"A Free State"

B

Bucksnort1

New member
I firmly believe in the 2nd amendment. In fact, it should be number one rather than two. I want to throw this topic out for comments and consideration.

"...being necessary for a free state..." Many years ago, I heard a conservative radio talk show about the 2nd amendment. The guest (sorry, don't recall name) said his interpretation of "a free state" means a free state of mind. I like this explanation. A few days ago, I heard Michael Medved (conservative radio talk show host) say the purpose of the second amendment is to allow the people to keep and bear arms so states, i.e., Arizona, Colorado etc., would be able to protect itself from an out of control federal government. Medved's comment seems logical but I'm not buying it completely. I'm interested in what you say about Medved's interpretation.

I think we are extremely lucky the founding fathers chose the words, "THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE..."; otherwise, we would be in deep trouble. After all, the Bill of Rights is to protect us, not the government, which is interesting because we are the government.
 
A free state is just that. A state that is free of imperialism by a separate government. Remember that each state had an independent government and they gave the new federal government limited powers that were needed for the union to meet its goals. The militia, that body of men who were of age and ability, was called on to take the place of a standing army that was not trusted by the people. The army of Britain had been used against the citizens to favor the monarch and that is why it is unlawful to have a standing army unless we are at war.

The right to keep and bear arms is the right to defend ones self against all crime and importantly the crime of the government against its citizens (tyranny). It was crystal clear, to the peole at the time, that arms were necessaryto a free society. Just as now you couldn't rely on protection unless you provided your own. There were as many thieves and enemies, by percentage, as there are now. The local sheriff or police were too few, as they are now, to protect everyone. The right to keep and bear arms is derived from nature. Plants and animals all have evolved ways to defend themselves. The mighty Oak produces a toxin that kills insect pests that could kill it, a skunk produces an odor that repells attackers. We, as intelligent people, have very little in our genetics to repell our enemies and attackers but we have our minds to make or have made for us the means to defend ourselves. We have always used weapons be it stones or clubs to protect ourselves. Now we have guns and the necessity of guns comes from the fact that our attackers have guns. Even though they are less accepted we require those who protect us to have them so it is only right and just that we have them too.

A free man is truly only free if he has the means and will to defend himself. (no gender limits implied)
 
I am probably not "the guy" .But Years ago,I'm sure I did call in to a radio show and express that thought.I don't recall the name,but he is gone now.

Lawyers and SCOTUS argue the interpretation of words,and they often disagree.Which means someone is wrong. I can be wrong with the best of them,especially if it makes people think.

For many,the word "State" immediately means the Government entity "State"
Maybe so.
But physical matter may be in different "states" Solid,Liquid,Gas. A "State of being" I read "free state" as "State of being Free".

I also,perhaps incorrectly,read another key word differently.If any of our Founders ordered a set of dueling pistols,might they have specified they be "Well Regulated" ? The two barrels of a double gun are "Regulated" to shoot to same point of aim. The .50 cals of a fighter plane or an artillery battery might be similarly "Regulated"

Now consider Von Steuben's picture book of "regulations" used to train Washington's Patriots...who may have needed the basics.(militia are Non Government Employees,civilians)

Now consider the volley fire tactic of the time. "Well regulated" might mean dropping the hoe or the plow traces,grabbing the musket, and assembling proficient at the manual of arms and able to deliver effective concentrated fire with fellow civilian neighbors as required.In other words,not only being skilled with the handling of current military technology,but "arms" AND if a situation called for it,being able to retrieve the coyote rifle from the pickup and report to the LEO in charge if a situation called for it.


The legal Eagles will no doubt tell me someone at Columbia or Harvard or Yale or wearing a black robe explained it another way. That's OK.

IMO,those meanings I read fit two parameters. The Second Amendment sings loud and clear,and those definitions can bridge back to the time of "Well Regulated Dueling Pistols"
 
Last edited:
Medved's comment is not logical and is in fact wrong.

The First, Third, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments are the ultimate check on government overreach, not the Second.

Indeed, the Second Amendment doesn’t ‘trump’ the First – that a small minority might incorrectly perceive the government as having become ‘tyrannical’ is not ‘justification’ to seek its overthrow.

A government put in place by a majority of the people – reflecting the will of the majority of the people – can only be removed at the behest of the majority of the people, through the democratic process, consistent with the Constitution and its case law, not by a minority of citizens with an unfounded, unwarranted hostility toward government.

The right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political or judicial process cannot be abridged by the minority through force of arms.

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense – not to act as a ‘check’ on government excess and overreach.

