SevenRoundMags
New member
Whatever happened to this part of the 2A?
Did LEO's basically replace armed militias?
Help me understand the first part of the 2nd amendment
- Thread starter SevenRoundMags
- Start date
Whatever happened to this part of the 2A?
Did LEO's basically replace armed militias?
This should help---from Hoboes.com
But beyond all the statistics, there is a very strong liberal argument against gun control that is irrefutable: an America with gun control will jettison all of its liberal leanings. If the Second amendment goes, the Fourth, Eighth, Fifth, Sixth, and First will not be far behind.
There are three arguments against the Second amendment as an individual right. The most ridiculous is that the reason (“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”) somehow invalidates the right itself (“the right of the people”). That the “militia” is not “the people”, or that the militia is not necessary. But that is a dangerous argument to take. I’ve even had one dyslexic claim that “The 2nd amendment says a ‘well-regulated militia’ has the right to bear arms. This is the national guard or the army-not private citizens!” No, the second amendment states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It states that the right to own and carry weapons, however, belongs to the people. Sometimes I think that these folks have a “wishful thinking” reading disability, reading “A well-regulated people, being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the army to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Second amendment states clearly and forcefully that a well-regulated militia is necessary. Therefore, it says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can argue that the need doesn’t exist; you can argue that this is the wrong way to meet that need. But to argue that the right of the people is not a right of the people is a good way to lose the rights of the people listed in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments as well.
The most insidious is that, since there is no need for a well-regulated militia any longer, the Second amendment can simply be ignored. But the Second does not say “For as long as a well regulated militia is necessary”. If there is to be no “right of the people”, that amendment has to be repealed. And then, to satisfy the ninth and tenth amendments, a new amendment has to be added, allowing infringement on this right of the people. This idea that the government can simply ignore the constitution because it is outdated is a dangerous one to allow. Governments don’t stop when you start letting them do things like that.
But that gets us to the most illiberal solution to “the gun problem”: that the Second amendment should in fact be repealed. The argument goes that the National Guard now fulfills the need that the militia once filled. There is no need for a militia to guard the borders of the country, so the Second amendment should be repealed.
That interpretation is only half of the militia’s duty, however. The National Guard (along with the Navy, Army, and Air Force) are responsible for external security: guarding the United States from invasion. But the militia was also responsible for internal security. Just as there was no long-term standing army in the early days of the United States (and the Second amendment was meant to keep that from happening), there was also no police force. If there was a murderer on the loose, it was members of the militia who brought the murderer to trial. If a highwayman attempted to rob an individual, he was attempting to rob a member of the militia, and it was the victim’s responsibility to fight back.
Nowadays, the police, the FBI, and numerous other three-letter-initials track down murderers and rapists and burglars and highwaymen. Does this fulfill the reason for the Second amendment?
No, it does not: the Second amendment does not state “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state.” The Second amendment says “the security of a free state”.
Our police forces, our FBI, and our prosecutors, are severely hampered by the constitution. Our system is designed to keep from accidentally (or intentionally) subjecting the innocent to search, arrest, trial, and punishment. Our criminal justice system is designed around a populace that takes responsibility for its own defense. The courts only intervene if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the specific crime in question. The police are neither required nor charged with defending individuals from violence. Their job is to pick up the pieces after crime occurs. The courts are not allowed to find someone guilty just because they “might commit a crime in the future”. Anything else requires more police power than the constitution currently allows the police and courts to wield.
There is one person who is guaranteed to be present at every violent crime: the victim. If that victim is a citizen, they are also a member of the militia. The militia may no longer be needed to track murderers from farm to farm, but the militia is the only responsible party guaranteed to be present at every violent crime. Our criminal justice system currently assumes that the victim is responsible for their own defense. Courts can maintain the presumption of innocence; police have no need to trump up charges or beat out confessions or arrest for no reason; only so long as individuals are allowed and encouraged to defend themselves.
To that extent which individuals are discouraged from taking responsibility for their own defense, or denied the right to do so, we will see the public demand that police be given more power to defend them instead. Three strikes laws are a direct response to this. It should be no surprise that one of the most liberal states, California, was one of the first to pass a three strikes law. California is one of the few states not to have non-discretionary concealed carry. In California, self-defense is not a valid reason to carry a firearm. So the people, over the cries of liberals, demanded more police power from the criminal justice system. New York’s “over-zealous” police--and the public acceptance of their abusive behavior--is part and parcel of the police’s new-found responsibility to cause fear in the criminal mind. Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima probably didn’t realize it, but their beatings and shooting were a direct result of New York’s gun control.
How does New York in general feel about it? Practically nobody except a few movie stars are protesting: “There’s only a couple hundred people over there. That’s not how a majority of the city feels,” said one Brooklyn officer. “People in the city feel we’re doing a fine job. Crime’s lower. They feel safer.” Listen to what he said: not “The people of this city feel we’re doing a fine job. They know the accusations aren’t true.” No. The people know what’s going on, but “they feel safer.” They no longer have responsibility for their own safety; when a third party (the police) is responsible, drastic measures are necessary. The police cannot be there when any particular citizen is attacked, so the police have to be “proactive”. That’s a nine-letter word for “police state”.
Take away the Second amendment completely, and three strikes will become two strikes and then one strike. The Fourth amendment will go first (as it is already disappearing), as we make it easier for police to search, arrest, and seize based on flimsier and flimsier suspicions. The Sixth amendment will go, as it becomes more important to keep undesirables in jail than it is to actually worry about a trial. The Eighth amendment will go, as we put people in jail for life for lesser and lesser crimes, just to make sure they don’t get out and commit more crimes. The First amendment will go, because it is difficult for the police to tell a peaceful assembly from one that will someday not be peaceful, and freedom of speech is too dangerous because it allows criminals to conspire!
You can already see all of these happening now. We already have a Democrat president who supports curfews, house-to-house searches, and random wiretaps on telephones and electronic mail, and encourages his Justice Department to find ways around the constitutional prohibitions against these. Organizations such as the ACLU try to fight these, but the ACLU is successful only because most people do not care about civil rights one way or the other. Require these people to rely on law enforcement for their defense, and they will begin to care: they will oppose civil rights, because civil rights get in the way of someone else defending them.
Today, our criminal justice system is designed around the presumption of innocence, that it is better to free the guilty often, than to arrest and jail the innocent. We can do this because individuals are assumed to be responsible for defending themselves against the guilty who go free. Take away individual responsibility for self-defense, and our criminal justice system will change: we will decide that it is better to jail the innocent than to let a single criminal go free.
Any armed force can defend the security of a police state. The Second amendment’s desire for a free state can only succeed if citizens are allowed to take responsibility for their own defense. The presumption of innocence and all of our other cherished freedoms cannot survive otherwise
But beyond all the statistics, there is a very strong liberal argument against gun control that is irrefutable: an America with gun control will jettison all of its liberal leanings. If the Second amendment goes, the Fourth, Eighth, Fifth, Sixth, and First will not be far behind.
There are three arguments against the Second amendment as an individual right. The most ridiculous is that the reason (“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”) somehow invalidates the right itself (“the right of the people”). That the “militia” is not “the people”, or that the militia is not necessary. But that is a dangerous argument to take. I’ve even had one dyslexic claim that “The 2nd amendment says a ‘well-regulated militia’ has the right to bear arms. This is the national guard or the army-not private citizens!” No, the second amendment states that a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state. It states that the right to own and carry weapons, however, belongs to the people. Sometimes I think that these folks have a “wishful thinking” reading disability, reading “A well-regulated people, being necessary to the security of the state, the right of the army to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
The Second amendment states clearly and forcefully that a well-regulated militia is necessary. Therefore, it says, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You can argue that the need doesn’t exist; you can argue that this is the wrong way to meet that need. But to argue that the right of the people is not a right of the people is a good way to lose the rights of the people listed in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth amendments as well.
