The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

[A Life Aloft]

That is called the National Guard.



You may be the one who needs to do a little more research.

It's comical the authority some speak on here of what they want to interpret the 2nd Amendment to mean.

You are completely wrong.

'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.' The capitalization and punctuation are as the original version passed by Congress.

Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia'. Consider this, when the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people.

A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier.

The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people.

The defense of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it.

So despite arguments to the contrary from you, the term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government.

The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States.

When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous, even though you cannot seem to understand/grasp this.

 

[Seggy]

Actually, that is only one half of "the militia". The other half is what Pilotdude3407 was talking about; the unorganized militia, which is every able-bodied male of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard (ergo, eligible for the draft).

You're one of 'em.

I get the draft as being part of the organized militia. Thank you for recognizing that a standing army is the other half (and today) much, much, much larger part.

With the military background a lot of the forefathers had, they knew a draft would not be feasible at times, especially during our young nation. Look at the desertion rates in the Revolutionary War as a perfect example of this. Hence why a military of professionals is predominant today.

 

[Seggy]

'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.' The capitalization and punctuation are as the original version passed by Congress.

Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia'. Consider this, when the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.

The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people. A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people.

A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier.

The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference. Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people.

The defense of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it.

So despite arguments to the contrary from you, the term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government.

The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States.

When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous.

I get that.

They then also contradict themselves in the fact that Congress can declare war. If you are going to declare war on someone, you need people to fight that war, so they then allow for a centralized militia system. Once again the framers had extensive military back grounds and didn't want to end up pissing into the wind if Congress declared war on someone.

I think a lot on here have a romanticized view about the people standing up to fight an oppressive government. If you read the book '1776', it illustrates that when called to REALLY fight an oppressive ruler, it was extremely difficult to do so. We needed German Mercenaries, the Polish, and the French Military to win the war.

 

[A Life Aloft]

Read the words of the Founders and try to get a grip:

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable … the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference — they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
Thomas Paine

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."
Richard Henry Lee
American Statesman, 1788

"The great object is that every man be armed." and "Everyone who is able may have a gun."
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"
Patrick Henry
American Patriot

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; … "
Thomas Jefferson

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
Alexander Hamilton
The Federalist Papers

 

[A Life Aloft]

I get that.

They then also contradict themselves in the fact that Congress can declare war. If you are going to declare war on someone, you need people to fight that war, so they then allow for a centralized militia system. Once again the framers had extensive military back grounds and didn't want to end up pissing into the wind if Congress declared war on someone.

The problem is that you don't get it or are pretending to ignore the truth. You refuse to be educated. Congress declaring war and a militia of citizens have nothing to do with one another and are two entire separate entities. You are confused. The means to the ends of each and why they exist are completely different and not related.

The 2nd Amendment was intended as a final check of government authority. The militia interpetaion...that some how the National Guard constitutes a "well regulated militia" is ridiculous...any force who ultimately is completely controlled by the regular federal armed forces is in no way securing the right of the people to keep and bear arms...even if the governor can call on them to help with hurricane relief...it still in no way means that they are the kind of militia that the Founders had in mind.

Why do you keep denying the words of the Founders?

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson

“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 have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright 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.” – Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Patrick Henry: “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Richard Henry Lee: “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

 

[Seggy]

Once again you are forgetting that when we did have a band of militias running around during the Revolutionary War with a ton of guns they were no match for the professional Red Coats. In these militias, desertion rates were extremely high, and we needed German Mercenaries, help from the Polish Army, and the French Military to win the war against an oppressive ruler.

The founders saw this and knew they needed a centralized system.

 

[A Life Aloft]

Once again you are forgetting that when we did have a band of militias running around during the Revolutionary War with a ton of guns they were no match for the professional Red Coats. In these militias, desertion rates were extremely high, and we needed German Mercenaries, help from the Polish Army, and the French Military to win the war against an oppressive ruler.

The founders saw this and knew they needed a centralized system.

Again you are talking bout two different things. Read the words of the Founders themselves and stop denying/trying to skirt them.

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” How can you ignore this?

In every case/instance, the term militia is used as an alternative to (and frequently in opposition to) a standing, professional army. How can you deny this?

"The State militia consists of all able-bodied persons​

residing in the State except those exempted by law."​

​

That is the common understanding of the militia. It’s you. It’s me. It’s everybody in the country.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

Once again you are forgetting that when we did have a band of militias running around during the Revolutionary War with a ton of guns they were no match for the professional Red Coats. In these militias, desertion rates were extremely high, and we needed German Mercenaries, help from the Polish Army, and the French Military to win the war against an oppressive ruler.

The founders saw this and knew they needed a centralized system.

Which has nothing to do with what he's talking about.

 

[Seggy]

Again you are talking bout two different things. Read the words of the Founders themselves and stop denying/trying to skirt them.

George Washington: “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.”

Remember the Whiskey Rebellion? Folks were feeling abused BY GEORGE WASHINGTON'S ADMINISTRATION, they revolted, George said helllzzzzzzzz noooooo, and force was used.

Also this romantic idea of arming up against the US Government didn't work out so well for this country during the 1861-1865 timeframe now did it? It's also very ambiguous the term "abuse". A town may feel abused by ObamaCare and want to revolt and start their own nation while other towns are happy their citizens are getting the health care they need.

 

[Seggy]

Which has nothing to do with what he's talking about.

Last time your state felt it was being abused by the government, there was a march a few years later led by a General Sherman that demonstrates pretty clearly, that trying to play Army against the US Government doesn't work out so well for the people.

 

[A Life Aloft]

OMG! My grandson has better reading comprehension, less denial of the facts and truth and it's easier to explain any subject to him and get him to understand it and for him not to counter with silly, ridiculous hyberbole. Where did "romance" suddenly play a part in this discussion? Huh? Now you are so desperate as to use Obama Care as some sort of pathetic example? WTF?

The Whiskey rebellion was a rebellion against a tax and said tax was later repealed by Jefferson.

 

[RRPower]

Wow...just wow.

Here is a plain example. National Guard is governed by who? The government...

The constitution limits who? The government...

The right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed (on by who?). The government...

A well regulated militia is not meant to be? A government controlled entity.

Wow...some people really need to have not been hung over during 7th grade government class.

 

[Seggy]

We can take my example of Obama Care out of it then.

However, explain to me then the period from 1861-1865? We had a large percentage of the population feeling abused, they bore arms, and this country was torn apart for decades in the aftermath.

Also you over simplified the Whiskey Rebellion.

 

[Hacker15e]

I have it on good authority that the 2nd Amendment exists only so southern, white slave owners could put down slave rebellions.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2013/04/17/3349770/gun-zealots-winning-in-congress.html

The Second Amendment, for which the Southern colonies required the phrase, “a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” — not, as gun zealots absurdly presume, so that citizens could arm up to overthrow the government the founders were creating but so that Southern militias could arm up to catch runaway slaves — is not endangered by gun control.

Now that is some serious Constitutional scholarship!

 

[Seggy]

Wow...just wow.

Here is a plain example. National Guard is governed by who? The government...

The constitution limits who? The government...

The right to keep and bear arms will not be infringed (on by who?). The government...

A well regulated militia is not meant to be? A government controlled entity.

Wow...some people really need to have not been hung over during 7th grade government class.

Actually I was a political science major in college so it taught me to look at things differently and see these documents and those who wrote them as flawed, unlike others.

 

[A Life Aloft]

Actually I was a political science major in college so it taught me to look at things differently and see these documents and those who wrote them as flawed, unlike others.

And one of my neighbors has taken several automotive courses, read many manuals, bought a boatload of tools, can barely change the oil on his cars, has yet to be able to perform any minor repairs or general maintenance on his cars but will argue all day long about what certain things mean and how they should be done mechanically. He has no clue how a simple engine even works.

 

[Seggy]

That's nice but you never explained to me the period of time from 1861-1865 when people felt abused by the government and the ramifications from people bearing arms trying to play Army against the US government.

 

[SlumTodd_Millionaire]

We can take my example of Obama Care out of it then.

However, explain to me then the period from 1861-1865? We had a large percentage of the population feeling abused, they bore arms, and this country was torn apart for decades in the aftermath.

Also you over simplified the Whiskey Rebellion.

You do realize that the South only lost that war because all of the country's manufacturing centers were in the North, right? Even at that extreme disadvantage, the South still almost won.

 

[Seggy]

I do agree it was close up until July 3rd 1863 but after that, the South didn't have a chance.

 

[A Life Aloft]

I think it's a huge waste of time trying to explain anything to you at this point, in truth. Many members have tried for the last 47 pages of this thread to do so. Thankfully, I have to go to work.