And Medved's comment is inconsistent, given the fact that many state governments have demonstrated a reckless disregard for citizens’ rights and protected liberties, more so than the Federal government.
 
The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense – not to act as a ‘check’ on government excess and overreach
Click to expand...

Read excerpts from the federalist papers (and the anti federalist papers) and you will quickly learn that this was, in fact, exactly ONE intents of the 2nd amendment. It is probably one of the more mentioned purposes of including a RKBA in the constitution in many of the writings of the founding fathers. I suggest federalist no. 46 if you still don't believe me.

The same men also write at length on the right of the government to quell rebellions... So go figure. But the 2A was intended to keep government subject to its citizens, among other reasons why its included in the bill of rights.

OBVIOUSLY IF THE COURTS DECISIONS ARE STILL HONORED, AND WE HAVE FREE ELECTIONS, AND WE MAINTAIN CHECKS AND BALANCES BETWEEN THE THREE BRANCHES OF GOVERNMENT, ARMED RESISTANCE AGAINST THE GOVERNMENT, OR THE THOUGHT THEREOF, IS UNJUSTIFIED AND INSURRECTION.
 
Last edited:
Well,jdc....a major part of the Constitution is about limiting Government.
Seems like the Government does not much want to be limited.They all take an oath to uphold and defend it from all enemies foreign and domestic.

I think it was in the old Pogo cartoon a line was "We have seen the enemy,and they is us"

There is no greater threat to the Constitution than the Government that it limits. How do you define "Domestic Enemy"?
Now,take a deep breath. No,I am not advocating overthrowing the Government. That would be really bad. I don't want anybody shooting anybody. I vote. I speak. I love the USA,its Constitution,and our form of Government. I stand for the National Anthem.
Its pretty much like "I do not want any nuclear war" Nuclear war would be really bad. Everyone would lose. Do you pretty much agree?
But now I ask,if the USA turned in all of its Nuclear Weapons to? Whoever. The UN? and then if Russia,China,India,Pakistan,North Korea,and Iran kept theirs,would the world be safer? No,I don't think so.

I can believe that a strong,well armed USA is good,not because I have a nuclear war fantasy,but because I believe it discourages aggression by other nuclear powers.
In similar fashion,I do not believe in another Civil war,but I believe the awareness of an armed citizenry IS a check and balance to a Government that pursues a ravenous,relentless,insatiable appetite for MORE ! MORE! POWER! TAXES!!

It is a presence with no shots fired.

Too many people fly off the handle and get all emotional about crazy militias trying to overthrow the Government and that sort of rhetoric is innaccurate and it is used for propaganda against the 2nd.

I sleep just fine with those missle silos in Nebraska,Wyo,and lots of other places.

And don't forget Yamamoto's comment about a rifle behind every blade of grass.

Come to think of it,we have learned in places like VietNam and Afghanistan that if you have determined armed peasants on their own ground,kicking their butt is easier said than done
Again,its not a Red Dawn fantasy. That is an Alynski BS comment used to discredit,ridicule,and isolate. So long as the Armed Citizen is formidable,not a shot need be fired.Everybody knows peace is good.

By definition,political power is the power to COERCE. Don't want to buy Obamacare?You will be COERCED by progressively higher taxes.

A Government of the People,by the People,and for the People is only sustainable when the People are empowered by Arms.

Mao: All political power forms from the barrel of a gun.

Search the University of Hawaii study on "Democide" See what the 20th Century saw governments do to their own unarmed people.

"Oh ,but it could not happen here" Right.So long as We the People make darn sure.
 
Last edited:
Militias were a very important part of the country. An armed populace was necessary to man them. The founding fathers feared 3 things most for our young nation. First was a large standing Army, Second was a national bank, Third was to much power under a federal government which would abuse the first two. Lincoln severely wounded states rights and have been slowly cutting away at them ever since with the next big blow was when Senators were popularly elected instead of appointed by states. The People were to have the same arms as the military, the people who had rifles were better armed than the military muskets. Businesses and some people had privately owned cannons, commercial ships were armed with cannons, muskets and the crews were trained to use them. Just remember a bunch of poorly trained rabble came together and defeated the most powerful army of the day and the United States of America was formed.
 
HiBC,

Were you listening to Mike Rosen on KOA when you made the comment? Rosen is still around. He has retired from radio. I said it was the guest who made the comment but I'm not sure. It could have been a caller and it could have been you.
 
Bucksnort: It may well have been Mike Rosen. I used to listen to KOA quite a bit,and he was a good host.
It may have been in answer to post-Columbine discussion on the meaning of "well regulated" and calls for gun control.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top