The most insidious is that, since there is no need for a well-regulated militia any longer, the Second amendment can simply be ignored. But the Second does not say “For as long as a well regulated militia is necessary”. If there is to be no “right of the people”, that amendment has to be repealed. And then, to satisfy the ninth and tenth amendments, a new amendment has to be added, allowing infringement on this right of the people. This idea that the government can simply ignore the constitution because it is outdated is a dangerous one to allow. Governments don’t stop when you start letting them do things like that.
But that gets us to the most illiberal solution to “the gun problem”: that the Second amendment should in fact be repealed. The argument goes that the National Guard now fulfills the need that the militia once filled. There is no need for a militia to guard the borders of the country, so the Second amendment should be repealed.
That interpretation is only half of the militia’s duty, however. The National Guard (along with the Navy, Army, and Air Force) are responsible for external security: guarding the United States from invasion. But the militia was also responsible for internal security. Just as there was no long-term standing army in the early days of the United States (and the Second amendment was meant to keep that from happening), there was also no police force. If there was a murderer on the loose, it was members of the militia who brought the murderer to trial. If a highwayman attempted to rob an individual, he was attempting to rob a member of the militia, and it was the victim’s responsibility to fight back.
Nowadays, the police, the FBI, and numerous other three-letter-initials track down murderers and rapists and burglars and highwaymen. Does this fulfill the reason for the Second amendment?
No, it does not: the Second amendment does not state “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of the state.” The Second amendment says “the security of a free state”.
Our police forces, our FBI, and our prosecutors, are severely hampered by the constitution. Our system is designed to keep from accidentally (or intentionally) subjecting the innocent to search, arrest, trial, and punishment. Our criminal justice system is designed around a populace that takes responsibility for its own defense. The courts only intervene if it is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the specific crime in question. The police are neither required nor charged with defending individuals from violence. Their job is to pick up the pieces after crime occurs. The courts are not allowed to find someone guilty just because they “might commit a crime in the future”. Anything else requires more police power than the constitution currently allows the police and courts to wield.
There is one person who is guaranteed to be present at every violent crime: the victim. If that victim is a citizen, they are also a member of the militia. The militia may no longer be needed to track murderers from farm to farm, but the militia is the only responsible party guaranteed to be present at every violent crime. Our criminal justice system currently assumes that the victim is responsible for their own defense. Courts can maintain the presumption of innocence; police have no need to trump up charges or beat out confessions or arrest for no reason; only so long as individuals are allowed and encouraged to defend themselves.
To that extent which individuals are discouraged from taking responsibility for their own defense, or denied the right to do so, we will see the public demand that police be given more power to defend them instead. Three strikes laws are a direct response to this. It should be no surprise that one of the most liberal states, California, was one of the first to pass a three strikes law. California is one of the few states not to have non-discretionary concealed carry. In California, self-defense is not a valid reason to carry a firearm. So the people, over the cries of liberals, demanded more police power from the criminal justice system. New York’s “over-zealous” police--and the public acceptance of their abusive behavior--is part and parcel of the police’s new-found responsibility to cause fear in the criminal mind. Amadou Diallo and Abner Louima probably didn’t realize it, but their beatings and shooting were a direct result of New York’s gun control.
How does New York in general feel about it? Practically nobody except a few movie stars are protesting: “There’s only a couple hundred people over there. That’s not how a majority of the city feels,” said one Brooklyn officer. “People in the city feel we’re doing a fine job. Crime’s lower. They feel safer.” Listen to what he said: not “The people of this city feel we’re doing a fine job. They know the accusations aren’t true.” No. The people know what’s going on, but “they feel safer.” They no longer have responsibility for their own safety; when a third party (the police) is responsible, drastic measures are necessary. The police cannot be there when any particular citizen is attacked, so the police have to be “proactive”. That’s a nine-letter word for “police state”.
Take away the Second amendment completely, and three strikes will become two strikes and then one strike. The Fourth amendment will go first (as it is already disappearing), as we make it easier for police to search, arrest, and seize based on flimsier and flimsier suspicions. The Sixth amendment will go, as it becomes more important to keep undesirables in jail than it is to actually worry about a trial. The Eighth amendment will go, as we put people in jail for life for lesser and lesser crimes, just to make sure they don’t get out and commit more crimes. The First amendment will go, because it is difficult for the police to tell a peaceful assembly from one that will someday not be peaceful, and freedom of speech is too dangerous because it allows criminals to conspire!
You can already see all of these happening now. We already have a Democrat president who supports curfews, house-to-house searches, and random wiretaps on telephones and electronic mail, and encourages his Justice Department to find ways around the constitutional prohibitions against these. Organizations such as the ACLU try to fight these, but the ACLU is successful only because most people do not care about civil rights one way or the other. Require these people to rely on law enforcement for their defense, and they will begin to care: they will oppose civil rights, because civil rights get in the way of someone else defending them.
Today, our criminal justice system is designed around the presumption of innocence, that it is better to free the guilty often, than to arrest and jail the innocent. We can do this because individuals are assumed to be responsible for defending themselves against the guilty who go free. Take away individual responsibility for self-defense, and our criminal justice system will change: we will decide that it is better to jail the innocent than to let a single criminal go free.
Any armed force can defend the security of a police state. The Second amendment’s desire for a free state can only succeed if citizens are allowed to take responsibility for their own defense. The presumption of innocence and all of our other cherished freedoms cannot survive otherwise
SevenRoundMags
New member
yeah, thanks for the long reply.
At only 15 years old, I have come to the realization that a country/empire/whatever MUST have revolutions/rebellions periodically; It is almost a thing of nature. Things must change when they get out of hand. Fear not previous generations; there are people of this ignorant generation who will get the job done.
At only 15 years old, I have come to the realization that a country/empire/whatever MUST have revolutions/rebellions periodically; It is almost a thing of nature. Things must change when they get out of hand. Fear not previous generations; there are people of this ignorant generation who will get the job done.
There are many types of militias.
There are organized, professional militias. There are private versions (I'd say that Blackwater's for-hire services fit this category; warlords' armies in some countries certainly do). There are public versions -- the military and national guard, maybe even the BATFE/FBI/SS/USMS.
There are organized, volunteer militias (various unofficial groups like the Michigan Militia probably fit here).
There's the "official" definition of the unorganized militia, in the U.S. code: males age 17-45 in good health, plus members of the NG/military over 45, plus females who are in the NG/military... IIRC.
There's the common sense definition of unorganized militia: anyone who knows how to fight, is old enough to use weapons responsibly, isn't certifiably insane (those people should be in a psych ward), and isn't in jail or prison.
The writings of the founders strongly suggest that their idea of the word "militia", in the 2nd amendment and in various state constitutions, was the common sense unorganized militia. There was no national guard, so it can't be only the national guard. The military was seen as an agent of the highest government (federal government in our case), which is one of the classic enemies of the people. The founders certainly didn't mean that a professional military was necessary to the security of a free state. Nor was the militia constrained to police. The founders couldn't possibly believe that sheriffs and their deputies could alone protect the country.
What remains is that the militia is some subset of the people at large, and it includes some people who are not in either the national guard, the police force, or the military. It pretty obviously has to include most adults, because it has to include some of them and there's no good reason to exclude most of them. There's a lot of debate around the edges -- ex-cons, people who should be in psych wards but aren't, that sort of thing. But when we have towns like Morton Grove and San Francisco passing blanket bans on categories of guns, those edges are irrelevant.
There are organized, professional militias. There are private versions (I'd say that Blackwater's for-hire services fit this category; warlords' armies in some countries certainly do). There are public versions -- the military and national guard, maybe even the BATFE/FBI/SS/USMS.
