Vanya said:But I'm sure Tennessee Gentleman will be along at any moment to chime in on this... he's far more knowledgeable than I in this area.
johnwilliamson062 said:Even on these boards you will find people who do not believe in the second amendment as 'a bulwark against tyranny.' Quite a few actually. To many here it is all about CCW and HD.
"A well-disciplined militia, our best reliance in peace and for the first moments of war till regulars may relieve them, I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration."
Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801
"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..."
Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788
"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny."
Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them"
Tench Coxe, An American Citizen IV, October 21, 1787
BillCA said:I'll disagree with Tennesse Gentleman that the intention was merely to arm the State Militias. The object was that every man be armed, according to Patrick Henry. And Jefferson's quote above bolsters this idea.
To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the to the people and a serious public incovenience and loss....But through the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable;
The framers of the constitution almost certainly meant nation state. The several states of the union were considered to be separate nation states. I think anyone who says the founders intended for anything like the sprawling national government we have now is full of non-sense. They were attempting something more like the EU, probably a little stronger bond(the EU is of course trending towards a more central unified government). Calling the 50 political bodies which make up the "United States" states is just a traditional thing going back to when they were considered to be separate nations. If the founding fathers had intended for our current system government they would have called them territories or provinces, which is what they have become. The 50 states is the only place I know of the word "state" being used in this manner and I think that alone shows they meant them to be separate nations not territories. In a lot of ways moving towards more central government makes sense as very few people see themselves as "Ohioans" or whatever before "Americans" and the gap between different locals is shrinking as travel and communications technology progress. Remember, Washingtons proposed pledge of allegiance was first resisted b/c members of the continental army would not pledge allegiance to a power above their state. In some ways going to one National government might remove a lot of overlap and cut governmental costs to a large degree and at present everything "local" depends enough on federal grants that they have to do what the fed says anyways..I think one has to remember that "State" can refer to one of "the several states" of the union, a soverign nation-state or it can refer to a state of freedom
I think that really depends what the role of the military is going to be. We had a very small standing Army until WWI, and it wasn't all that big during the interwar period. Purely defensive operations and logistics are very simple and can, even in modern times, be carried out by citizen militias with out all that much training(there are quite a few modern examples, some occurring as we speak). Policing the world takes an entirely different level of training and logistics. Not saying we should or should not, just that there is a huge difference.It was clear that the Jeffersonian ideal of a citizen militia (indeed as many other of his ideas) was not practical and over time we have instituted the current system we now have with the burden of our nations defense being borne by a professional military.
As far as the insurrection theory being without a doubt not what the founding fathers meantFuthermore I do not believe the 2A was ever written to a used for what is called by some as "The Insurrection Theory" which is anathema to Contitutional Government.
johnwilliamson062 said:I think that really depends what the role of the military is going to be.
johnwilliamson062 said:We had a very small standing Army until WWI, and it wasn't all that big during the interwar period.
johnwilliamson062 said:Purely defensive operations and logistics are very simple and can, even in modern times, be carried out by citizen militias
johnwilliamson062 said:(there are quite a few modern examples, some occurring as we speak).
johnwilliamson062 said:Policing the world takes an entirely different level of training and logistics.
DaveTrig said:but the real intent of the 2nd is to insure that the people always have the power to oppose the government.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections...
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
johnwilliamson062 said:I find it hard to believe they would totally dismiss and remove for future generations an option they had recently exercised.
And they wanted to make sure that if the citizens were put in that position again they would have the arms to deal with it. Many of those colonists were born in Britain and started life with representation. They were represented in the colonial parliaments, which for a long period of time ruled the colonies with less interference than we now suffer from the UN, NATO, NAFTA and other international organizations. They realized that the face of government could change in a relatively quick period of time.They rebelled because they had no democratic institutions or representation to protect their interests and rights and therefore had no other choice.
I highly recommend you spend some time studying the foreign policy of China, the dominant power in the world from before Europeans could write until the Brits introduced opium into their economy. Most of the terrorists we face come from Saudi Arabia, an ally of ours. Why is that? The Saudi Royal family is one of the most oppressive and hypocritical regimes on the planet. The Saudi people hate them and realize that without the support of our extensive military units stationed there, the royal family would not be able to stay in power. Of course, our units keep the region relatively stable and the oil flowing.That train left the station in 1945. We are the leading nation of the free world. Fighting enemies in other countries is not policing the world but rather defending forward which I prefer over fighting in Tennessee. This I assert is no longer a choice but a necessity and no "citizen militia" could ever meet such a requirement.
vranasaurus said:If you can't convince enough people to vote for your ideas how can you convince enough people to pick up arms and follow you to revolution?
johnwilliamson062 said:And they wanted to make sure that if the citizens were put in that position again they would have the arms to deal with it.
johnwilliamson062 said:Many of those colonists were born in Britain and started life with representation. They were represented in the colonial parliaments, which for a long period of time ruled the colonies with less interference than we now suffer from the UN,
johnwilliamson062 said:Nuclear weapons is exactly why we need a standing army for defense less now than ever before in history.
Credit given for the first person to name the individual, quoted above.The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed; where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.