I Really Need Help Against Anti's
- Thread starter WETSU
- Start date
- Status
I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
The Militia
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I
trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would
return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had
understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very
quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.
If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if
they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston
The meaning of "militia"
The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the implication of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The
collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully
translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.
When we are alone, we are all militias of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two
component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one's duty and not just
wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
— George Mason (3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426)
The Militia
"The militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, ... all men capable of bearing arms;..."
— "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic", 1788 (either Richard Henry Lee or Melancton Smith).
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords,
and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American ... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but where I
trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the People."
— Tench Coxe, 1788.
"How we burned in the prison camps later thinking: What would things have been like if every police operative, when he went out at night to make an arrest, had been uncertain whether he would
return alive? If during periods of mass arrests people had not simply sat there in their lairs, paling with terror at every bang of the downstairs door and at every step on the staircase, but had
understood they had nothing to lose and had boldly set up in the downstairs hall an ambush of half a dozen people with axes, hammers, pokers, or whatever was at hand? The organs would very
quickly have suffered a shortage of officers and, notwithstanding all of Stalin's thirst, the cursed machine would have ground to a halt."
— Alexander Solzhenitsyn, Nobel Prize winner and author of The Gulag Archipelago, who spent 11 years in Soviet concentration camps.
If we are ready to violate the Constitution, will the people submit to our unauthorized acts? Sir, they ought not to submit; they would deserve the chains that our measures are forging for them, if
they did not resist.
— Edward Livingston
The meaning of "militia"
The word "militia" is a Latin abstract noun, meaning "military service", not an "armed group" (with the implication of plurality), and that is the way the Latin-literate Founders used it. The
collective term, meaning "army" or "soldiery" was "volgus militum". Since for the Romans "military service" included law enforcement and disaster response, it might be more meaningfully
translated today as "defense service", associated with a "defense duty", which attaches to individuals as much as to groups of them, organized or otherwise.
When we are alone, we are all militias of one. When together with others in a situation requiring a defensive response, we have the duty to act together in concert to meet the challenge. Those two
component duties, of individuals to defend the community, and to act together in concert with others present, when combined with a third component duty to prepare to do one's duty and not just
wait until the danger is clear and present, comprises the militia duty.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
All these facts and cites are great and you should know them....however, you need to also fight on your feet and bring it to reality....call 911...15 to 30+ min response time...you are dead, your wife is raped and dead and your kids kidnapped.
You (or survivors) can't sue the police or any gov't agency. You are unarmed and SOL. You'll get 30 secs on the news, clucking tongues and a week's worth of memory. Maybe on TFL someone will post about you in a year in a similar thread in a similar debate.
We have a zillion drug laws....and we have a greater drug problem than 5 years ago> Send in the Gestapo...search everybody at anytime.
There will still be drugs. Ban guns and send in the Gestapo....you don't have a gun but a bad guy will. And you are still dead, your wife raped, and kids gone.......and you can't sue. You are still SOL.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
You (or survivors) can't sue the police or any gov't agency. You are unarmed and SOL. You'll get 30 secs on the news, clucking tongues and a week's worth of memory. Maybe on TFL someone will post about you in a year in a similar thread in a similar debate.
We have a zillion drug laws....and we have a greater drug problem than 5 years ago> Send in the Gestapo...search everybody at anytime.
There will still be drugs. Ban guns and send in the Gestapo....you don't have a gun but a bad guy will. And you are still dead, your wife raped, and kids gone.......and you can't sue. You are still SOL.
------------------
"Quis custodiet ipsos custodes" RKBA!
Current federal law states that all able-bodied male citizens of the US from 17 to 45 years of age who are not serving in the military are members of the militia. The law allows a small handful of exceptions, such as holders of certain political offices and people whose jobs are vital to national security. (Even conscientious objectors are members of the militia. They are required to serve, if called upon to do so, in non-combatant roles.) The US constitution gives the president the authority to call out the militia in times of emergency to enforce the law, put down insurrections and repel invasions. The second amendment states that such a militia is necessary to secure a free state.
From the above, one can conclude that the second amendment guarantees the right of US citizens to keep and bear whatever arms would be useful or necessary to enforce the law, put down insurrections and repel invasions. Not only do we have the right, we have the responsibility to own such arms.
I wouldn't debate the merits of any particular type of armament except, possibly, to point out that such things as nuclear, biological or chemical weapons would not be useful to a militia member while repelling invasions.
------------------
Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked.
Nehemiah 4:17,18
From the above, one can conclude that the second amendment guarantees the right of US citizens to keep and bear whatever arms would be useful or necessary to enforce the law, put down insurrections and repel invasions. Not only do we have the right, we have the responsibility to own such arms.
I wouldn't debate the merits of any particular type of armament except, possibly, to point out that such things as nuclear, biological or chemical weapons would not be useful to a militia member while repelling invasions.
------------------
Those who carried materials did their work with one hand and held a weapon in the other, and each of the builders wore his sword at his side as he worked.