There are organized, volunteer militias (various unofficial groups like the Michigan Militia probably fit here).
There's the "official" definition of the unorganized militia, in the U.S. code: males age 17-45 in good health, plus members of the NG/military over 45, plus females who are in the NG/military... IIRC.
There's the common sense definition of unorganized militia: anyone who knows how to fight, is old enough to use weapons responsibly, isn't certifiably insane (those people should be in a psych ward), and isn't in jail or prison.
The writings of the founders strongly suggest that their idea of the word "militia", in the 2nd amendment and in various state constitutions, was the common sense unorganized militia. There was no national guard, so it can't be only the national guard. The military was seen as an agent of the highest government (federal government in our case), which is one of the classic enemies of the people. The founders certainly didn't mean that a professional military was necessary to the security of a free state. Nor was the militia constrained to police. The founders couldn't possibly believe that sheriffs and their deputies could alone protect the country.
What remains is that the militia is some subset of the people at large, and it includes some people who are not in either the national guard, the police force, or the military. It pretty obviously has to include most adults, because it has to include some of them and there's no good reason to exclude most of them. There's a lot of debate around the edges -- ex-cons, people who should be in psych wards but aren't, that sort of thing. But when we have towns like Morton Grove and San Francisco passing blanket bans on categories of guns, those edges are irrelevant.
progunner1957
Moderator
Ask the guy who wrote the Second Amendment
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people; to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them." -George Mason
"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people; to disarm the people is the best and most effective way to enslave them." -George Mason
Boss Spearman
New member
And was it not the US Justice Dept that issued a declaration their findings declared the 2nd Amendment to indeed be an individual right?
Democrat president?
Democrat president?
MeekAndMild
New member
Looking at the concept of well regulated militia a little bit deeper please...
In the 1780s the concept of regulation was not the same as our ideas today. Today the t.v. generation seems to accept the idea that a regulation means government micromanagement from distant agencies. That is simply not what the founding fathers meant.
Back during the time of the Revolution the bulk of the continental army was made up of volunteer citizen soldiers who agreed to fight against the British professional soldiers. We didn't have any standing army to speak of.
The weapons of the day were muskets which didn't even have rear sights. Farmers, tinkers and candlemakers who joined together into militias had to learn to shoot together in volley fire, ten or fifty men loading and shooting together at a line of redcoats. One man alone couldn't just sit in a foxhole and pick off Tommies. They all had to work together, using timed, regulated fire. (One can essentially ignore the small groups of riflemen who also participated, as they were a tiny, tiny minority of the army. This is another story entirely.)
So the concept of a regulated militia is not one which is governed by some beaurocratic hornet's nest in DC, but is rather the concept that the people from each township who fought together to defend the country must learn to stand together against British bayonet charges and pour out timed, (regulated) volley fire. Regulation was meant in the sense that clocks were regulated so they could keep proper time.
When the first clause isn't being perverted by those who rationalize the National Guard into a standing army it is otherwise ignored in modern liberal society. What it actually calls for is universal local training in the art of contemporary military tactical training using the defensive military weapon of the day so that individual townships can repel invaders in an effective manner, standing their ground and not running away.
If our society really followed the Constitution there would be a mandatory small arms training and small unit tactics course required for high school graduation and community citizens would be required to turn out for inspection and drill at intervals from the time they graduated to the time they retired.
Why is this important? Well, we can see that a standing army or National guard just happens to be ideal for sending overseas to attack Mexico (1846), Spain (1898), Viet Nam (pre 1975) and Iraq (x2).
But organized community militias, regulated and trained by the local governments of towns and villages, composed of people who really would rather be at work doing their daily business isn't the right sort of tool for carving out foreign empires. Rather it is a strictly defensive army. WOW, what a concept, a defensive army! The FFs were geniuses.
