Daryl Hunt
Your Worst Nightmare
- Oct 22, 2014
- 22,696
- 4,627
- Thread starter
- #61
Applying 21st Century mores to 18th Century thinking is an exercise in vanity.
The militia is bound to the right. The right is not bound to the militia.
If you want to follow the meaning of the 2nd amendment, the Militia is bound to the Government which should be neither right nor left, it just is.
Wow, you really don'tunderstand the English language do you. The Militia was a COUNTER to the government. It wasn't bound to the government, it was a defense FROM the government.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, January 30, 1787
"What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to James Madison, December 20, 1787
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824
"To disarm the people...s the most effectual way to enslave them."
- George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
- Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787
"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."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
And on and on and on. The 2nd Amendment is the ultimate defender of ALL other Rights. Or, as a much smarter person than I ever said, "the Bill of Rights is nine limitations on what government can do....and one, final option."
I didn't say which government. You assumed I meant the Federal Government while you are looking for a fight or just trying to be right. You are kind of right. But the 2nd amendment is what gives the States the right to have State Militias seperate from the Federal Forces and even the National Guard. The State can raise an army if it feels the need. And THAT is the Organized Militia, not the National Guard which can be Nationalized. But the first half of the 2nd amendment is probably not necessary so much anymore and is primarily used by nutjobs that just want to run around the woods calling themselves Militias. I call them potential Lynch Mobs. But a few states still have State Guards and do use them in case of Emergency when one arises. It really burns Femas drawers when the State Guard takes charge and Fema has to work for them.
Nice try, but there is no Bill of Rights for any other government so you had to be talking about our Federal government. and, you are wrong. The 2nd Amendment enumerates a Right of the individual to keep arms for their own PRIVATE defense. It conveys no Rights to the State at all. The State after all IS power. The ridiculous claim that the 2nd gives the government the right to arm itself is simply stupid. States have no Rights. PEOPLE DO.
Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment and break it into two parts.
A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,
This was put into place to prevent the Federal Government from becoming all powerful. Our Founding Fathers were downright paranoid about this after just finishing a war with England. In fact, they were so paranoid that they limited the Federals to no more than a 75,000 man standing army which would not be enough to even stand against one state's organized militia much less all of them. But going into WWI, Congress inacted the National Guard Act of 1917 that allowed the Federal Government to fund the Guard Units in the States right around 120 days a year and the Feds could call up the Guard Units. But they did add a provision that stated that the State could create a States Guard seperate from the National Guard where those in it that were not eligible to be called up could stay with the state guard. States could have members that were in both Guard Organizations but in the even of federalization, those people would become Federal Troops. Also, those that still had a commitment to their Military time (i.e. 4 years for some and 10 for others after they leave the active duty service) could serve with the state guard but would be federalized. This means that states like Texas has a State Guard that is still very strong today which is mostly comprised of Local Police, Sheriffs, Texas Rangers, Fire Fighters and such that cannot be called up and can be used by the Texas Governor as the Old Guard used to be used for including in case of a Rogue Federal Government Uprising. But the first half of the 2nd amendment really has been watered down and probably needs to be amended to keep it current as there is very little chance that the Federal Military would follow orders to suppress any given state. You see, it's written into the UCMJ (the Military Constitution) to prevent that from happening.
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
We also need to include the 14th amendment as well. This right is within your own home and pertains to adequate protection weapons. You may believe a pungee pit should be used to protect your property or a high amperage high voltage electric shock on your welcome matt but I don't know of any lawyer that could keep you from prison if you actually had to use such a thing. It's excess. The state, under the 14th amendment can rule what is in excess for firearms. It's usually under the reasoning of Public Safety. They can determine that you need to be registered to carry a weapon (not open carry) on the street and then make it almost impossible for you to actually get the permit (case in point NYC) in a timely manner ( years or more) but they have to offer it. They can't say you can't have a bazooka but they can make it almost impossible for you to get the permit to have one for various reasons. They can't say that you can't own a fully Automatic Weapon of any kind but they can fix it so they are just plain unavailable by either making them too expensive (a real M-16-A-1 in junk condition starts at 15,000 dollars) or makes it almost impossible to comply with the storage requirements or makes it almost impossible to gain the proper permit to have it. (Again, NYC). None of these methods are against the Second amendment and are well within the 14th amendment according to the many rulings by the Supreme Courts over the past decades. They can rule that one type of weapon is in excess for home defense while others are not. They can make a rule for an age limit on purchasing firearms and ammo. They can limit the Mag Sizes. They can outlaw the sale of the ability to use certain addons. The list goes on and on. And all have been upheld by the Supreme Court. That pretty well means that they are Constitutional. Maybe not moral but constitutional.
What I hold is that we need to amend the 2nd amendment to remove the ambiguity that it has in today's world. 200 years ago, it was so much simpler. But since 1850 (circa) we have long since outgrown it's simple wording. One side says vehemently that we need to get rid of the 2nd amendment while another faction says we need to follow the second half word for word without any other thoughts. Both sides will continue this war but people are getting killed or maybe needlessly in fear of their lives over this "Debate". I won't really call it a debate. Both sides are just yelling over the fence at each other and neither is listening. What we need is a starting dialogue to get it settled and updated to todays standards. It's not 1775 anymore and our weapons have outgrown the Muskets by far. And our Population is more dense than it ever has been before. There has to be a balance between the right to bear arms and Public Safety. This means we have to stop the yelling while hold our hands over our ears and come to a decent set of decisions before another group (Politicians) that are less qualified does it for us.