Stagger Lee
New member
If some of you spent half as much time supporting this country and participating in our self-government process as you do worrying about the day that it'll suddenly turn evil and crush you for no apparent reason...
Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?
- Thread starter Tennessee Gentleman
- Start date
- Status
Stagger Lee made what I believe to be a very untrue statement.
He stated that the government is US, and that we all have representation in the government. That is most definitely untrue. It a perfect world perhaps it would be true..but I know for a certainty that libertarians are NOT represented in government. Ron Paul comes pretty close..but one lone congressman does not representation make.
And libertarians are just one group that has no representation in this government. And that government violates our rights every day.
But, the founding fathers were correct in their observance that we the people tend to suffer long under tyranny before taking up a fight for freedom. It may be many more decades before we see any serious organized resistance to our government gone bad. It may very well not even occur in the lifetime of many of us.
He stated that the government is US, and that we all have representation in the government. That is most definitely untrue. It a perfect world perhaps it would be true..but I know for a certainty that libertarians are NOT represented in government. Ron Paul comes pretty close..but one lone congressman does not representation make.
And libertarians are just one group that has no representation in this government. And that government violates our rights every day.
But, the founding fathers were correct in their observance that we the people tend to suffer long under tyranny before taking up a fight for freedom. It may be many more decades before we see any serious organized resistance to our government gone bad. It may very well not even occur in the lifetime of many of us.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
So who decides if they are right or not. If they win were they right and if they lose were they wrong? Seems like your criteria is mighty subjective. The people at Waco thought they were right. They are dead so were they wrong?
No Danzig, you have no representation because not enough people believe like you do. This is the same reason there isn't any potent Nazi or Rastafarian representation in the government. When more people believe like you and other libertarians then you will have representation and a say if you vote.
Al, you have posted this before and not trying to mock you but the same would be true for alien invasions and zombies? I mean we can't say with 100%certainty they won't come.
What you describe is not going to happen and if it does 1) I hope I am dead and 2) my AR-15 won't do much good because you and I will be dead since only the people on this board will have stood against the encroaching tryanny and the vast majority of others will be against us. Isn't that what you guys call a TEOTWAWKI scenario?
I ask again did the fact that NO citizens had guns stop Mayor Nagin from taking them or was it the injunction the NRA filed in Sep?
Stagger Lee
New member
You DO know that a judge's dissenting opinion carries no weight, right? It's just some guy's personal opinion. You might as well be citing Carrot Top.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
Or Justice Stevens. I didn't want to inflame the comment but yes you are right. This was the argument in that thread they just closed about the "Cival" War?
Except, when SCOTUS comes along and says, as in Heller, that the majority was full of crap, and your analysis of the 2nd Amendment as an individual right was correct all along. The majority's 2nd Amendment analysis was soundly rejected by SCOTUS so what weight should we give them?
To say that the STATE is the militia, and that the STATE embodies the militia - is imprecise. In fact, to also say that the PEOPLE are the militia - is likewise imprecise. What is precise however is the right to bear arms so that a well-regulated militia can be formed. One might remember that in 1861, there were in essence quite a few 'militias' being formed, but they were not in agreement.
When the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, the power of STATES and the FEDERAL Govt. was balanced far more in favor of individual states than it was in the favor of a strong federal government. There was then also the concern that one state should not be coerced by another state. In the early 1800's there was even the Hartford Convention in which New England states decided that any individual state or group of states had the right to secede from the Union if it/they felt coerced by other states.
Later during the Civil War, Virginia<the crown of the Confederacy where argueably 80%-90% of the South's war resources were made>the state did not secede until AFTER Ft. Sumpter, BECAUSE it was deemed unconstitutional for the troops of one state or a group of states to cross its border for the purpose of coercing another state.
What is important to understand - is that the right to bear arms, whether one was North or South, was not determined by the edicts of the state or federal governments. The states did not advocate or attempt to remove one's right to bear arms so as to give power to the militias. It was just the oppoosite : the militias were given power by the peoples' right to bear arms - by the 2nd Amendment. The militias draw their power - whether for good or bad - from the rights of the people to bear arms. To cut off people from being able to bear arms - is to leave them at the mercey of a tyrannical government.
When the founders wrote the 2nd Amendment, the power of STATES and the FEDERAL Govt. was balanced far more in favor of individual states than it was in the favor of a strong federal government. There was then also the concern that one state should not be coerced by another state. In the early 1800's there was even the Hartford Convention in which New England states decided that any individual state or group of states had the right to secede from the Union if it/they felt coerced by other states.
Later during the Civil War, Virginia<the crown of the Confederacy where argueably 80%-90% of the South's war resources were made>the state did not secede until AFTER Ft. Sumpter, BECAUSE it was deemed unconstitutional for the troops of one state or a group of states to cross its border for the purpose of coercing another state.