Nehemiah 4:17,18
Jack Straw
New member
I look at this type of question this way: Can a nuke be used to defend oneself? Yes, but it inherently threatens others and therefore it cannot be said that one has the right to use nukes (or biological weapons, or other weapons of mass destruction -- see jimpeel's description of tactical vs. ballistic weapons). So what about bazookas? Can they be used for defense without inherently threatening others? Yep (IMHO)!
The distinction comes at the point where the defender threatens the rights of innocents. Inevitably some anti will try to point out that everyone is threatened by guns, at which point you know you are dealing with an idiot who incapable of rational thought and any further discussion with that individual will be a complete waste of time. Go pour yourself a fresh one and hope that others in the conversation have learned something from you.
Jack
The distinction comes at the point where the defender threatens the rights of innocents. Inevitably some anti will try to point out that everyone is threatened by guns, at which point you know you are dealing with an idiot who incapable of rational thought and any further discussion with that individual will be a complete waste of time. Go pour yourself a fresh one and hope that others in the conversation have learned something from you.
Jack
The Federal Law cited by Sbryce and others is United States Code, Title 10, Chapter 13.
Section 311:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of
age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or
who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of
female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia. [/quote]
The bold-faced type is mine. A good searchable US Code is found at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 11, 2000).]
Section 311:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of
age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or
who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of
female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia. [/quote]
The bold-faced type is mine. A good searchable US Code is found at: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/
LawDog
[This message has been edited by LawDog (edited March 11, 2000).]
Munro Williams
New member
WETSU,
There will come a time when you'll have to say something about how you and your opponent disagree about what constitutes basic reality.
I'm surrounded by antis myself, and once logic enters into the discussion, they usually either have a tantrum or glare in silence.
You must be prepared to realize that many anti-RKBA people, with whom you probably have friendly relations, subsume everything under "feelings."
You'll focus on facts, they'll focus on feelings, and soon you'll be in some pop-psychobabble quandry.
Civility will become strained: They'll say something about how you can't deal with your feelings, you'll say something about how they can't deal with reality.
Good luck.
------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited March 13, 2000).]
There will come a time when you'll have to say something about how you and your opponent disagree about what constitutes basic reality.
I'm surrounded by antis myself, and once logic enters into the discussion, they usually either have a tantrum or glare in silence.
You must be prepared to realize that many anti-RKBA people, with whom you probably have friendly relations, subsume everything under "feelings."
You'll focus on facts, they'll focus on feelings, and soon you'll be in some pop-psychobabble quandry.
Civility will become strained: They'll say something about how you can't deal with your feelings, you'll say something about how they can't deal with reality.
Good luck.
------------------
ALARM! ALARM! CIVILIZATION IS IN PERIL! THE BARBARIANS HAVE TAKEN THE GATES!
[This message has been edited by Munro Williams (edited March 13, 2000).]
I agree with DC, bring it to reality. Ask them why it is that most LEOs make sure their wives no how to use a gun and have one for their wives? It is because LEOs know the police are mostly reactionary. For example if someone is kicking in your door, the local police usually arrive in time to take a report. Everyone needs to be responsible for their own safety. Make sure you use the LA riots as an example.
I feel better knowing when I am working my late night shifts, my wife is at home with my VERY protective German Shepard (the dog gets pissed off when I come home) and a 9 mm that she knows how to use.
I feel better knowing when I am working my late night shifts, my wife is at home with my VERY protective German Shepard (the dog gets pissed off when I come home) and a 9 mm that she knows how to use.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to prevent governmental abuse. Any violent response to abuse of this nature would begin with the employing of guerilla warfare tactics against which nuclear weapons would be utterly useless (the government would end up killing more of its supporters than it would rebels since there is no definitive target at which to launch them). Therefore this eliminates nukes from the arsenal and therefore the private ownership of nuclear weapons cannot be justified since they would not be relevant in a conflict of this nature.
The arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment should be defined as those that provide sufficient fire power as to allow a guerilla unit to win against a superior force given the technology that they would have available to them. Since warfare of this nature involves no front lines, the guerilla unit does not have to be as heavily armed as its opponent which by comparison is large and vulnerable in many places. Destroying supply lines and other acts of sabotage can be done with conventional personal weaponry.
Based upon this, I would suggest that the 2nd Amendment must allow for machine guns and armor piercing devices in order for any guerilla unit to stand a chance even in minimal engagement scenarios.
The arms guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment should be defined as those that provide sufficient fire power as to allow a guerilla unit to win against a superior force given the technology that they would have available to them. Since warfare of this nature involves no front lines, the guerilla unit does not have to be as heavily armed as its opponent which by comparison is large and vulnerable in many places. Destroying supply lines and other acts of sabotage can be done with conventional personal weaponry.
Based upon this, I would suggest that the 2nd Amendment must allow for machine guns and armor piercing devices in order for any guerilla unit to stand a chance even in minimal engagement scenarios.