In the 1780s the concept of regulation was not the same as our ideas today. Today the t.v. generation seems to accept the idea that a regulation means government micromanagement from distant agencies. That is simply not what the founding fathers meant.
Back during the time of the Revolution the bulk of the continental army was made up of volunteer citizen soldiers who agreed to fight against the British professional soldiers. We didn't have any standing army to speak of.
The weapons of the day were muskets which didn't even have rear sights. Farmers, tinkers and candlemakers who joined together into militias had to learn to shoot together in volley fire, ten or fifty men loading and shooting together at a line of redcoats. One man alone couldn't just sit in a foxhole and pick off Tommies. They all had to work together, using timed, regulated fire. (One can essentially ignore the small groups of riflemen who also participated, as they were a tiny, tiny minority of the army. This is another story entirely.)
So the concept of a regulated militia is not one which is governed by some beaurocratic hornet's nest in DC, but is rather the concept that the people from each township who fought together to defend the country must learn to stand together against British bayonet charges and pour out timed, (regulated) volley fire. Regulation was meant in the sense that clocks were regulated so they could keep proper time.
When the first clause isn't being perverted by those who rationalize the National Guard into a standing army it is otherwise ignored in modern liberal society. What it actually calls for is universal local training in the art of contemporary military tactical training using the defensive military weapon of the day so that individual townships can repel invaders in an effective manner, standing their ground and not running away.
If our society really followed the Constitution there would be a mandatory small arms training and small unit tactics course required for high school graduation and community citizens would be required to turn out for inspection and drill at intervals from the time they graduated to the time they retired.
Why is this important? Well, we can see that a standing army or National guard just happens to be ideal for sending overseas to attack Mexico (1846), Spain (1898), Viet Nam (pre 1975) and Iraq (x2).
But organized community militias, regulated and trained by the local governments of towns and villages, composed of people who really would rather be at work doing their daily business isn't the right sort of tool for carving out foreign empires. Rather it is a strictly defensive army. WOW, what a concept, a defensive army! The FFs were geniuses.
The idea that "well regulated" has to do something with well regulated musketry is nonsense. George Mason is a direct ancestor of my wife, so this gets talked about at my house, which irritates her. George Mason's granddaughter married Samuel Cooper, who was the Adjutant General of the United States Army and then Adjutant General of the Confederate Army. One of his daughters, if I have this straight, was my wife's great-grandmother. Another great-granmother's father was the last private owner of Mt. Vernon. This is Virginia, after all, even though Sanuel Cooper was from New York.
George Mason's intent, when writing those words, was that there would not be private armies. In other words, the idea was that the militia would be completely under the control of the civilian government. Some private militias have other ideas.
What bothers me even more is that by any standard, I am too old to be defined as part of the militia.
George Mason's intent, when writing those words, was that there would not be private armies. In other words, the idea was that the militia would be completely under the control of the civilian government. Some private militias have other ideas.
What bothers me even more is that by any standard, I am too old to be defined as part of the militia.
Hugh Damright
New member
A State is a collective of people under one government, and a "free State" is a collective of people under free government. In a free government, the collective or majority are the sovereign and ultimate authority. That is why the Founders said that all men are created equal. In a monarchy the King is sovereign, but in a free State all men are equal so the majority is sovereign.
In a free State, if only a minority were armed, then that minority might take over and that would be the end of free government. So it is necessary to the security of a free State that the general population be armed, that instead of a standing army the collective self-defense should consist of the people, trained to arms, and organized into well regulated militia.
The Civil War was an attack on free States. Most people today don't believe in free States. They don't believe in nullification or secession. What would be the point of Virginia having a well regulated militia as a check on the US without nullification or secession? What would we do with our militia to check the US?
I think the question is not "what happened to the well regulated militia", but rather "what happened to the free States".
The 2nd Amendment:
Does anyone want to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes ... ?
That's basically what you're doing when you argue that the 2A applies only to militia members.
pax
The grammar sounds a little convoluted to modern ears, but if you put other terms into the critical spots, the structure of the sentence becomes more clear.
