The Second Amendment
Finally, in the last of this 6-part series about the second amendment, I will address the "militia" aspect of the 2nd amendment. I have shown that the second amendment is very clearly an individual right, and a non-changeable right that is to be interpreted for the original intent of those who wrote it. However, some people still question the "militia" portion of the second amendment, claiming that only groups like the National Guard may have arms.
So, in colonial times, what did the word "militia" mean. Let's go to the writings of the people at that time. Richard Henry Lee, signer of the declaration and author of the second amendment:The militia shall always include, according to the past and general usage of the States, all men capable of bearing arms.and
A militia are in fact the people themselves...and are for the most part employed at home in their private concerns.Tench Coxe, Attorney General of PA, Asst. Secretary of the Treasury under President George Washington:
The militia are the people at large.Samuel Adams:
The militia is composed of free citizens.George Mason, delegate to the Constitutional Convention:
Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.STILL not enough for you? How about a look at current US law. The United States Code, title 10, section 311(a) states:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 [and] under 45 years of age.Folks, citizens of the United States have the absolute individual right to bear arms. No legitimate government body, legislative or judicial can take that away under any circumstances. People cannot even grant them the power to do that! This government was very clearly and obviously set up to declare that right is YOURS and it cannot be removed. Ever. Anyone who says different is simply wrong.
Comments
1
Bravo!! Excellent, excellent stuff!
I just posted something I'd like for you to see. Keep up the good work.
I just posted something I'd like for you to see. Keep up the good work.
Posted by: Jay at June 30, 2005 10:37 PM (BKqRl)
2
I want to get involved here...but your blog is such a fucking mess...
Posted by: Random Personae at July 01, 2005 01:33 AM (LxR+H)
3
Thanks for stopping by, Random (your link to your blog doesn't work) -- hopefully you'll like this layout better!
Posted by: Ogre at July 04, 2005 04:24 PM (lZf6y)
4
So you are saying that only able bodied men 17 to 45 are allowed to own arms? I think you might have some females that disagree with that. I know I do.
Where your arguement has problems is that you are leaving parts of the constitution out. Like the begining of the second amendment states "a well regulated Militia..." Nothing you speak of states anything about regulation of the Militia, even your quotes from framers. Where is the regulation at?
Also Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution goes further into the duties of the Militia and Congress' regulation of them. Especially "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplinging, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as May be employed in the Service of the United States, REservin to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" They obviously had something in mind when talking about the Militia.
Also nowhere in the Constitution does it give you the right to keep and bear FIREarms. It says Arms. Arms can be anything that is a weapon, including polearms, swords and knives. Which where still common weapons at the time this was written. Do I interpret it to mean that no, but since SCOTUS made the decision that arms are not necessarily FIREarms now you have that to argue.
Now, I am a gun owning American. I support the 2nd Ammendment, so don't think that I'm trying to argue that we should not have them. But I also am waiting for my Congressional training and arming.
Sorry for the long comment.
Where your arguement has problems is that you are leaving parts of the constitution out. Like the begining of the second amendment states "a well regulated Militia..." Nothing you speak of states anything about regulation of the Militia, even your quotes from framers. Where is the regulation at?
Also Article 1, Section 8 of the constitution goes further into the duties of the Militia and Congress' regulation of them. Especially "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplinging, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as May be employed in the Service of the United States, REservin to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" They obviously had something in mind when talking about the Militia.
Also nowhere in the Constitution does it give you the right to keep and bear FIREarms. It says Arms. Arms can be anything that is a weapon, including polearms, swords and knives. Which where still common weapons at the time this was written. Do I interpret it to mean that no, but since SCOTUS made the decision that arms are not necessarily FIREarms now you have that to argue.
Now, I am a gun owning American. I support the 2nd Ammendment, so don't think that I'm trying to argue that we should not have them. But I also am waiting for my Congressional training and arming.
Sorry for the long comment.
Posted by: Contagion at July 05, 2005 03:04 PM (Q5WxB)
5
The law clearly states that you CANNOT take the firearms away from the males. I am NOT going to be the one who tries to take them from the females as well...
Regulated, as used in common parlayance of the time (and today):
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
In other words, well-regulated meant able to shoot in this case.
And sure, knives and polearms also fit into this category.
As for the Congressional training, I think you'll have to take that up with your state...
Regulated, as used in common parlayance of the time (and today):
2. To adjust to a particular specification or requirement: regulate temperature.
3. To adjust (a mechanism) for accurate and proper functioning.
4. To put or maintain in order: regulate one's eating habits.
In other words, well-regulated meant able to shoot in this case.
And sure, knives and polearms also fit into this category.
As for the Congressional training, I think you'll have to take that up with your state...
Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 05:15 PM (qV2zb)
6
The law says absolutely nothing about Firearms. That is part of the interpretation process, I agree with it, but it clearly never mentions FIREarms. But that is argueing semantics.
I like how you ommited the common first definition of Regulate: 1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning . Now being a historical re-enactor and amature historian of the French and Indian and Revolutionary war periods I happen to have replica manuals and manuscripts from that time. Just for shit and giggles I looked how they used the term regulate. Definition 1 made the most sense, especially 1A. Plus the other definitions really don't fit in with Artical 1 Section 8 and they way it talks about the Militia.
As for the training, the state can do it, but congress is supposed to pay for it and arm me.
I like how you ommited the common first definition of Regulate: 1 a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning . Now being a historical re-enactor and amature historian of the French and Indian and Revolutionary war periods I happen to have replica manuals and manuscripts from that time. Just for shit and giggles I looked how they used the term regulate. Definition 1 made the most sense, especially 1A. Plus the other definitions really don't fit in with Artical 1 Section 8 and they way it talks about the Militia.
As for the training, the state can do it, but congress is supposed to pay for it and arm me.
Posted by: Contagion at July 05, 2005 05:44 PM (977gQ)
7
You're not really serious, are you? Are you honestly saying that because the words "well-regulated" appear that suddenly all other data and facts that clearly show this was intended to be an individual right that the government has the ability to pass laws restricting that right that the amendment was designed to protect?
Posted by: Ogre at July 05, 2005 06:02 PM (qV2zb)
8
No, what I'm saying is that you have failed, in my eyes, to support your case that the government does not have the right to limit the type of arms that the American citizens can or can not have. What other Data and Facts have you listed? None. Unfortunately letters and speeches given by the framers of the constitution do not make law. Plus YOU don't really want to go that route. It is a slippery slope that if you use for this arguement you can't shoot down when people bring up the Seperation of Church and state.
Again, I believe in my right to have firearms. I stand by that right. I'm just trying to help you better argue the point because I've argued this with many people that have done a much better job defending it then you have.
And yes, the term well-regulated is there for a reason. There was a specific reason they added that phrase. Again you team that with Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the orriginaly document. You can't argue the amendments with out knowing the whole document. NO ONE gets to chose which words in the Constitution they get to ignore. If they wanted the american public to have carte blance access to weapons *I* believe they would have worded it, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's it, no more... but they intentionally and specifically put in "A well-regulated Militia..." For what reason would they have done that?
I mean you've already admitted that based on the wording they could limit only able-bodied MEN 17 to 45 to owning weapons.
Again, I believe in my right to have firearms. I stand by that right. I'm just trying to help you better argue the point because I've argued this with many people that have done a much better job defending it then you have.
And yes, the term well-regulated is there for a reason. There was a specific reason they added that phrase. Again you team that with Article 1, section 8 of the Constitution, the orriginaly document. You can't argue the amendments with out knowing the whole document. NO ONE gets to chose which words in the Constitution they get to ignore. If they wanted the american public to have carte blance access to weapons *I* believe they would have worded it, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That's it, no more... but they intentionally and specifically put in "A well-regulated Militia..." For what reason would they have done that?
I mean you've already admitted that based on the wording they could limit only able-bodied MEN 17 to 45 to owning weapons.
Posted by: Contagion at July 06, 2005 08:55 AM (Q5WxB)
9
Really? Did you read all six parts of this?
No, the letters of the founders may not make law, but they ARE supposed to be considered. The way laws are supposed to be interpreted is that the intent of the people who actually passed the law is supposed to be paramount. It is only a recent invention that laws are only to be interpreted to only be exactly what is written. To get the intent, one needs to read what was written by those who passed the laws.
As for the well-regulated militia, they wanted to be sure that the people could defend themselves against tyrannical government. Well-regulated, as I have learned, is to be well-trained in the usage of those arms so that people will always be physically capable of making that defense when needed.
No, the letters of the founders may not make law, but they ARE supposed to be considered. The way laws are supposed to be interpreted is that the intent of the people who actually passed the law is supposed to be paramount. It is only a recent invention that laws are only to be interpreted to only be exactly what is written. To get the intent, one needs to read what was written by those who passed the laws.
As for the well-regulated militia, they wanted to be sure that the people could defend themselves against tyrannical government. Well-regulated, as I have learned, is to be well-trained in the usage of those arms so that people will always be physically capable of making that defense when needed.
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 01:57 PM (/k+l4)
10
I read all six parts of this, in fact I'm surprised you haven't noticed I'm using some of your own "facts" against you. Go back and read your own quote from Thomas Jefferson regarding the interpretation of the Constitution, "On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeeze out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." IE I'm reading this as, "We wrote what we meant. Interpret it based on the politics, emotions and language of the time."
Okay, That's easy enough. Again I re-enact I spend the weekends living in that world and talking history of that time period. I feel I have a farely good grasp on what they where going through both mentally and emotionally at that time.
So tell me, with out ommitting any part of the Constitution exactly what you feel they meant by the second ammendment?
Okay, That's easy enough. Again I re-enact I spend the weekends living in that world and talking history of that time period. I feel I have a farely good grasp on what they where going through both mentally and emotionally at that time.
So tell me, with out ommitting any part of the Constitution exactly what you feel they meant by the second ammendment?
Posted by: Contagion at July 06, 2005 02:28 PM (Q5WxB)
11
They meant indeed, what they said -- that the people should be armed. With the amendment, "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," they simply outline part of the purposes -- in order to maintain freedom, people, citizens, need to be armed and capable of using those arms.
