Can an Unarmed People be a Free People?

Status
Not open for further replies.
H

Hugh Damright

New member
I have come to understand that the word "rights" can refer to principles of free government. For instance, we might say that free government requires separate branches of government, and so that would be a "right". And we see this in the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights, Section Five, which declares:
That the legislative and executive powers of the State should be separate and distinct from the judiciary.
Click to expand...

The 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights also has a section which declares the proper form of collective self-defense of a free State:
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.
Click to expand...

The Second Amendment represents these principles when it says that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State. I have found it a good exercise to see how the other rights declared in the US Bill of Rights might be seen as aspects of free government or self-government.

For instance, free government requires elected representatives, and to vote properly the people must be properly informed, and therefore a free press is a principle of free government - it is necessary to the security of a free State.

And the right to free speech began as the right of our elected representatives to speak freely in Congress.

What I hope to discuss with this thread is how we might best assert that an armed people are necessary to self-government. I believe the people (i.e. the general population) must be armed, for the sake of revolution and secession ... maybe also to fight back when something like Ruby Ridge or Waco happens. How might we best assert that the RKBA is necessary for self-government? Or is the premise wrong ... if only the government has guns, can the people still control government - can an unarmed people be a free people?
 
Yes - briefly.

Where there is no balance of power, there is an accumulation of power. That, in turn, leads to an abuse of power because there is nothing to prevent it.

And the only reasons pacifists are left in peace is because other people do their fighting for them.
 
And the right to free speech began as the right of our elected representatives to speak freely in Congress.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure who gave you that idea (probably some politician), but it isn't true. The idea of eliminating prior restraint dates back to at least 1769. Long before Congress existed.

More on the subject can be found here.
 
I understand Socrates himself believed that the sign of a true democracy was The People's right to bear arms. It is an old struggle.
 
As to the original question "Can an Unarmed People be a Free People?".

So long as human nature remains 'human' the answer is NO!

As to the right to keep and bear arms being contingent upon government, again no. Go read the Bill of Rights. When the founders of our nation enumerated the rights of the state(s), they used the word state(s). When they enumerated the rights of the People, they used the word the People.

I say enumerated because they believed - as I and millions of others do - that our rights are inborn. Gifts from our creator. Gifts that when employed, define humanity and make human beings whole.
 
I got the idea that the right of free speech regarded the right of our elected representatives to speak freely in Congress because both the Articles of Confederation and the 1776 Maryland Constitution defined it that way.

I didn't mean to say that the RKBA is dependent upon government, I meant to say that a specific form of government is dependent upon the RKBA. I believe free government requires an armed people, and I hoped to discuss why this is so.

I am familiar with the view that "States" means one thing and "People" means another, but it doesn't seem to hold up. The Constitution begins "We the People", and the Bill of Rights ends with "the people", and in both cases it means "States".

And I am also familiar with the idea of innate or "God-given" rights. But this can lead to arbitrary rights, like "God gave me the right to wear a hat". I don't think a Bill of Rights regards arbitrary rights, I believe it regards principles of free government.
 
Hugh, you have over-simplified a very complex issue and reduced it down to a simple formula of GUNS=FREEDOM. That won't work. First of all, you haven't defined exactly what freedom is. If by freedom you mean the society is one that can hold and own slaves, then I guess it works for North American models you have noted as the US did allow slave ownership at the national level even though the 2nd Amendment was in place. What is freedom when only some states within a nationally governed entity preclude slavery?

By freedom, did you mean in a society that doesn't allow half of the adult white population to vote, specifically women, then I guess your example works as women were not allowed to vote for quite some time.

By freedom, did you mean in a society that doesn't allow blacks to vote? It was nearly 200 years after the Constitution before blacks had this right even though they could own guns for much of the time AFTER being released from slavery or having lived in free states.

Guns did not get women to vote, nor blacks, and it was not the threat of guns that made voting possible. Guns were used in the Civil War and slavery abolished at the end, but that was a byproduct of the war and not a goal.
 
Can an Unarmed People be a Free People?
Click to expand...
Free to do what they're told by those with arms... sure; but to simplify & generalize, you know the answer is No. Not only no, but Hell No!
Let us agree on the definition of "Free".
1. At liberty; not imprisoned or enslaved. 2. Not controlled by obligation or the will of another. 3.a. Having political independence b. Having legal rights that a government may not violate. 4.a. Not affected by a given condition b. Not subject to a given condition; exempt. 5. Not bound, confined, or fixed position...
I believe free government requires an armed people, and I hoped to discuss why this is so.
Click to expand...
Preaching to the choir my friend. I'll qualify that quote by suggesting you add the word "Moral" in their somewhere describing said armed people, tho' morals change and evolve with a society; right is still right, wrong is still wrong and worthy of debate and realignment now and then. Now if we could just get our government to agree and allow the common man who elect our representatives to live our lives with a minimum of controlling obligation or usurpation of legal rights or shifting of given conditions... well who knows? We might actually regain lost freedoms... much to the worry of the well meaning bozo's within our midst.
For that we need Guns... Lots of guns. Along with the moral high ground, the will & knowledge of how & when to use them before it's programmed out of our children's children's children.
As if Liberty means anything to anyone nowadays. :confused:
 
Nonsense

"The Constitution begins 'We the People,' and the Bill of Rights ends with 'the people,' and in both cases it means 'States.'"