Here's an update. The TOPIC did come up in a round about way-what with the recent 6 year old shooting incident in Michigan and all. After listening to the hand wringing, nail biting, bed wetting, whining liberals, I was convinced that guns are indeed evil,and I went home and turned then in for a couple of Ricky Martin tickets. I hope they will be melted down to make a "Peace Bell". LOL.
Seriously, it kinda came up, but it was more geared towards absolute fear and misunderstanding by normaly smart people. These folks almost believe that guns just walk around and shoot people.They all have little kids in the house,so safety is a concern. I addressed that. They didn't feel THEY could use a gun, "that's too bad" I told them, and explained. We never got into the hardcore 2nd ammendemnt discussion So, I kept it real, and brought home my arguments to them. I usually win these hands down and Saturday night was no exception. They came away realizing (and they said this) that not all gun owners are monsters, that guns are useful and lawful tools used to defend one's family or self. Firearms are very safe when stored properly and handled with care and respect. If you are a responsible person, and have practiced, and given firearms ownership serious thought, then there should be NO barrier to you having a gun for ANY reason. Horray! Score one for our side!
Seriously, it kinda came up, but it was more geared towards absolute fear and misunderstanding by normaly smart people. These folks almost believe that guns just walk around and shoot people.They all have little kids in the house,so safety is a concern. I addressed that. They didn't feel THEY could use a gun, "that's too bad" I told them, and explained. We never got into the hardcore 2nd ammendemnt discussion So, I kept it real, and brought home my arguments to them. I usually win these hands down and Saturday night was no exception. They came away realizing (and they said this) that not all gun owners are monsters, that guns are useful and lawful tools used to defend one's family or self. Firearms are very safe when stored properly and handled with care and respect. If you are a responsible person, and have practiced, and given firearms ownership serious thought, then there should be NO barrier to you having a gun for ANY reason. Horray! Score one for our side!
Just a devil's advocate note about the militia arguments above. The second amendment is not the only place that mentions "militia". It is also listed in the powers enumerated to congress that the legislature has the authority to pass laws regarding and to "regulate" the national militia as congress sees fit. If you use those arguments about literally interpreting the second ammendment, then gun control advocates could strike back by saying that it was intended at that time in history for the militia to be under the intense regulation and scruteny of the national government. Now-a-days we call that registration. Remember in your arguments that the ENTIRE constitution must be considered. Sometimes if you concentrate a narrow focus on just our second ammendment,you can lose out to a more well read liberal puke.
Re: Arms vs. Nukes
...to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Framers picked their words knowlegeably. Arms refers to rifles, pistols, swords, all the typical implements of a solidier/and citizen. Tactical nukes are not "arms" they are "ordinance" or in today's language "ordnance." Bombs, bazookas, cruise missiles could be argued to fall outside the protection of the 2A. That is not to say that Congress could have folks with cannon, and the rest, and, indeed, there are such folks.
But the anti's cute question relies on an ignorance of the English language. Nuclear bombs are ordnance, not arms.
Rick
...to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The Framers picked their words knowlegeably. Arms refers to rifles, pistols, swords, all the typical implements of a solidier/and citizen. Tactical nukes are not "arms" they are "ordinance" or in today's language "ordnance." Bombs, bazookas, cruise missiles could be argued to fall outside the protection of the 2A. That is not to say that Congress could have folks with cannon, and the rest, and, indeed, there are such folks.
But the anti's cute question relies on an ignorance of the English language. Nuclear bombs are ordnance, not arms.
Rick
WETSU,
Actually the framers of the Constitution did forsee and allow for private ownership of more than just arms.
In Section I Article 8, Powers of Congress, it states - "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
And the definition of a Letter of Marque - A letter of marque was issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for some wrong, such as a border incursion or seizure.
So it was accepted that a individual (yeah - probably a pirate <grin> ) could own a warship (arguably the most powerfull destructive force at the time) and we (the Congress) could hire him to kick booty for us. And notice how it doesn't mention that the individual can't be a citizen of the ol' US of A.
Always enjoy twisting the tale of a liberal - JohnDog
Actually the framers of the Constitution did forsee and allow for private ownership of more than just arms.
In Section I Article 8, Powers of Congress, it states - "To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;"
And the definition of a Letter of Marque - A letter of marque was issued by a nation to a privateer or mercenary to act on the behalf of that nation for the purpose of retaliating against another nation for some wrong, such as a border incursion or seizure.
So it was accepted that a individual (yeah - probably a pirate <grin> ) could own a warship (arguably the most powerfull destructive force at the time) and we (the Congress) could hire him to kick booty for us. And notice how it doesn't mention that the individual can't be a citizen of the ol' US of A.
Always enjoy twisting the tale of a liberal - JohnDog
Brett:
I don't think tactical nuclear weapons are covered by the second amendment, BUT I have worked on the development of tactical nuclear weapons which can be aimed with great precsion.
------------------
"I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemeis domestic or foreign WHOMSOEVER."
I don't think tactical nuclear weapons are covered by the second amendment, BUT I have worked on the development of tactical nuclear weapons which can be aimed with great precsion.
------------------
"I swear to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemeis domestic or foreign WHOMSOEVER."
- Status