What is important to understand - is that the right to bear arms, whether one was North or South, was not determined by the edicts of the state or federal governments. The states did not advocate or attempt to remove one's right to bear arms so as to give power to the militias. It was just the oppoosite : the militias were given power by the peoples' right to bear arms - by the 2nd Amendment. The militias draw their power - whether for good or bad - from the rights of the people to bear arms. To cut off people from being able to bear arms - is to leave them at the mercey of a tyrannical government.
Stagger Lee
New member
Negative. You have representation. You get the same vote as anyone else, you have a congressman and two senators that you can contact if you have concerns or issues that you need help with, and you have the same ability to run for office as anyone else. You also have full access to the courts. The mere fact that your preferred political party doesn't have any legislators does not mean that you as an individual citizen are shut out from the system. There is also nothing stopping you from participating in one of the real political parties if you choose to and making a difference at the primary level. The only thing restricting you at this time appears to be your own choices.
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
So the founding fathers really didn't care how the militias were used good or evil? All they cared about was whether or not they were armed?
Take a look at this clip I posted earlier, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRYR4bV317gthe guy speaking is anti-gun and liberal but don't get hung up in that like others and listen to what he says about the "rural myth" of the Militia and tell me what you think. I think the militia was meant to protect the state not overthrow it.What is the purpose of the militia? The Constitution says it is "to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions."
Are you saying that the Second Amendment might somehow provide individuals the right to mount an armed insurrection against the very law and order that the militia was designed to defend? Doesn't make much sense to say the Second Amendment guarantees the right to treason.
Last edited:
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
I didn't know that Scalia referenced that quote from Kozinski as law. Did he?
TG, since you have not acknowledged Gura's response to your original question, I assume you heard it and are avoiding it intentionally.
No, it doesn't. Those are the purposes for which the Congress is empowered to "call forth" the pre-existing militia. Why didn't you quote the entire sentence?
TG, was that an honest error, or did you intend deceit?
Tennessee Gentleman said:
No, it doesn't. Those are the purposes for which the Congress is empowered to "call forth" the pre-existing militia. Why didn't you quote the entire sentence?
TG, was that an honest error, or did you intend deceit?
Tennessee Gentleman
New member
On the point of individual vs collective RTKBA I agree. Not the point of the thread though.
Perhaps some cannot, But I can.
History has this very funny habit of repeating itself. To say it will never happen is to ignore what has gone on in the past. Since the past is the only reliable indicator of the future, it is wise not to ignore it.
"Constant Suspicious, Eternal Vigilance." It is the price of Liberty (paraphrasing Jeremy Bentham).
Oh, and Kozinski's dissent was referenced by Scalia. Albeit in dicta.
CGSteve8718
New member
In reference to the comment on involvement, participation, representation, and confidence in the system (since that poster won't speak to me):
1) I have been ignored by my representatives every time I contacted them. If you are lucky to get an email response, it will most likely be a pre written form response that tells you nothing, and leaves you wanting.
2) We have the "choice" of only two "real" political parties to make a difference with, in which case, more often than not, the offerings from both parties end up being a lesser of the two kind of thing.
3) Regarding access to info and assitance: Ever try callin the IRS for info?
4) I have received a letter from Defense Finance out of Kansas City stating that I own the Dept. of Defense money for getting paid for drills, when they said I was not at drill for the reserves, when in fact the time periods listed I was on active duty serving in Iraq.
Yup, it is definitely my own "choices" that is restricting my participation, and confidence...
A minor start would have been for the Sec. of Defense to personally sign notice of death certificates of KIA servicemen right from the get go. That would be a minor start.
Before I get lumped into a category again, nowhere did I say that I advocate the immediate violent overthrow of the system.
1) I have been ignored by my representatives every time I contacted them. If you are lucky to get an email response, it will most likely be a pre written form response that tells you nothing, and leaves you wanting.
2) We have the "choice" of only two "real" political parties to make a difference with, in which case, more often than not, the offerings from both parties end up being a lesser of the two kind of thing.
3) Regarding access to info and assitance: Ever try callin the IRS for info?
4) I have received a letter from Defense Finance out of Kansas City stating that I own the Dept. of Defense money for getting paid for drills, when they said I was not at drill for the reserves, when in fact the time periods listed I was on active duty serving in Iraq.
Yup, it is definitely my own "choices" that is restricting my participation, and confidence...
A minor start would have been for the Sec. of Defense to personally sign notice of death certificates of KIA servicemen right from the get go. That would be a minor start.
Before I get lumped into a category again, nowhere did I say that I advocate the immediate violent overthrow of the system.
The 2nd amend. doesn't give the right to commit treason, but it does give the right to bear arms against treason - and a tyrannical government is perhaps the epitome of treason against the natural rights of the people. The 2nd amend. mentions a 'well-regulated' militia; it does not say a 'standing army.'