Where did you learn Constitutional law, The Ted Kennedy School of Driving and Diving?

Under this wholly-unsubstantiated "analysis" (and I use the word very loosely), the First Amendment means the STATES; not citizens, have the right to freedom of religion, freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, and to petition for redress of grievances. Name one case that so holds.

Under the Second Amendment, the right to keep and bear arms means the now-nonexistent state militias.

Under the Fourth Amendment, the states; not citizens, are free from unwarranted search and seizure. Again, cite a case.

Under the Fifth Amendment, the states; not citizens, are entitled to due process. We're still waiting for those cites...

Note also that the Ninth Amendment expressly reserves rights to the PEOPLE; the Tenth Amendment expressly DISTINGUISHES between the "states" and the "people."

In short, someone has made a Huge Mistake. :barf:
 
We the People of the United States ...

OK. I will go off on a tangent. But I hope to come back to the idea that free government requires an armed people just as it requires separate branches of goverment and a free press.


The Constitution of the United States begins:
We, the people of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution
Click to expand...

This was discussed in the Virginia Ratification Convention. Patrick Henry was quite upset that the Constitution began "We the People of the United States". He said that if the parties to the Constitution were the people of the US, then the States were done for. Madison assured him that the parties to the Constitution were the people as thirteen sovereignties i.e. the States:
Who are parties to it? The people — but not the people as composing one great body; but the people as composing thirteen sovereignties.
- http://www.constitution.org/rc/rat_va_05.htm
Click to expand...

Also, Article VII of the Constitution says that if nine States agree then it will be binding upon them. I do not think there is any way to construe this to mean that the US Constitution was established and ordained by the people of the US.

When the Constitution begins "We, the People of the United States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution", I have learned to read it to say "We the States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution".
 
My excellent colleagues have forgotten these bitter lessons of history. The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. 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.

Ninth Circuit Judge Kozinski, dissent on Silveira vs. Lockyer
 
I have learned to read it to say "We the States ... do ordain and establish this Constitution".
Click to expand...


You learned wrongly. That Madison was successful in rope-a-doping Patrick Henry with some word games does not change the meaning of the words, which is plain from the context, as Number 6 has pointed out.


BTW, Patrick Henry was right.
 
OK, you just brushed off a quote by Madison. Why did I bother to go look it up?

May I ask how you support your contention that the US Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the US? Do you figure they had a "popular vote"?
 
I am still waiting for your evidence that the US Constitution was ratified by a "popular vote". :barf:

Or can we now agree that the US Constitution was established and ordained by the States and move on?
 
You maybe could recognize that not everyone spends every hour of the day on TFL. :rolleyes:

No, I didn't brush off a quote by Madison. I recognized it for what it was - a word game designed to flim flam someone who disagreed with him. It doesn't change the meaning of the word "People" nor does it change the meaning of the word "State".


Nor does the fact that the Constitution was ratified by the States change the fact that they (the States) were speaking on behalf of the People. That's how a republic works - the people elect representatives who do the voting. For the word People to mean People does not require that we become a democracy.




On another note (because I think I may smell something) there is absolutely no difference between People and people or between States and states. When these documents were written the English language was still developing and dictionaries were relatively new in those days. Rules of punctuation were not well established - even spellings were not standardized. (Witness the use of "f" for "s" in many places, for example.)

I mention this because there is a school of 'thought' that makes huge mountians of distinction based on whether some words are capitalized or not. It's so absurd that it would be funny if it were not so sad.

I hope we're not going there.
 
Nor does the fact that the Constitution was ratified by the States change the fact that they (the States) were speaking on behalf of the People.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that each State was speaking on the behalf of its own people, or are you saying that the States were all speaking on behalf of the people of the US?

To use Madison's terminology, are you saying that the US Constitution was ratified by the people as one sovereignty, or as thirteen?



GUNS=FREEDOM
Click to expand...
No, Sir Jethro de Bodine, I do not mean to say that guns=freedom. I agree it is not that simple.

I think that personal liberty fares better under free government than under a monarchy. Which is not to say that free government = freedom, it is more like a complex recipe for freedom and one of the ingredients is free government.

And there is a recipe for free government, and one of the ingredients is the RKBA. This is the topic. I want to put on blinders and focus on why the RKBA is part of the recipe for free government.



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.
Click to expand...
There you go. This is the kind of thing I am after. Here we see reference to the collective RKBA as a check on government. And I hope to contrast this with the gun lobby pushing the idea that the Second Amendment does not regard collective rights, but rather it regards self defense against burglars.
 
Are you saying that each State was speaking on the behalf of its own people, or are you saying that the States were all speaking on behalf of the people of the US?
Click to expand...

Each State was speaking on the behalf of its own people. 'Course, if you add them up, it comes pretty close to all of the people of the US. ;) But the math isn't what's important - that's what Patrick Henry's point was. By not specifically mentioning the States, it paved the way for a lot of current bogus arguments against State's rights*, which is exactly the problem with Madison's terminology. It created this discussion - this lack of clarity. Had Patrick Henry's warning been heeded, and the language changed, there'd be no room for this question.


I agree it is not that simple.

... it is more like a complex recipe for freedom and one of the ingredients is free government.

And there is a recipe for free government, and one of the ingredients is the RKBA.
Click to expand...


Well said!



*(I say State's rights in the limited sense of the States vs. the Federal Gummit.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top