Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: jlf1961
While I have seen on these boards the arguments that the term militia as addressed in the 2nd amendment no longer applies because the national guard has taken the place of the militia and therefore the second amendment needs to be repealed, I thought it would be interesting for everyone to see exactly what the framers of the constitution were thinking.
quote:
“I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia’s Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves …”
Richard Henry Lee
writing in Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republic, Letter XVIII, May, 1788.
“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them.”
Zachariah Johnson
Elliot’s Debates, vol. 3 “The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution.”
“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms”
Philadelphia Federal Gazette
June 18, 1789, Pg. 2, Col. 2
Article on the Bill of Rights
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; …”
Samuel Adams
quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, “Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State”
“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
“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
“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”
Thomas Jefferson
to James Madison
“Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.”
Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.
Now, what I find funny as hell is how the anti gun crowd keeps insisting that private gun ownership was never meant to be a tool against government oppression, when clearly, the men who founded this country, and wrote the constitution and its amendments, clearly thought differently.
When this fact is pointed out, the next argument is always that a bunch of American red necks are going to be no match for the modern American army.
To this argument I have to point out the Afghan rebels fighting the Soviets were, while not a bunch of rednecks, were an irregular force that defeated a modern mechanized army.
There is the fact that, should the US government oppress the American people there is a good chance that the people will have the support of a large number of US military personnel.
However, that is beside the point.
The second amendment is there to 1) provide for a militia to aid in the protection of the United States from invaders, and while the unorganized militia as per law, is just that, unorganized, I would remind you of what Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto said in reference to the Japanese invading the United States:
"An invasion of the United States would be disastrous, since our forces would be under fire by Americans from every bush, rock and tree since the citizens are armed."
And 2) to provide a very real check against the Federal Government going to excess.
Through out its entire history, until the creation of the National Guard, the militia in each state was rarely organized, in point of fact, when called up, the standard procedure until the civil war was, to post notices for the gathering of able bodied men, and place a drum with gold coins on the drumhead.
One joined the militia by taking a gold coin from the drum and that was all there was to it. Officers were appointed by the men themselves through whatever means they decided, from voting to wrestling matches. The overall militia commander was appointed by the state governor.
As for the argument that the National Guard replaced the militias by its establishment, I will again remind all of those believers that according to federal law, a state militia is not subject to being Nationalized by the president without the express consent of the governors of the states, hence the national guard, which is considered an active reserve of the US Military does not qualify since the President can nationalize those troops by consent of congress or executive order.
Now, while the federal government does have the power to regulate what types of firearms a civilian can own, which has been supported by SCOTUS, even to the point of declaring handgun or firearm bans in various cities as unconstitutional and pointing at the 2nd Amendment as the wording, they have supported the limitations on select fire and full auto firearms.
As to the argument that the 2nd Amendment was never meant to allow civilians to own weapons with high ammo capacities, I would have to point to an argument by another user, that by that logic, the first amendment does not protect the freedom of the press in reference to Television and Radio, or any news paper printed by anything other than a hand operated press, since none of those modern mediums for the press did not exist at the time of the writing of the amendments.
The absolute worst and most hypocritical argument against the Democrat and Liberal screams for more gun control or limits on what type or how many guns a person can own falls to their own argument against holding the entire world population of Muslims accountable for the actions of a minority who are terrorists.
If you need it spelled out, in the terms of gun violence and deaths, you wish to punish the 187398000 million gun owners who are law abiding and have done nothing illegal with their guns for the actions of less than 0.00001% of gun owners who do commit crimes as in mass shootings.
OK. Let's spell it out.
1) You think there's a gun crowd and an anti-gun crowd. There's a lot of room in the middle, including the pro-gun and pro-sensible regulation crowd.
2) Where there a lot of people in the 18th century committing mass murders with firearms?
3) If you believe a bunch of US citizens with firearms are any match for the US military, no logic will ever permeate your bizarre fantasy. For starters (let alone firepower and training), military brass is far smarter than to have a Rambo-esque shoot 'em up with a bunch of weekend cowboys. They'd take a far more strategic approach, and it would be largely over before people rang the bells and had a chance to start shooting.
Come on. You aren't stupid. If you want to discuss this, let's have an honest, real discussion.
|
The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread