Does the Well-Regulated Militia exist as a bulwark against a tyrannical government?

[Stagger Lee]

So, which do you think would have affected Nazi rule more, Jews with guns, or Jews appealing to their elected Nazi "representatives?"

Who gives a rat's behind about Nazis? This isn't 1940's Germany and there's no comparison between that government and ours today. I swear some of you invoke the "Nazi" tag more often than the anarchist protesters do. When I see that term used in any discussion about our country today, I can only assume that the poster has lost the actual argument and fallen back on that term as a last resort, hoping to win by painting our government as Nazis for the sole reason that everyone opposes Nazis.

 

[zukiphile]

So, which do you think would have affected Nazi rule more, Jews with guns, or Jews appealing to their elected Nazi "representatives?"

Who gives a rat's behind about Nazis? This isn't 1940's Germany and there's no comparison between that government and ours today. I swear some of you invoke the "Nazi" tag more often than the anarchist protesters do. When I see that term used in any discussion about our country today, I can only assume that the poster has lost the actual argument and fallen back on that term as a last resort, hoping to win by painting our government as Nazis for the sole reason that everyone opposes Nazis.

Godwinning is a real phenomenon, but the point here is perhaps dismissed unfairly.

The issue is whether an armed population is a deterrent to tyranny.

TG, makes an argument that expresses a preference for dealing with tyranny by means of other civil liberties and institutions such as the vote and free press.

However, one of the characteristics of tyrants is their less than fastidious care of the civil liberties and institutions suggested. Urging people whose putative opponent doesn't care about civil institutions to reject the use of arms completely disarms those people, even in the figurative sense, and abandons them to the slim mercy of the tyrant.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

So, which do you think would have affected Nazi rule more, Jews with guns, or Jews appealing to their elected Nazi "representatives?"

Historically speaking the Jews would be dead no matter what in 1930s Germany which the US is not today nor has it ever been. No amount of weapons would have saved them from their fate.

Stagger Lee is right to criticize those who use Nazi Germany as a canard to frighten people today about our current state of civil liberties. Stalin is used also.

This shows a very poor understanding of history and in particular the histories of Germany and Russia which had no real experience with democracy ever. The fledgling ones they did have like Kerensky and the Duma in 1917 and the Weimar Republic in the 1920s were so weak that NO civil liberties or democratic institutions were extant.

That is the great thing about our government and Constitution. The great experiment is still going strong after 200 years.

Maybe banana republics need armed unorganized militias but we don't. Well-regulated when needed, if ever, maybe; but not the mob with guns philosophy I read about on here a lot.

Come to think of it there were several of the type militias you continually bring up operating in Somalia. Some of my buddies saw those up close and personal in 1993. How's that been going?

 

[Stagger Lee]

Come to think of it there were several of the type militias you continually bring up operating in Somalia. Some of my buddies saw those up close and personal in 1993. How's that been going?

And there's the difference between a real well-regulated militia that is formed, drilled, and called up by the village or town leaders, and "Billy Joe Bob's militia", comprised of a couple dozen good ol boys who answer to no authority, save possibly Billy Joe Bob. The first one is an extension of the people's power such as existed prior to the Revolution, the other is just a street gang.

 

[obxned]

No, but we sure do need it now!

 

[.300H&H]

The 2nd Amendment is very clear about an individual's right to bear arms, and as has been previously stated the founders' experience with insurrection and english common law - would seem to clearly indicate that they were clear about individuals having the right to bear arms for self-defense. The problem is the term 'well-regulated militia.' The founders were suspicious and cautious in regard to 'standing armies' and the founders were also concerned about one state coercing or warring against another state. The founders didn't say 'standing army' or 'state militia' or 'militias recognized by the federal government.' The founders used the term 'well regulated militia.' Hmmmmm...


Another interesting aspect of the 2nd Amend. is that there are two versions of the document. The only difference between the two are : one has the word People capitalized and one doers not. This might seem to indicate that the founders meant also to further emphasize popular/individual sovereignty as being equal to 'state sovereignty.'


I think folks have the right to join/create a militia, but with the caveat that they also have the right to assemble, so as to build their own space ships to Mars.


The problem with the 2nd Amend. being a kind of Doom's Day provision - is that Doom's Days can be really nasty, and Amendments can be tossed aside or re-translated. One common pro-gun rights slogan I've seen tossed about is the quote of Hilter bragging about gun control in Germany. Yeah, one can point out that ol'Adolf took guns off the streets and imposed gun control, but there's a flip side to that situation. He also gave arms to about 16 million men. His supporters had more guns than they knew what to do with.... The problem is not taking guns away from all the people. The right wing fantasy of a knock at the door and their guns being taken away by a goose-stepping Nancy Pelosi - are misplaced. The problem is that guns are taken away from the small minority that opposes the regime as the lemmings that support the regime are allowed to live in a kind of uniformed, police state,gun toting paradise.


As perverse as this might sound - the 2nd Amend.'s saving power is sustained by the unwashed, toothless, looney, neighbor legally being allowed to buy a gun. The moment the 2nd Amend. is denied to anyone who is not of a certain group, class, ethnicity - that's when trouble starts and tyranny gains a foothold. The danger of background checks and a prying into mental health records and felony/misdemeanor records - is that they are at best poor predictors of gun violence, and they also open the door to creating a class of people unfairly denied 2nd Amend. Rights. One in 3 Afro-American males could conceivably be denied 2nd Amend Rights based on criminal records.


I don't want convicted armed robbers buying guns, but I also don't want Martha Stewart<a convicted felon> being denied a gun. Perhaps there is a better proactive process - not based so much on 'records' that would allow more responsible gun ownership without unjustly restricting gun ownership.
The VA Tech shooter had no record that would cause him to be detected under the current laws, but he likely would have been detected if in the process of qualifying to buy a gun, he had to attend classes and go before a board of people who would certify his mental health and gun apptitude.


The idea of laying on more restrictions ie. prying into 'outpatient mental health records' - is just adding too much irrelevant bureaucracy. You have to look a person in the eye and get to know them a bit to measure their true competence. Just because a person has never been in therapy doesn't mean they are mentally fit. The problem with the current system is that it is not well-regulated - but too bureaucratic,disorganized and Draconian.


Maybe Switzerland has the best system. I'd like to see everyone allowed a bite at the gun apple, and see guns regulated more like automobiles are regulated. Certain Misdemeanors would ban gun ownership for 3yrs. Felonies would ban gun ownership for 5 years. Certain crimes such as armed robbery and rape - any assault involving a fiream - would be given a lifetime ban. The process of buying a gun would require attendance of classes in gun responsibilities that would last 6mos to 1yr. - and at the end of that period one would be issued a permit that would include a CCW permit. There would be no registration of guns, but only a permit showing you had the right to bear arms and qualified via the stipulations of a well-regulated system.

 

[zukiphile]

The process of buying a gun would require attendance of classes in gun responsibilities that would last 6mos to 1yr. - and at the end of that period one would be issued a permit that would include a CCW permit. There would be no registration of guns, but only a permit showing you had the right to bear arms and qualified via the stipulations of a well-regulated system.

That would be a real problem for someone who needs protection quickly.

 

[USAFNoDak]

.300 H&H posted:

I don't want convicted armed robbers buying guns, but I also don't want Martha Stewart<a convicted felon> being denied a gun. Perhaps there is a better proactive process - not based so much on 'records' that would allow more responsible gun ownership without unjustly restricting gun ownership.

My take on this is that we should have a laundry list of crimes that we as a society deem to be so repulsive that we take away a laundry list of rights from the person who commits such crimes, when that person is tried and convicted of same.

Here's my list of the crimes:
1. Rape
2. armed robbery including car jacking.
3. battery where the victim has to be admitted to a hospital for treatment for physical wounds.
4. Any degree of murder or attempted murder.
5. Hijacking an airplane or other mass transit vehicle through threat of force.
6. bombings
7. Arson where someone is in the dwelling. This risks their life.
8. Child molestation
9. Kidnapping
10. Being so negligent and stupid that it results in the death of someone (aggravated manslaughter).
11. Drunken driving where you have an accident that seriously injures another party, including those in your car or the car you run into.
12. Assault with a deadly weapon.
13. Beating up and/or robbing an elderly person. For women victims, that would be over the age of 55. For male victims that would be over the age of 60.
14. Swindling, or stealing from, any individual or small to medium size business which results in the loss of more than one fourth of their total net worth. This would put many undue hardships on most people and those types of businesses.
15. If any of the above are committed by you as a juvenile, they will transition into your adult criminal record. No clean slate when you turn 18, Bub.


Now, here's the list of rights you lose even after you get out of prison:

1. you will never qualify for any type of tax rebate.
2. any social security benefits you might collect someday will be cut by 50%.
3. You can never own, purchase, or be in the immediate possession of firearms, bow and arrow, knives with blades longer than 3 inches, axes, hatchets, or other items which can be used for dangerous weapons. There will be no background checks or licensing, but if you are caught with any of these weapons, you go back to prison for life at hard labor. The only exception is that in your home, you can have a kitchen type knife with a blade up to 6 inches in length. You best not get caught carrying it outside of your home, however.
4. You can never again vote in any elections, federal, state, or local.
5. You must allow the police to search you or your property at any time for weapons listed above or other contraband.

The only way to get those rights back is to have a completely clean criminal record (parking violations don't count) for 10 years and then go before a 5 judge panel. You must get at least 4 votes to return your rights. Once that happens, you can start your life over again with all of your rights intact. If you don't like this, move to another country. See how they treat you when you commit crimes.

How would we enforce those laws? Good question. This is my pipe dream. I have no illusions that it will ever come to pass. I'm sure anyone can blast a bunch of holes in this. But that's OK, I'll still believe it would be a great thing to cut down on crime while preserving the freedom and safety for the rest of us. By the way, the prison time for any of those crimes, even for a first time offender, would be considerable. At least 5 years with no parole or time off for good behavior. Your behavior is despicable if you commit any of those crimes. You should not be rewarded for behaving as you are expected to in prison. It shouldn't be like high school.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

The 2nd Amendment is very clear about an individual's right to bear arms, and as has been previously stated the founders' experience with insurrection and english common law - would seem to clearly indicate that they were clear about individuals having the right to bear arms for self-defense.

Agreed.

The founders didn't say 'standing army' or 'state militia' or 'militias recognized by the federal government.' The founders used the term 'well regulated militia.'

I think by implication Article One Section 8 makes it a dual deal with the states.

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

The VA Tech shooter had no record that would cause him to be detected under the current laws,

Is that true? I thought he had been involuntarily committed when he previously attempted suicide. However, this is kind of off topic as is the other restrictions you consider.

The moment the 2nd Amend. is denied to anyone who is not of a certain group, class, ethnicity - that's when trouble starts and tyranny gains a foothold.

That is true the moment ANYBODY is denied a constitutional right for unconstituitonal reasons. The question is, will an armed unorganized untrained militia stop that encroachment or will our democratic institutions? I vote the latter and actually believe the militia as it existed in 1790 is no more. Even Justice Scalia spoke to that in Heller when he stated

that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right

I still like the idea of an armed populace because of the right to self-defense against criminals but I believe our "arms for self defense" against our government today live within our democratic institutions.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I still like the idea of an armed populace because of the right to self-defense against criminals but I believe our "arms for self defense" against our government today live within our democratic institutions.

I agree that TODAY this is the case. But life isn't just about when WE are sucking up oxygen on this blue marble in space. We should also be concerned about our offspring and future generations of Americans. What will the future hold for them? Will our democratic institutions hold true to the constitution? Will power brokers begin to get footholds in the name of "change" and "hope"? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

I like the words of one of one our founders regarding how we need to be vigilant regarding our liberties and to treat with jealous attention, anyone who approaches that jewel. The only way to protect that jewel is through force, and if we give up that force we are ruined. I believe that was Patrick Henry who has a famous quote to that effect.

Ben Franklin told us that if we wish to trade our liberties for a little, temporary, security, we deserve and shall likely have neither.

A modern day democrat told us that while it appears that a tyrannical government is a remote possibility today, history shows us that it is always something to be concerned about. The second amendment is one more guarantee against that coming to pass. Who was this modern day democrat? Minnesota's own Hubert H. Humphrey. He was probably one of the last of the more libertarian democratic party leaders on the national stage.

 

[copenhagen]

And there's the difference between a real well-regulated militia that is formed, drilled, and called up by the village or town leaders, and "Billy Joe Bob's militia", comprised of a couple dozen good ol boys who answer to no authority, save possibly Billy Joe Bob. The first one is an extension of the people's power such as existed prior to the Revolution, the other is just a street gang.

And the 2nd ammendment realizes that that "extension of the people's power" can all to easily be perverted to tyranny. It protects "Billy Joe Bob's" right to bear arms so that if tyranny would rear her head, at least "Billy Joe Bob", and all the rest of you and us I might add, will be ARMED.

The way I read the 2nd ammendment, it could be paraphrased as follows:

"Since the the free state has to have a standing army, the people will never be deprived of the right to keep and bear arms that the said standing army employs, keeps, and bears."

It is my opinion, from my humble understanding of history (see my signature for instance), and the English language, that the 2nd ammendment was meant to provide a failsafe against the possibility of the well regulated militia being used for tyranny.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

We should also be concerned about our offspring and future generations of Americans. What will the future hold for them? Will our democratic institutions hold true to the constitution?

No one can say for sure but they have for over 200 years. Civil War, Invasion, bad Presidents and bad congresses.

I am optimistic that they will survive, actually I pray that they will, for if they don't our children face a dark future where as the old quote goes "The living will envy the dead". But not today.

 

[USAFNoDak]

No one can say for sure but they have for over 200 years. Civil War, Invasion, bad Presidents and bad congresses.

How long have other "empires" lasted? I'm sure the Romans thought they were going to exist until eternity. Same with the Ottomon empire, the Japanese empire, and others throughout history. No one knows what can, could, or will happen. As you do, I pray for my children's and my grandchildren's futures. I am not of the opinion TODAY that they will have a bleak future or that our Constitutional Republic will collapse and that tyranny will take over. However, like rust eating away at a car body, there are already bubbles, blisters and even small holes where the body of the car has been eaten away. This gives me cause to worry, even if just a little bit TODAY. What the next few decades brings is anybody's guess. I'll likely be checking in with the big guy upstairs, sometime around then. After that, all I can hope for is that we have left the youngsters and their offspring with enough guidance and the love for liberty so that they will fight to protect it vigorously. They will have to be even more vigilant as New World Order types try to install a universal, one world, government. That is already in the works in my opinion. The UN could be the vehicle through which it is realized one day. Will that end freedom in America? Maybe, maybe not. But it will likely be a drastic change from the amount of freedom we enjoy TODAY. That amount keeps dwindling year by year, decade by decade. Let's hope and pray that there's enough left for our children's children to taste it.

 

[publius42]

The question is, will an armed unorganized untrained militia stop that encroachment or will our democratic institutions? I vote the latter and actually believe the militia as it existed in 1790 is no more. Even Justice Scalia spoke to that in Heller when he stated

Quote:
that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right

Prudence, indeed, will dictate, that governments long established, should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government, and to provide new guards for their future security.

I hope that a long train of abuses and usurpations never again makes revolution look more appealing than any other choice, but still believe the option should not now, nor ever, be taken off the table for all time.

It's funny how different people can read the same thing in opposite ways. You seem to see the quotation from Scalia as saying that modern weaponry has rendered an armed populace irrelevant. I think he's saying modern laws have rendered widespread civilian ownership of M-16's illegal (and those laws are therefore unconstitutional).

 

[Stagger Lee]

One thing that the militia advocates always ignore is the lesson learned about unorganized bands of civilians running around with guns and no supervision during the Civil War. There were many local militia groups formed in places like Arkansas, Tennessee, and other places that were not totally controlled by one side or the other during the conflict. They were originally formed to defend the local communities against "invading" Yankees--supposedly resisting tyranny.

Many of them eventually devolved into freebooting bands of looters and robbers who preyed on everyone equally, including the members of the local community that they'd been formed to safeguard. There are numerous stories of these bushwacker bands being formed to resist the Union army only to eventually wind up robbing the locals and even killing Confederate officers sent to rein them in. Many of them were eventually ridden down and wiped out by the Confederate forces specifically because their lawlessness and tyranny became a greater threat to the local populations than the Union ever was.

I can see that same thing happening with Bob's militia, or Wayne Fincher's, or any other group of armed nutters who think that they have some special authority to just start resisting some undefined tyranny. One day they decide that it's easier to finance their operation by growing and selling drugs, or breaking into the local gun shop to arm themselves better... Who is supposed to defend the decent people when the delusional militia pretenders go off the tracks?

 

[publius42]

Stagger Lee, your concern is well justified. Retaining respect for the rights of civilians would require that the good, upstanding citizens outnumber the thugs in the militias, and the only real thugs to be found are wearing uniforms. We're nowhere near that point. That does not mean such a situation will never arise.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

You seem to see the quotation from Scalia as saying that modern weaponry has rendered an armed populace irrelevant. I think he's saying modern laws have rendered widespread civilian ownership of M-16's illegal (and those laws are therefore unconstitutional).

