New book - Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America

The phrase can and is interpreted depending on who reads it and their personal feelings on private gun ownership.

I read it as meaning that the "well regulated militia", while well organized with rank and structure, will not have its own guns as an organization, but instead, the people who make up the militia will bring their own guns to the fight.

Others read it believing the militia will be made up of the people (not a part of the fed), and the organization itself will have it's own armory. This is a good (but not total) description of the Texas State Guard.

My M.S. is criminal justice, and believe me, this was always a good source of argument. I wrote volumes on this subject.

Honestly, it could go either way. But, I'll take the first description:D
 
BlueTrain, I think they were purposely giving the people the power to overthrow their government.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Remember the militia is not necessary to the security of just a state, but a free one.
 
The founding fathers weren't "just a bunch of private citizens." Those who wrote the constitution were a "bunch of elected officials." And somehow, I don't think they thought that they were giving citizens the power to overthrow the government they were busy creating... They wanted a citizen's army, which they called a militia and which was used by the first administration under the new government.
Click to expand...
+1. IMHO the best and most believable explanation for the Militia Clause is this:

The Constitution gives Congress and the President power over the state militias (Article 1, Section 8 and Article 2, Section 2 respectively). The Militia Clause was added because states with active and powerful militias did not want Congress and/or the President to have the power to neuter the militia by directly ordering their militiamen to disarm, or to accomplish the same ends by ordering their arms to be stored in a central arsenal where the weapons could be locked up or carted away by federal forces.

The Militia Clause was meant to guarantee that militiamen would always be able to "keep and bear" personally-owned arms for militia service.

It's important to remember that the militia, in the context of American law, has always been subject to state sanction and control.

FWIW I agree that the Militia Clause is confusing, but then again, the Constitution is not a perfect document- witness the debates about the meaning of "interstate commerce", "general welfare", "cruel and unusual", and "privileges and immunities", to say nothing of the apparent contradiction between Article 2, Section 2 (Presidential command of the military) and Article 1, Section 8 (Congressional power to declare war), or the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. These are complex issues, and anyone who claims they're simple is most likely playing pretend for partisan reasons. :rolleyes:
 
...I think they were purposely giving the people the power to overthrow their government.
Click to expand...
I think it depends on the mechanism the "people" are using.

An organized militia force overseen, sanctioned, and under the direct control of a duly-elected and therefore "free" state government: Yes.

An organized force of private citizens acting outside of state control: NO. In my view, this type of organization is a paramilitary, not a militia. (See my prior post.)
 
If you honestly think the purpose of the second admendment was to give the people the power to overthrow the government (and presumably not necessarily just the federal government), then go ahead, start without me.
 
"And what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -Thomas Jefferson
Click to expand...

"Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the peoples' liberty's teeth." -George Washington
Click to expand...

Those are just the classics.



*Dear Homeland Security, I am neither promoting nor condoning the violent overthrow of the government.
 
If you honestly think the purpose of the second admendment was to give the people the power to overthrow the government (and presumably not necessarily just the federal government), then go ahead, start without me.
Click to expand...
That is one of the "emanations," yes. There are numerous quotes from the Founders implying just as much.

As you mentioned, however, we're a long, long way from having to consider anything of the sort.
 
It does look like an interesting read. It certainly can't be any worse than Michael Bellisiles' Arming America and it might be a good deal better.
 
The Atlantic posted an excerpt from the book a couple of months back, and it'll give folks a good idea whether or not they want to read the book.

Me? I'm skeptical, but from what I've read, Winkler appears to be taking a somewhat balanced approach.
Click to expand...

I'm gonna have to bookmark that link
 
Since Bellisile's lost his job, had the prize taken away from him and made the front page of the Chronicle of Higher Education as being a fraud ( the greatest sin in academia) - I'd say he had a bad career run.

This book doesn't seem to be such.
 
Bellisile's lost his job, had the prize taken away from him and made the front page of the Chronicle of Higher Education as being a fraud ( the greatest sin in academia)
Click to expand...
Bellesiles was the first person to ever have a Bancroft prize revoked as well. That's the equivalent of a Pulitzer in the history field. In fact, the whole thing was such a mess that it affected several other branches of academia, and even led to a debate within the ALA as to how to correctly describe books in the card catalog.

Whether or not I may agree with some of his conclusions, Winkler does a better job with his methodology.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top