Does anyone want to argue that this statement says that only pepperoni pizzas can keep and cook tomatoes ... ?
That's basically what you're doing when you argue that the 2A applies only to militia members.
pax
You all realize that both the Declaration of Independance and the Constitution were written by liberals, perhaps even radicals. However, not long after the adoption of the constitution, but after Washington left office, some politicians became very suspicious of the behaviour of the general population. There were movements to declare any criticism of the government to be treason. In other words, a lot of the early idealism quickly wore off. Jefferson, by the way, was out of the country during this period, and retained his idealism.
Jefferson's carry pistols are on display at Charlottesville, if you are every down that way.
Jefferson's carry pistols are on display at Charlottesville, if you are every down that way.
Boss Spearman
New member
It's odd that "the people" pertains to individuals throughout the Bill of Rights, yet the liberals claim it pertains to a militia and not individuals in the 2 A only.
SevenRoundMags
New member
I hope one day that I, among many others, can help create a <Insert State Name> People's Militia to replace the National Guard. I don't like this idea of a government controlled "guard" when the SHTF.
Martin Luther
New member
The Swiss Militia
Control over the US Armed Forces became very centralized in the 20th century. Some state constitutions (Virginia's included) state that standing armies in peacetime are dangerous to liberty, thus stating a need for an armed populace which comprises the state's militia. Even when the antis bring up part 1 of the 2nd Amendment, reminding them that "keep and bear" doesn't mean locked up in an armory always stops them short.
And as Hurrican Katrina showed, reliance on the central goverment's military was sheer folley.
From Wikipedia's "Military of Switzerland":
Handgun crime is also very low, since Cantons (states) tend to have either Vermont-like laws or "shall-issue" permits.
Control over the US Armed Forces became very centralized in the 20th century. Some state constitutions (Virginia's included) state that standing armies in peacetime are dangerous to liberty, thus stating a need for an armed populace which comprises the state's militia. Even when the antis bring up part 1 of the 2nd Amendment, reminding them that "keep and bear" doesn't mean locked up in an armory always stops them short.
And as Hurrican Katrina showed, reliance on the central goverment's military was sheer folley.
From Wikipedia's "Military of Switzerland":
Handgun crime is also very low, since Cantons (states) tend to have either Vermont-like laws or "shall-issue" permits.
MeekAndMild
New member
BlueTrain, begging your pardon, but the states which ratified the Constitution probably weren't party to Mason's internal dialogs. Instead they probably agreed with prevalant meanings of the word.
Not meaning to dispute your family history, but during the time of the Revolution armies were expected to march, line up, turn and shoot to the tune of music as played on fifes and drums and sung in the ranks. People knew what regulated timing meant.
Some years ago I took the liberty to borrow a copy of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, which was when I gained the sense of just how important was the definition which I described.
Not meaning to dispute your family history, but during the time of the Revolution armies were expected to march, line up, turn and shoot to the tune of music as played on fifes and drums and sung in the ranks. People knew what regulated timing meant.
Some years ago I took the liberty to borrow a copy of Samuel Johnson's dictionary, which was when I gained the sense of just how important was the definition which I described.
Hugh Damright
New member
I think there is also a point to be made that the Second Amendment concerns the idea that the military must be subordinate to the Civil power ... for instance, when the action in Iraq was being considered, it seemed like at one point the media was confused whether the military was controlled by George Bush or by Tony Blair, yet the States delegated the war power to Congress ... so I thought the Second Amendment was in jeopardy:
Following are a couple of definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
REGULATED - Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
MILITIA - The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.
Following are a couple of definitions from Webster's 1828 Dictionary:
REGULATED - Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
MILITIA - The body of soldiers in a state enrolled for discipline, but not engaged in actual service except in emergencies; as distinguished from regular troops, whose sole occupation is war or military service. The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into companies, regiments and brigades,with officers of all grades, and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations.