less has, hasn't it ?
And HOW exactly do you think we the people would be "the ARM of their discontent" save with weaponry, eh ?

But best of show for last.

Federalist #46 - Madison, as promised.

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it."

So, if the previous "just trust us, that couldn't possibly happen" defense fails, Madison quite clearly cites it's down to us to do something about it, with arms in hand, officers selected by our State government, a duty they have wholly and truthfully neglected, and clearly outgunning and overpowering any standing army that could be raised against us.

That's US, mind you, the militia as in "The whole body of the people".

And since the State has neglected to arm us, or offer us training without bowing our knee and subverting ourselves to the very agendas we wish to oppose...

In the words of Patrick Henry, "I therefore contend that, if, Congress do not arm the militia, we ought to provide for it ourselves."

This issue's been hashed out more times than one could count, so imma post the links to the related threads, cause I am just plain sick of restating things over and over.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=34086
Take special note of the post detailing what the STATE constitutions say.
Example:
Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

That's right, SHALL NOT BE QUESTIONED - that's what most of them say, drawing the line long before infringement.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=33156
And this one, replete with detailed historical explainations in the words of those making the decisions and their contemporaries.

http://www.fireflyfans.net/mthread.asp?b=18&t=29088
And the two Patrick Henry speech excerpts here, addressing the naive stupidity of the two Federalists named above whom I have quoted here.

This whole matter is far from ambiguous to anyone who knows anything about the subject - absolute right for any american to own military grade weapons, PERIOD.

And anything other than revocation of that right as a specific part of sentencing for a criminal act under due process of law is an infringement of that right.

Now I am all for the entirely legal idea of the manufacturer making proof of a certain level of training a condition of sale, which would also offer some protection from lawsuits, but over my rotting corpse would I want THAT kind of scheme in the Governments hands where it does not belong, and would be subject to the abuses it has so far.

I've done said my piece, twice and thrice and more, and my position on it, being the same as our founders, simply ain't gonna change.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 3:40 PM

Quote:
But only if you belong to a well-regulated militia.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311---
-000-.html
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next § 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.
==================

In short, we do - so hand em over.

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 3:48 PM

Quote:

I don't know. I still think laws like: "ye shall buy no more than 2 assault rifles in one day unless ye apply for special license" or: "ye shall have some training with guns equivalent to folks training to drive a car" aren't out of line. I mean... is that really too much?

Signy, first of all, I'm thankful and gratified that you're starting to look around and rethink your previous positions on gun control. I was once exactly where you were. Sometimes it takes tyranny, or at least the hint that it's entirely possible, to wake us from our comfortable slumber to the stark reality that WE THE PEOPLE are the final, last line of defense of our nation.

Training? I'm in favor of it. I have no "official" training, but was raised in a military family and taught firearms safety early and often. It's stuck with me. In some 40 years of handling and firing weapons, I've never shot anyone or had an accidental discharge. To me, one of the scariest things in the world is someone who's never been around guns getting their hands on one for the first time. They don't check them to see if they're loaded, and they always, ALWAYS seem to want to point the damn gun right at you. I gave a friend a rude awakening one day when he wanted to see my semi-auto handgun. I ejected the (empty) magazine, cycled the action, visually checked that there was no cartridge in the chamber, and cycled it again, then visually confirmed that it was unloaded, before I handed it over. And the numbnuts aimed it at my chest! I stepped a bit to the side, and then into him, grabbed the gun and wrenched it towards his thumb, breaking his grip on it and taking it from his hand. "OOOOWWWW!" he moaned, "Whadja do that for?" I replied, "Because you just pointed a loaded gun at me, you fuck!" "But it wasn't loaded," he said. I looked him square in the eye and asked, "How do you know? Did YOU check it?"

Yes, I'm a bit of an asshole. But he and I are still good friends, he now owns several firearms, and he has never forgotten what I taught him.

The Number One lesson I learned from my Dad all those years ago, and the one that has never once left me, is this:

Quote:
In all your years on this Earth, no one is ever going to hand you an unloaded gun. Until you remove the magazine, cycle the action, and visually clear the chamber, EVERY GUN IS CONSIDERED LOADED AND SAFETY-OFF. And it's deadly.

Gun safety isn't hard to learn, and it shouldn't be daunting, either. But you're right - it is at least as important as proper driver training, if not more so. You wouldn't consider jumping into your car and jamming it into reverse and flooring it without looking behind you, would you? It's not hard to learn to look around and be aware; it just takes some learning and discipline to remember it, and then it becomes second nature.