Posted by: Ogre at July 06, 2005 03:11 PM (/k+l4)
12
"They simply outline part of the purposes.."
Excellent, I like that. One of the better arguements for why that is there. I agree that is part of why that is there. Even though we brushed past it quickly. Arms, especially at that time, also refered to artillary. I believe that if you couple that with Article 1, section 8 it was put in there to prevent everyday citizens from having "arms" that they felt was outside the scope of civilian use. I will admit that I could be wrong on that, but it makes sense from the readings and historical studies I've done. At the time that the Constitution was written, they couldn't even imagine the type of firepower and weapons that we have today, but they knew that advances where being made in weapons technology, albeit much slower at that time.
I support the right to own firearms, but I don't know anyone that should own a full automatic M-60.
Excellent, I like that. One of the better arguements for why that is there. I agree that is part of why that is there. Even though we brushed past it quickly. Arms, especially at that time, also refered to artillary. I believe that if you couple that with Article 1, section 8 it was put in there to prevent everyday citizens from having "arms" that they felt was outside the scope of civilian use. I will admit that I could be wrong on that, but it makes sense from the readings and historical studies I've done. At the time that the Constitution was written, they couldn't even imagine the type of firepower and weapons that we have today, but they knew that advances where being made in weapons technology, albeit much slower at that time.
I support the right to own firearms, but I don't know anyone that should own a full automatic M-60.
Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 09:00 AM (Q5WxB)
13
I haven't really tried to read the minds of those people, but if you try and imagine their situation -- being harrassed by British troops and laws -- I'm betting that they did want all citizens to have access to ANY sort of weapon of that time. Heck, the worst they had were cannons, and they really weren't all that good.
But certainly, they couldn't imagine things like MAC-10s and Tommy Guns -- I just think that at the time there really weren't ANY arms that were truly outside civilian use. So what if I have a cannon in my yard? How much damage could I really DO with it (as compare to a tactical nuke)?
But certainly, they couldn't imagine things like MAC-10s and Tommy Guns -- I just think that at the time there really weren't ANY arms that were truly outside civilian use. So what if I have a cannon in my yard? How much damage could I really DO with it (as compare to a tactical nuke)?
Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 09:57 AM (/k+l4)
14
Actually the artillary they had back then was pretty nasty. It didn't have the range or punch that our modern artillary does, but it was still pretty damn effective. They could fill them with solid shot that could continue through entire lines of men, or for closer fire use Grape shot which was a lot of 1/2 inch to 2 inch lead balls shoved down the barrel turning them into giant shot guns that would take out whole lines of men. Their mortars could launch exploding rounds over fortifications and terrain exploding over the troops sending sharpnel tearing through them and the buildings. It's pretty nasty stuff.
I own a 1/2 scale portable Mortar. I can shoot a cement filled pop can a 1/2 mile with it. Ever see what a cement filled pop can does to anything it hits? It's not pretty, and those aren't the exploding rounds that were meant to be shot out of the full sized ones.
At this time the regulating body of the Militia has not decided that "primitive" artillary is illegal to own... but they have decided that fully automatic weapons, grenade and rocket launchers and as well as missles are illegal arms.
And I don't want you having a tactical nuke either.
I own a 1/2 scale portable Mortar. I can shoot a cement filled pop can a 1/2 mile with it. Ever see what a cement filled pop can does to anything it hits? It's not pretty, and those aren't the exploding rounds that were meant to be shot out of the full sized ones.
At this time the regulating body of the Militia has not decided that "primitive" artillary is illegal to own... but they have decided that fully automatic weapons, grenade and rocket launchers and as well as missles are illegal arms.
And I don't want you having a tactical nuke either.
Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 11:51 AM (Q5WxB)
15
Very interesting.
I imagine a lead ball would be good against rows of troops, but I guess that's why guerrilla tactics worked so well against them. I never heard of exploding rounds being used effectively during that time, neat!
I guess I just pictured that artillery of the time, in the hands of a private individual, would be generally useless. I picture a fellow in a standoff with police aiming his cannon at the police car: "I'll shoot, I will!" ... and then the quick scramble as he tries to reload....
And does that mean I have to disassemble my tactical nuke now? The Russians did give me a great deal on it...
I imagine a lead ball would be good against rows of troops, but I guess that's why guerrilla tactics worked so well against them. I never heard of exploding rounds being used effectively during that time, neat!
I guess I just pictured that artillery of the time, in the hands of a private individual, would be generally useless. I picture a fellow in a standoff with police aiming his cannon at the police car: "I'll shoot, I will!" ... and then the quick scramble as he tries to reload....
And does that mean I have to disassemble my tactical nuke now? The Russians did give me a great deal on it...
Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 01:42 PM (/k+l4)
Posted by: Contagion at July 07, 2005 07:32 PM (977gQ)
17
I do? Damn it. I'll be right back...
Posted by: Ogre at July 07, 2005 07:54 PM (qV2zb)
Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0128 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0092 seconds, 25 records returned.
Page size 19 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.