Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Who are the Militia? [View all]hansberrym
(1,571 posts)147. Not strange when one considers the topics discussed.
When one considers the topics actually debated by Congress, it is not strange at all that there was no mention of self defense during the Congressional debates on the BOR, since the nature of the RKBA was not debated, or at least no record exists of the debates if they occurred. Of the three parts of the amendment proposed by Madison, the CO clause and what became the preamble were discussed/altered, and in the case of the C/O provision deleted, while the RKBA clause remained as Madison proposed it. There was a vote in a Senate committeee to add "for the common defense" after the word "arms" but no record of debates, just that the proposal was rejected. If anything, this rejection leans towards the view that the RKBA included personal self-defense, as there was no qualifier attached to the RKBA.
It is interesting to note that in the debates on the first miltia act(these debates occurring only a few months after the BOR was ratified by the states and became part of the Const.), the RKBA and self-defense were mentioned:
Representative Sherman questioned if Congress could give an exemption to pacifists since the state governments had (not) given out of their hands the command of the militia, or the right of declaring who should bear arms? He went on to argue that it was the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack made upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. A militia existed in the United States, before the formation of the present constitution: and all that the people have granted to the general government, is the power of organizing such militia. The reason of this grant was evident; it was in order to collect the whole force of the union to a point, the better to repel foreign invasion, and the more successfully to defend themselves
Note that Sherman drew an anology between the private citizen's essential right to be armed and the states' right (vis-vis the federal government) to say who should bear arms. Essential rights are those individual rights never to be surrendered.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
174 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Of course I do, its right there in the Constitution, the Militia Acts, even the Federalist papers.
jmg257
Jul 2013
#45
It might. But then agan...why would a sand bag brigade need arms? Or to be well regulated? nt
jmg257
Jul 2013
#72
YOU get to define the term "well-regulated"? In spite its use in several other period
jmg257
Jul 2013
#56
Yes! You are of course right. Which is why I dont get all the yap about "militia".
jmg257
Jul 2013
#89
Ha! Ha! You are still on regulated = equipped? Bullshit yesterday, bullshit today,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#125
You might want to read this too, on the importance of preambles in amendments...
jmg257
Jul 2013
#61
Are you stating that there was such a thing as "the unorganized milita" in 1791?
jmg257
Jul 2013
#63
No, its my turn to say again...the militia referred to in 1792 were REGULATED, organized,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#98
True - and mention the creation of the National Guard as the new "well-regulated militia".
jmg257
Jul 2013
#50
re: "...75% americans did not have any federal right to bear arms in late 1700's."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jul 2013
#86
Modern usage of term "militia" = anti-government, anti-tax extremists and fruitcakes
Jessy169
Jul 2013
#31
Actually, he's looking at the governments military organization definition. :) n/t
Decoy of Fenris
Jul 2013
#54
Yeah, but I'm having fun too, and his inability to answer is much of the fun n/t
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#154
Perhaps curiosity will get the best of you, and you will read the thread -or maybe not. n/t
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#140
You just caught that? Which makes his whole "unlimited power of the sword" thingie pretty silly,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#81
There you go. So in order to prevent the abuse of the power actually granted
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#142