If what you say is true I think he would have said that. In fact he mentions in the decision

prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons

Alan Gura, and I heard the other day John Lott, have said the machine gun and other military arms restrictions are staying around. I hope so as I have repeated in other threads my feelings on that subject. Also, I don't think he is just talking about M-16s but he mentions bombers and tanks just before the quote I gave. I don't think he is saying those should be unrestricted even though I am sure you would want him to. You ain't gettin' 'em publius I'm sorry

Retaining respect for the rights of civilians would require that the good, upstanding citizens outnumber the thugs in the militias, and the only real thugs to be found are wearing uniforms.

I think the thugs we need to fear are in the kooky crazy militias Stagger Lee mentions that exist today. They are nutty and dangerous and we as gun owners should take care NEVER to mistake them for the militias that helped us win our independence.

 

[USAFNoDak]

I think the thugs we need to fear are in the kooky crazy militias Stagger Lee mentions that exist today. They are nutty and dangerous and we as gun owners should take care NEVER to mistake them for the militias that helped us win our independence.

I agree that we need to keep a watch on those guys, just as we kept a watch on the SLA, the Black Panthers, and other leftist, marxist groups who took up arms back in the 60's. We also need to keep a watch on other leftist communist groups today which resort to violent protests. I've been hearing some stories on some bicyclist groups who are actively protesting what they perceive to be a negligence in recongizing that bicyclists should own the road. They ride in large groups, blocking traffic and have even gotten violent with drivers who have disrupted their protest or gotten in their way.

I don't fear the government that the government is out to get me, and I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat on waiting for radio signals to be transimitted from the mother ship. However, like a healthy fear of fire, a healthy fear of government is not necessarily an indication that one has gone off the deep end. Government is a necessary evil, just like heat (possibly from fire) is required to heat our home in the winter. But it also needs to be contained or it can destroy. History has shown that to be true, even if it's not likely in the USA, at this time.

 

[USAFNoDak]

As we discuss "the militia" or "militias", let's keep in mind that there has been and is a lot of misinformation out there. Some of it is accidental, but some of it is intentional. For if they can tie nutcases to militias, they can make people who even discuss the right to keep and bear arms for defending the country as part of the militia, look to be dangerous extremists.

Here's a case in point.

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/07/militiasuhmalicious-lies.html


a quote from the text:

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/news/s_579637.html



"Oklahoma City Federal Building bomber Timothy McVeigh was linked to a militia. The siege and eventual destruction of David Koresh and the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, Texas, was tied to militia activity."

McVeigh was not "linked to a militia." He was NEVER a member of any constitutional militia. The only militia meeting that I'm aware of that he and Nichols attended, they were asked to leave. McVeigh was linked to a Christian Identity compound in eastern Oklahoma called Elohim City, a place of refuge for neoNazis terrorists such as the Aryan Republican Army bank robbers and the Kehoe brothers racist murderers. McVeigh called Elohim City, if memory serves me correctly, two days before the bombing to talk to a shadowy figure named Andreas Carl Strassmeir, later alleged to be a federal snitch.


That's bad enough. But what crack pipe hallucination were you in when you wrote that the massacre of innocents at Waco had ANYTHING to do with the constitutional militias that sprang up in its aftermath? Waco was an ATF initiated, FBI concluded federal operation against a loony reclusive Christian sect. The militias, those few that existed then, had no part in that federal atrocity.


Talk amongst yourselves. In Judge Andrew Napolitano's new book "Constitutional Chaos" he comes down hard on Janet Reno for what happened at Waco. The Branch Davidians were nuts, but they were not associated with any militia to my knowledge, nor did I ever hear that they claimed to be associated with any militia. They were convinced that the government was coming to get them. On that, they were right.

 

[Tennessee Gentleman]

That's bad enough. But what crack pipe hallucination were you in when you wrote that the massacre of innocents at Waco had ANYTHING to do with the constitutional militias that sprang up in its aftermath?

Here is something that speaks to that. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_movement_(United_States)

They were convinced that the government was coming to get them.

So are some posters on this thread.

I don't sit around with a tinfoil hat on waiting for radio signals to be transimitted from the mother ship.

So that's what those things are for! I missed out on that movement!