|
Sicarius -> RE: Armed resistance, Guns in school? (5/2/2007 9:55:14 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Lordandmaster
OK, congratulations, you've given me Sicarius's interpretation of the Second Amendment. I'll just say this: if you're really interested in determining the framers' intentions, as you claim to be, you'll have to abandon that interpretation. Find out what the word "militia" means, for one thing. It does NOT refer to the military organ of a state. In fact, that's exactly what it DOESN'T mean.
Can I ask you a point blank question, before I respond? I've been relatively courteous and polite to you, but every chance you get you're approaching this discussion with an unbecoming chip on your shoulder. What the hell is your problem?
It brings me no pleasure to be a jerk in return, but being that you have so blatantly attacked me with your ignorance of history, allow me to educate you. During the Revolutionary War, the vast bulk of the Continental Army was comprised of Militias. The Militias were in effect the bulk of the American "Army" that fought the war against the British.
Ten years after the Declaration of Independence, when the national government existed under the Articles of Confederation, there was an incident known as Shays' Rebellion. It was an armed uprising in western Massachusetts, and as a result of the incident, weaknesses were noticed in the confederation ... notably the fact that there was no ability to mount a Federal military response in order to regain order and control.
When the rebellion was over in 1787, the Philadelphia Convention convened with the intention of amending the Articles, thus resulting in the proposed Constitution. When the Constitution was proposed, two camps emerged: the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists who respectively wanted to ratify and did not want to ratify the Constitution.
One of the primary concerns of the Anti-Federalists was that they felt a standing army would endanger democracy and civil liberties, as had just recently happened, obviously. They were not successful at blocking the ratification of the Constitution, but they did succeed in acquiring the Massachusetts Compromise. The Massachusetts Compromise was instrumental in winning enough support to successfully ratify the Constitution, because it promised the drafting of the Bill of Rights. Anti-Federalists insisted on this because their chief concern was the centralization of government diminishing individual rights and liberties. These are indisputable facts of history.
Here are a few easily-accessible quotes pertaining to the debate specifically over the issues that led to the drafting of the Second Amendment:
quote:
ORIGINAL: James_Madison
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah_Webster
Tyranny is the exercise of some power over a man, which is not warranted by law, or necessary for the public safety. A people can never be deprived of their liberties while they retain their own hands, a power sufficient to any power in the state.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Noah_Webster
Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pentence, raised in the United States.
Now, what were they all referring to? Obviously, the Continental Army that comprised the Militia units of the state. The Federalists thought that the Army and the Militias should be trusted despite the threat that they posed. Here we have another quote with some verbage in it that you should recognize.
quote:
ORIGINAL: Alexander_Hamilton
The power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.
In this statement, Alexander Hamilton is essentially referring to the militia as being one in the same with a national army to be used and commanded by the federal government as a part of that army.
Let's also keep in mind the fact that at the time all this debate was going on, one need only look across the "pond" to catch sight of the French Revolution beginning to fire up. So you have two groups ... the Federalists and the Anti-Federalists. The former want a strong centralized government and the latter are worried about infringing the rights of the individual, as we've already established. The Anti-Federalists now wanted to clearly define the rights of the people in order to constrain the government.
Now I'll grant you a break. They used the word "militia" both ways, so let's assume that your way is how they meant it. Either way I feel that I have more than substantiated the fact that in the scheme of history the motivation of the drafting of the Bill of Rights and specifically the Second Amendment hinged around fears of a "military body" (whatever you want to call it) that the State required for its security (to put down things like Shays' Rebellion) was what the Anti-Federalists feared could infringe the rights of free citizens and ultimately deny them the freedom that they had just fought for. They insisted on the Bill of Rights which included the Second Amendment ... the bargaining chip between the People and the Government in which we retain power over them. This is done through the maintenance of arms capable of overthrowing that military power and destroying a potentially corrupt and oppressive United States government.
-Sicarius
|
|
|
|