The definition of 'militia' is multifaceted, and I do believe the founders were aware of its multifaceted nature ie. careful not to tip the scale too far in the direction of the government or too far to the people. Part of this is the result of the right to bear arms having a history in English Common Law and being abused in the days of the American Revolution by the British.
The Brits. tried early in the Revolution to confiscate weapons from the People in the colonies so as to stop the American Revolution. The 2nd Amend.obviously did not want the govt. to be able go down that road again as a means of allowing an army to become a standing army that occupies homes and takes away weapons... The other aspect of the 'militia' and the 'right to bear arms' goes back at least to the 1600's in English Law...and into medieval history when all men were required to bear arms so as to form a militia and police their communities. However the right to bear arms in England became watered down as it was abused by the British Royals.
For example, the Protestants were at one point denied in England the right to bear arms by the Catholics/King James. Those rights were later restored, but it involved much unrest and bloodshed. Also there was discrimination in England in the Game Laws where noblemen in essence by proxy forbade commoners from bearing arms unless they paid exhorbant fees. The American founders did not want to repeat these problems, and it should be obvious that the 2nd Amend.was meant to allow all the people to bear arms - not collectively, but as individuals. The Heller decision has had to recognize this individual right of self defense. The Heller decision is thus important in that it had to address the 'individual right' as well as the 'collective right' to bear arms.
Does the 2nd Amend.support the right of insurrectionists? The 2nd Amend. is tricky - and I believe deliberatly so - in its use of the words 'well-regulated militia' because afterall the founders were insurrectionists when they rebelled against English Law, and in English Law there was a Right to Bear Arms.
What should really disturb and cause the typical U.S.antigunner to gnash his/her teeth - is that the main distinction between the British Right and the American Right - is that the Americans wanted INDIVIDIUALS TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS because the BRITISH had abused that right by over-controlling guns by making them a mere collective right.
John Adams defended folks partly in the Boston Massacre by argueing that
individulas had the right to bear arms - that it was their individual right to self-defense. The Redcoats were trying to enforce 'gun-control' against individuals. The Redcoats were in essence trying to say that gun ownership was more of a 'collective right.' One might say that today the Redcoats are at it again - but that the Heller decision gave'em a nice come-uppance.
Sure you have the right to individually bear arms. If your well-regulated militia is in rebellion against the government, it won't be treason if you win! LOL . If it's treason you'd best make the most of it! I do believe the founders - at least some of them - were aware of that ambiguity.
The definition of 'militia' is multifaceted, and I do believe the founders were aware of its multifaceted nature ie. careful not to tip the scale too far in the direction of the government or too far to the people. Part of this is the result of the right to bear arms having a history in English Common Law and being abused in the days of the American Revolution by the British.
The Brits. tried early in the Revolution to confiscate weapons from the People in the colonies so as to stop the American Revolution. The 2nd Amend.obviously did not want the govt. to be able go down that road again as a means of allowing an army to become a standing army that occupies homes and takes away weapons... The other aspect of the 'militia' and the 'right to bear arms' goes back at least to the 1600's in English Law...and into medieval history when all men were required to bear arms so as to form a militia and police their communities. However the right to bear arms in England became watered down as it was abused by the British Royals.
For example, the Protestants were at one point denied in England the right to bear arms by the Catholics/King James. Those rights were later restored, but it involved much unrest and bloodshed. Also there was discrimination in England in the Game Laws where noblemen in essence by proxy forbade commoners from bearing arms unless they paid exhorbant fees. The American founders did not want to repeat these problems, and it should be obvious that the 2nd Amend.was meant to allow all the people to bear arms - not collectively, but as individuals. The Heller decision has had to recognize this individual right of self defense. The Heller decision is thus important in that it had to address the 'individual right' as well as the 'collective right' to bear arms.
Does the 2nd Amend.support the right of insurrectionists? The 2nd Amend. is tricky - and I believe deliberatly so - in its use of the words 'well-regulated militia' because afterall the founders were insurrectionists when they rebelled against English Law, and in English Law there was a Right to Bear Arms.
What should really disturb and cause the typical U.S.antigunner to gnash his/her teeth - is that the main distinction between the British Right and the American Right - is that the Americans wanted INDIVIDIUALS TO HAVE THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS because the BRITISH had abused that right by over-controlling guns by making them a mere collective right.
John Adams defended folks partly in the Boston Massacre by argueing that
individulas had the right to bear arms - that it was their individual right to self-defense. The Redcoats were trying to enforce 'gun-control' against individuals. The Redcoats were in essence trying to say that gun ownership was more of a 'collective right.' One might say that today the Redcoats are at it again - but that the Heller decision gave'em a nice come-uppance.
Sure you have the right to individually bear arms. If your well-regulated militia is in rebellion against the government, it won't be treason if you win! LOL . If it's treason you'd best make the most of it! I do believe the founders - at least some of them - were aware of that ambiguity.
- Status