I never, NEVER take my guns for granted or forget to clear and double-check them. It's not hard to do; it's habit. And the one time you forget, someone could die. How many people do you hear about every year who were killed by "unloaded guns", because they forgot to check, or took someone's word for it.

Now, purchase limits? I'm kind of torn. Sure, they've been proposed, and they seem to make sense, but it's not my place to say what a reasonable limit might be. I've heard proposals of one gun a month, mainly to cut down on "strawman" purchases, and that doesn't strike me as being ridiculously restrictive. After all, I sure as hell can't afford to buy a gun a month, but that's just me thinking about my situation...

But I'm definitely with you on the training part. In fact, I'm looking into getting some more training, just to be extra safe. And because I want to go ahead and get my concealed-carry permit.

The problem you run into, in any of these scenarios, is that you're trying to regulate or restrict things that average, law-abiding citizens are already doing. You're (and I mean the group "you", not you personally in any way) not getting any closer to cracking down on the career criminal, who already doesn't care about the law, and in fact lives outside of it and in open defiance of it. What's one more gun-law violation to someone who doesn't care about the law in the first place?

We already have some great laws on the books, but we need good cops and good prosecutors to enforce them.

Sheesh, y'all really get me going on the whole gun control issue...

Another quick and easy lesson my late father taught me, this time about gun control:

Quote:
Gun control is a steady hand and hitting what you aim at.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:09 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But all the supposed 'reasons' to be able to legally own guns - self protection, hunting, sport, collection - are absent from the constitution and bill of rights. The only reason that counts is for making possible "a well organized militia" (direct quote, if you don't recognize it). And I don't see any of those around, do you ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:14 PM

Quote:
And I don't see any of those around, do you ?

I see hundreds of millions of us. Who's to say what "well-regulated" is, and how do you come to the conclusion that we're not?

Just askin'. :)

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:23 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

“Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia. Those of every county are formed into companies, and these again into one or more battalions, according to the numbers in the county. They are commanded by colonels, and other subordinate officers, as in the regular service. In every county is a county-lieutenant, who commands the whole militia of his county, but ranks only as a colonel in the field. We have no general officers always existing. These are appointed occasionally, when an invasion or insurrection happens, and their commission determines with the occasion. The governor is head of the military, as well as civil power. The law requires every militia-man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service.”

That's what they meant back then. Is this what you claim to have now ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:48 PM

FUTUREMRSFILLION

Quote:
Originally posted by MalBadInLatin:

I see this issue as very black and white. The 2nd amendment is there so Americans can defend themselves on thier property from whatever they percieve as a mortal threat. Specificity about what is an appropriate threat, and specificity about the appropriate weapon serves only to complicate. The occasional Tennesse bitter gun clinger nut job after Liberals using an RPG will have to be punished and unfortunatly written off as a cost of doing business for the 2nd!

The 2nd amendment is there so that they (meaning us) could raise a militia.

I am on The List. We are The Forsaken and we aim to burn!
"We don't fear the reaper"

FORSAKEN original

“I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Mahatma Gandhi

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 4:54 PM

From an earlier thread on the 2nd Amendment and the Supreme Court's recent ruling on the Heller case:

Quote:

As the Supreme Court said in its opinion, it's responding to the OPERATIVE CLAUSE of the Amendment. They then went on to list no less than nine State Constitutions or Charters in which the right of individuals to keep and bear arms was guaranteed, with no mention of militia service whatsoever.

Quote:

See Pa. Declaration of Rights §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3083 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
state. . . ”); Vt. Declaration of Rights §XV, in 6 id., at 3741 (“That the
people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the
State. . .”); Ky. Const., Art. XII, cl. 23 (1792), in 3 id., at 1264, 1275
(“That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves
and the State shall not be questioned”); Ohio Const., Art. VIII, §20
(1802), in 5 id., at 2901, 2911 (“That the people have a right to bear
arms for the defence of themselves and the State . . . ”); Ind. Const., Art.
I, §20 (1816), in 2 id., at 1057, 1059 (“That the people have a right to
bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State. . . ”); Miss.
Const., Art. I, §23 (1817), in 4 id., at 2032, 2034 (“Every citizen has a
right to bear arms, in defence of himself and the State”); Conn. Const.,
Art. I, §17 (1818), in 1 id., at 536, 538 (“Every citizen has a right to bear
arms in defence of himself and the state”); Ala. Const., Art. I, §23
(1819), in 1 id., at 96, 98 (“Every citizen has a right to bear arms in
defence of himself and the State”); Mo. Const., Art. XIII, §3 (1820), in 4
id., at 2150, 2163 (“[T]hat their right to bear arms in defence of them-
selves and of the State cannot be questioned”). See generally Volokh,
State Constitutional Rights to Keep and Bear Arms, 11 Tex. Rev. L. &
Politics 191 (2006).

They cite these instances to indicate the intent of the phrasing of the Amendment and the common usages of the words and their meanings DURING THE GENERATION in which the Amendment was written. In all cases, the right of the INDIVIDUAL to keep and bear arms is tantamount, whether it be for the defense and security of the State, or for the defense and security of THE INDIVIDUAL.

The INDIVIDUAL maintains the right to keep and bear arms, even if by your narrow view that right is only to fulfill their "membership" of a militia. There's no mention of any central armory that will hand out weapons if such a militia is called forth. It is intended that when you come into such militia service, if and when such is required, you bring your own arms with you. In order to do that, you must first HAVE those arms, and be able to "keep and bear" them.

So what's your definition of "militia", anyway? It's not a standing army; the Framers were abundantly clear about that. It's the *opposite* of a standing army; it's the entire citizenry, ready to rise up and repel any threat against the nation, whether foreign or domestic! And that extends to threats against any individual as well, as a nation of threatened individuals is a threatened nation.

Wiki defines a militia thusly:

Quote:
The term militia is commonly used today to refer to a military force composed of ordinary[1] citizens to provide defense, emergency law enforcement, or paramilitary service, in times of emergency without being paid a regular salary or committed to a fixed term of service. Legal and historical meanings of militia include:
Defense activity or service, to protect a community, its territory, property, and laws.
The entire able-bodied male (women are usually called to work in munitions factories) population of a community, town, county, or state, available to be called to arms.
A subset of these who may be legally penalized for failing to respond to a call-up.
A subset of these who actually respond to a call-up, regardless of legal obligation.
A private, non-government force, not necessarily directly supported or sanctioned by its government.

Wiki goes on to say...

Quote:

In colonial era Anglo-American usage, militia service was distinguished from military service in that the latter was normally a commitment for a fixed period of time, probably at least a year, for a salary, whereas militia was only to meet a threat, or prepare to meet a threat, for periods of time expected to be short. Militia persons were normally expected to provide their own weapons, equipment, or supplies, although they may later be compensated for losses or expenditures.

That certainly seems to indicate that such militiamen are fully expected to have their own weapons, and as such must be allowed to keep and bear them in anticipation of such time as they may be needed or called up for service - even if such service is only the defense of their own life and property.

The American Heritage Dictionary defines it this way:

Quote:

mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) n.

An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

So, by any rational definition of the word, I *AM* part of the militia, since I am eligible by law and am able to be called.

One thing seems pretty clear - in order to be in ANY kind of militia, first you have to have the ability as an individual to keep and bear arms.

So yes, I *am* part of the militia, and I regulate myself rather well. Am I a part of the "organized militia" to which you refer? No. That's the armed forces. I'm a member of the unorganized militia to which Frem refers - that is, the whole of the people.

You may not agree with it, but the Supreme Court does, and they have jurisdiction on this one.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:06 PM

Quote:
That's what they meant back then. Is this what you claim to have now ?

In case ya missed it, that link is to the actual Title 10 section of current US Law Code relative to the issue.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311---
-000-.html

That IS what we have now, law of the land, with not one ounce of vagueness or ambiguity about it.

If you are a citizen of the united states, or have declared intention to be, and a male between the ages of 17-45 and do not meet any of the criteria for organized militia - then you ARE unorganized milita, but militia all the same.

I ain't claimin nothin, I am telling you what the Law is, regarding who is and is not classified as "Militia", as I have done on more than one occasion previously.

Imma save the snark, but seriously, it cannot BE any plainer than that, can it ?

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:14 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia."

doesn't exactly fit the description of a well organized militia, now does it ?

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:17 PM

Quote:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311Prev | Next
§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

(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.

Quote:
§ 313. Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.

So, under Section 311 (a) (and Section 313(b)(2)) and Section 311(b)(2), I absolutely am part of the militia. And I'm registered and prepared to be called to duty.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:18 PM

Re: Gun Safety.

Rule 1 - It's loaded, assume it, even if you just checked, NEVER treat a weapon like a toy.
And if you ain't cleanin or fixin it, it damn well should be loaded!
Without bullets in it, it's just a damn expensive fancy club.

Rule 2 - Do not under any circumstances point the hole in the end at anything you'd prefer not to put a bullet in, cause that's the best way to not put a bullet in it, foo!

Rule 3 - Bullets keep goin till they hit somethin, and most people are terrible shots, even you, so you might wanna keep in mind what's BEHIND your target in light of Rule #2.

And finally, my personal favorite...

Rule 4 - Keep yerrr booger-hook OFF the bang switch till yer ready ta shoot somethin!
(All of this is best uttered in a heavy southern accent, tends to stick in their mind better that way)

As an Anarchist, I might not be much for rules on general principle, but rabidly and slavishly obeying those simple four will keep you out of a world of hurt, I guarantee it.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:19 PM

There's no Constitutional requirement for a well organized militia - the Second Amendment only says "A well-regulated militia, and we've shown repeatedly what exactly that militia is legally comprised of.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:21 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

But not covered by the Constitution which requires a well organized militia.

Quote:
So, under Section 311 (a) (and Section 313(b)(2)) and Section 311(b)(2), I absolutely am part of the militia. And I'm registered and prepared to be called to duty.

That's true. But where is your roaster ? Your chain of command ? Who calls you to duty ? Who gives orders and directs your military action ? You may be defined, but how, in fact, are you regulated ? If you can't show that you are indeed well-regulated, it doesn't count.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:23 PM

Regulated means properly disciplined, rather than specifically organized in the context of the statement.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Oh, and those now pondering the fact that they are indeed militia, having not really been fully cognizant or aware of it till now ?
(Ok, yes, I been holding out on ya... a little)

"Welcome to "A Well Regulated Militia..." The only interactive online resource center on the web that is of, for, and by the Unorganized Militia."
http://www.awrm.org/

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:27 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

"A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control."

That IS the crux of 'well-regulated', and which seems to be exactly what is lacking in either of your interpretations.

Otherwise, if you're an individual you're just a vigilante with a gun. And if you're in a group, then you're just a gangsta'.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:37 PM

Quote:
But not covered by the Constitution which requires a well organized militia.

Incorrect, the word Militia is only used four times in the US Constitution, and nowhere within it is there an organizational requirement.

In fact, one could say that Congress has without a doubt UnConstitutionally neglected their duties regarding it.

All four instances thereof -
http://www.usconstitution.net/const.txt

ARTICLE 1 - SECTION 8
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"
(3 instances)

ARTICLE 2 - SECTION 2
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment."
(1 instance)

Don't blame us that Congress shirks their duty, and our States fail to appoint us officers.

Come to mention of it, they're pretty stingy with the armament too, but if they'd cease to interfere unlawfully and unconstitutionally, we're quite happy to provide for ourselves.

Now, if you would kindly refrain from stating false requirements in the future, I'd really appreciate it - at least research the topic enough to present a better argument, please.

-Frem

It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:43 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Regulated means properly disciplined, rather than specifically organized in the context of the statement.
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Oh, and those now pondering the fact that they are indeed militia, having not really been fully cognizant or aware of it till now ?
(Ok, yes, I been holding out on ya... a little)

"Welcome to "A Well Regulated Militia..." The only interactive online resource center on the web that is of, for, and by the Unorganized Militia."
http://www.awrm.org/

-Frem

'Well-Regulated' also means 'Well-EQUIPPED'...

" reg·u·late (rgy-lt)
tr.v. reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing, reg·u·lates

1. To control or direct according to rule, principle, or law.
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits. "

This is a fact firmly established , not just by dictionary definition , but by specificity in intent in many of the provisions we've already enumerated...

Not just we ourselves , but in the cites that Rue provided...

Indeed , 'regulation issue' is a familiar term both among 'regular' troops , and the Militia...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 5:47 PM

Of course the Militia's first duty is to the authority of their state, then through them, to the assistance of the federals.

How else are you going to keep your efforts properly coordinated with the regular armed forces ?

The exception is when the state, or the federal gov are the aggressors that the militia has been raised against, and this has already BEEN addressed, that issue - by Madison in Federalist #46 posted above.

In extremis (say an invading army establishing a beach-head) a Militia MAY act autonomously to neutralise a patently obvious threat, that harkens back to the minutemen and the whole rationale for swift response, but generally if no *immediate* threat is present, SOP is to call and inform the Governor he has more forces at his disposal and ask how he wishes them deployed.

But in the case of a direct threat FROM the state or federals, they are expected to act autonomously as well under the direction of their own officers, or if none have been appointed, universal tradition since 1774 has been for the units themselves to appoint someone.

There's six tons of historical precedent on every ounce of this, I don't see why I gotta keep re-iterating it to folk.

And of course, being militia, organized or not, is not whatsoever a requirement to defend YOURSELF against harm or threat from any quarter, be it a hopped up junkie or unconstitutional goon squaddie, they're not friendlies by definition, especially if they're kicking in your door at 3am in the morning with guns in hand - common sense at that point ASSUMES ill intent and accords a certain response, which damn sure ain't face down on the floor.

-F

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:05 PM

Quote:
So far, it seems only my Mosin-Nagant M44 is "safe"

It's been naggin me, so before I roll offa here...
I just HAVE to know....

OK, DOES ANYONE HERE WHO PACKS IRON *NOT* HAVE A MOSIN-NAGANT ?!

Seriously, like everyone I know who's pro-2A has one of the things.

Mine's about as pointless as a bicycle built for fish in the hands of someone with no depth perception worth a crap at 100+ yards, but hey, it was on sale, and cheap, too.
(I double up on hearing protection before I fire THAT thing though.)

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:06 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Frem

FROM YOUR VERY OWN LINK !

""A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control."

That IS the crux of 'well-regulated', and which seems to be exactly what is lacking in either of your interpretations.

Otherwise, if you're an individual you're just a vigilante with a gun. And if you're in a group, then you're just a gangsta'."

GAWD ... it was such a short post and you completely failed to read it.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Fremdfirma:
Quote:
So far, it seems only my Mosin-Nagant M44 is "safe"

It's been naggin me, so before I roll offa here...
I just HAVE to know....

OK, DOES ANYONE HERE WHO PACKS IRON *NOT* HAVE A MOSIN-NAGANT ?!

Seriously, like everyone I know who's pro-2A has one of the things.

Mine's about as pointless as a bicycle built for fish in the hands of someone with no depth perception worth a crap at 100+ yards, but hey, it was on sale, and cheap, too.
(I double up on hearing protection before I fire THAT thing though.)

-Frem
It cannot be said enough, those who do not learn from history, are doomed to endlessly repeat it

Well, when you can pick up the rifle for $79, how can you go wrong?

And you ain't lying about the hearing protection. Fortunately, I have some pretty good protection.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:19 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
But not covered by the Constitution which requires a well organized militia.
Quote:
So, under Section 311 (a) (and Section 313(b)(2)) and Section 311(b)(2), I absolutely am part of the militia. And I'm registered and prepared to be called to duty.

That's true. But where is your roaster ? Your chain of command ? Who calls you to duty ? Who gives orders and directs your military action ? You may be defined, but how, in fact, are you regulated ? If you can't show that you are indeed well-regulated, it doesn't count.

***************************************************************

Where's the Roaster ?

Uh , generally the camp cook has that...

'Course , if something more large-ish needs roastin' , we can call an airstrike with a MOAB , or a simple nape-scrape...

Meanwhile , here's a bit more Historicity with regard to a Rifleman's relationship with his firearm :

" This is my rifle. There are many like it but this one is mine. My rifle is my best friend. It is my life. I must master it as I master my life. My rifle, without me is useless. Without my rifle, I am useless. I must fire my rifle true. I must shoot straighter than any enemy who is trying to kill me. I must shoot him before he shoots me. I will....

My rifle and myself know that what counts in this war is not the rounds we fire, the noise of our burst, nor the smoke we make. We know that it is the hits that count. We will hit...

My rifle is human, even as I, because it is my life. Thus, I will learn it as a brother. I will learn its weakness, its strength, its parts, its accessories, its sights and its barrel. I will keep my rifle clean and ready, even as I am clean and ready. We will become part of each other. We will...

Before God I swear this creed. My rifle and myself are the defenders of my country. We are the masters of our enemy. We are the saviors of my life. So be it, until victory is America's and there is no enemy, but Peace. "

Clean and ready !

That's what 'well-regulated' really means !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rifleman's_Creed

An individual with a gun ? You mean 'rifle' , don'tcha think ?

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:25 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

Seriously. What a crock.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:27 PM

Quote:

""A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control."

That IS the crux of 'well-regulated', and which seems to be exactly what is lacking in either of your interpretations.

But I *AM* subject to federal, state, or local government control! I am registered with the federal government (through Selective Service), I am available to be called up, I am available to serve, and if I WEREN'T subject to government control, by definition wouldn't I be a rogue outlaw? I'm not an outlaw; I'm a lawful gun owner (the BATF can attest to that, seeing as how I have to go through a background check every single time I buy a gun).

Now, if I were buying illegal weapons in back alleys from black-market arms dealers, I wouldn't be under government control, and I'd be an outlaw, a vigilante, or a gangsta. But I'm none of those things. I buy LEGAL firearms, LEGALLY. And if I buy ILLEGAL firearms, I expect a knock on the door, and then I would be well and truly subject to government control - in a penitentiary!

I have not been called up or given a commission by my government, but am available if they decide they need me. It's not my fault I haven't been called upon. You'll have to take that beef up with the federal, state, and local governments. Also, if you have a beef with them not calling me up for training, please take it up with them; as I said, I'm available.

Mike

"I supported Bush in 2000 and 2004 and intellegence[sic] had very little to do with that decision." - Hero, Real World Event Discussions

I can't help the sinking feeling that my country is now being run by people who read "1984" not as a cautionary tale, but rather as an instruction manual. - Michael Mock

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:32 PM

I have a vote and I'm not afraid to use it!

ALWAYS subject to its control ? Like right now ? Or just potentially-should-anyone-bother-to subject to its control ?

I could call my neighbors the fire brigade --- why not ? They could be that, should they ever decide to. I could call my family the rulers of earth --- why not ? It could happen some day. You could call yourself and your buds a militia --- why not ? It's not under government control yet, but hey, maybe someday it might be.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
Seriously. What a crock.

***************************************************************

Silence is consent.

The Highest CONTROL , the Highest Authority , would be the Constitution itself , and its Second Amendment...

Anything that Abrogates THAT , or attempts to , is " an enemy , Foreign OR Domestic..."

In which case , a MARKED TARGET...

Self-preservation rights are Inalienable...

An Inalienable Endowment...

Rue , if all this makes you so uncomfortable , surely a charitable collection can be established in your behalf to buy
a one-way ticket for you , to some place of your choosing...

Provided you promise to never come back , of course...

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:43 PM

Rue, you and I see most things pretty much eye-to-eye. But on this issue, I don't think we're ever going to agree.

Short of a Constitutional Amendment nullifying the Second Amendment, you're pretty much not going to talk me out of owning guns, either. Now, if you can get that amendment ratified, I'll hand over my firearms, because as I stated before, I am a law-abiding citizen.

I posted this in another thread, and curiously, I got zero response on it. I thought that maybe it would be thought-provoking, but maybe not...

[Please note that this is a satirical piece]

Quote:

What I'd really like to know - REALLY - is why there isn't a hue and cry to ban the automobile. Seriously. No matter how safe we try to make them, close to 40,000 of us manage to die every year in cars. More than all the yearly gun deaths, in fact. And they're usually chalked up as "accidents", which means FAR more people die from unintentional auto accidents than from unintentional shootings.

And it's not like cars are NECESSARY. For proof, I'd just point to the fact that they didn't exist until just over a hundred years ago, and we seemed to get along without them.

Now, if we can't get rid of cars altogether, can we at least agree that we need to exert more government control over them? We should be required to run a background check on anyone who tries to purchase an automobile, and a mandatory waiting period before you're allowed to purchase one. We should have biometric locking systems so that only the registered owner can drive the car; we should make it a felony to let someone else drive your car. We should make it a felony to have an accident in your car within 1000 feet of a school, municipal building, or courthouse. And we should absolutely make it a felony to talk on the phone, eat your food, or drink your drink while driving a car. And drinking and driving should get you at least ten years' hard time.

And you should have to register with a federal database before you can even go look at a new car, or go to a car show. And you should be allowed to buy no more than one car per year, up to a total of no more than two.

Showing off in your car would be considered "brandishing a deadly weapon" and the punishments would be severe. Driving your car inside city limits would be a crime as well. In some places, you'd have to apply for a permit to park a car in your garage - and they might refuse to issue you such a permit at the Chief Law Enforcement Officer's discretion.

Anyone think this is ridiculous? It's what we're all being asked to do with guns, and these are the kinds of things being proposed. And I should note that there is NO protection at all in the Constitution for automobiles. None. Look it up.

Discuss among yourselves.

NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | TOP | HOME

Saturday, September 13, 2008 6:56 PM