Doesn't the word being = the word is?

[Indy Lurker]

A well-regulated militia IS necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


If you Google "being necessary" -militia

You get several hits which have nothing to do with firearms.

In every case, "being necessary" is used to explain why something IS necessary.

The second amendment protects militia's who are "the people" (and are necessary)

If some feel militias are no longer necessary, they need to remover the second amendment by the correct constitutional process.

[Double T]

1. Don't touch THAT Constitution. Smarter politicians, than the idiots.........

we have NOW, knew what THEY were doing when THEY wrote it and amended it!

[Chulanowa]

2. Here's your militia:

http://www.ngb.army.mil/default.aspx

Now if you gun nuts actually had a lick of sense, you'd be worried about the first, fourth, and fifth amendments, rather than contantly, constantly whining about how the gub'mint is going to try to take your shotgun named Betsy away from you.

[jmg257]

4. While they are important, I don't have to worry quite so much about the other rights, as long as

my right to arms remains. Of all rights - right to life is most important, so self-defense is 1st and foremost; protecting liberty and maintaining a bit of power against those who would work their will on you also stem from the individual right the 2nd secures.

Think Germany in the 30s.

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[pipoman]

11. Why all the hate?

Seems to me there is now and always have been those who are defenders of individual elements of the Constitution and BoR. We can't all protect the whole thing. Are you equally critical of Larry Flynt who hasn't spent one minute or dime defending the 4th but is doubtless one of the most influential defenders of the 1st in history? The defense of the Constitution and BoR requires 'specialists' in each area usually created because of a personal interest in that right. Your logic is that there is no need to defend any rights if another right is being violated??

[jmg257]

12. Naaa, the real "militia movement" died off in 1916 with the Dick Act.

But the "militia movement" you refer to was not the Constitutional Militia either, just some groups of citizens getting together privately without any sort of governmental sanction. Although a case COULD be made that since the feds ignored the real militia, and the states ignored the real militia, it was them left to the people to step up (we ARE where such powers derive after all) - OUR freedom depends on it. However, traditionally the militia were always sanctioned by a govt entity. These days numerous states DO have state Militias, however there are still discrepancies since the feds have no involvement in them, even though the Constitution gives Congress certain powers concerning them.

I have plenty of rights being threatened by most politicians - something about power corrupts them. Bush obsoleteing the people's Militia and changing/expanding how the ARMED FORCES and NG would be called forth with the Warner Act is an example along the lines were are discussing here. Unfortunately, the SPECIFIC and VERY important right to arms is one most typically under attack by Democrats however, even though it is explicitly secured.

[dmallind]

5. You mean the organization that did not exist until long after the BOR was written?

Man I knew the guys who came up with that stuff were smart but I didn;t think they were fortune tellers.

[jmg257]

6. Brilliant weren't they? If they only knew the great lengths anti-gun nuts would go to lie, and

that some idiotic members of "the people" would be SOO willing to give up inalienable & natural rights the framers tried so hard to protect.

[Chulanowa]

8. Yes, I do.

Do you mean the document that was written at a time where all of a town's firearms were kept in the courthouse in case of emergency?

[pipoman]

9. Now theres some revision...

[jmg257]

10. Which document was that??? Definitely not the same one that mandated

Congress come up with an Act stating "That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack."

Hence the whole idea of securing the right to "KEEP and bear arms".


And definitely NOT the same document which allowed this representative to debate the Act:

Dec 16th 1790
Mr. Wadsworth then pointed out the great danger of providing large numbers of citizens with firearms and requiring that those arms be returned after use, which could become an excuse to disarm large numbers of citizens: “Is there a man in this House who would wish to see so large a proportion of the community, perhaps one-third armed by the United States, and liable to be disarmed by them? Nothing would tend more to excite suspicion, and arouse jealousy dangerous to the Union.”

[SteveM]

14. I'm a fan of Gandhi as well: "Taking life may be a duty ...

...Suppose a man runs amuck and goes furiously about, sword in hand, and killing anyone that comes in his way, and no one dares to capture him alive. Anyone who despatches this lunatic will earn the gratitude of the community and be regarded as a benevolent man." -- Selections from Gandhi, Nirmal Kumar Bose, Navajivan Publishing House, Ahmedabad, 1948.

What do you think Gandhi would have done if he were walking down that hall at Virginia Tech, heard the screams and shooting, then saw a .38 lying before him?

[Chulanowa]

15. The same thing Mother Theresa would do if abducted by Space Aliens and sent back in time

He'd ask "What crazy person is using me in a bad example now?"

[SteveM]

52. You should actually read Gandhi. Here's another quote by him...

"But a man who, when faced by danger, behaves like a mouse, is rightly called a coward. He is a stranger to non-violence. All sermonizing on it will be lost on him... Before he can understand non-violence he has to be taught to stand his ground and even suffer death, in the attempt to defend himself against the aggressor who bids fair to overwhelm him." An Autobiography or the story of my experiments with Truth, M.K. Gandhi, Navajivan Publishing House, August, 1948.

There are many comments by Gandhi which should disabuse modern U.S. "pacifists" of their crude no self-defense posture. That man would defend himself, his family, his religion and his property. And he would expect people to to read about him after he was dead, no?

You seem to be knowledgeable about what dead people would do if abducted by Space Aliens. Any references?

[dmallind]

25. All towns did this? News to me. NT

lkj

[jmg257]

26. No they didn't. Loyalist towns MAY have, as they had acts to support such tyranny.

S. Carolina during the revolution had this gem: "They will Imediately get a return from every Inhabitant whatsoever within the bounds of their Companys of all Arms and Amunition of every Sort in their Possesion, As well as of all Property belonging to the rebel States, or taken from Loyalists, in Order to keep them from being removed or Embezeled."

{Wow - take our guns and ALL our other property - NO WONDER the smart & free people of the United States embrace the 2nd so fiercly!}

Meanwhile, free places like Virginia, had this: " "Every officer and soldier shall appear at his respective muster-field on the day appointed, by eleven o'clock in the forenoon, armed, equipped, and accoutred, as follows: ... every non-commissioned officer and private with a good, clean musket carrying an ounce ball, and three feet eight inches long in the barrel, with a good bayonet...militia westward of the Blue Ridge shall not be obliged to be armed with muskets, but may have good rifles with proper accoutrements, in lieu thereof...
... And every of the said officers, non commissioned officers, and privates, shall constantly keep the aforesaid arms, accoutrements, and ammunition, ready to be produced whenever called for by his commanding officer.

And New Jersey had:"That for the purpose of effectually carrying into execution the recommendation of the Continental Congress respecting the appointment of minute-men, four thousand able-bodied effective men ... who shall hold themselves in constant readiness, on the shortest notice, to march to any place where their assistance maybe required for the defense of this or any neighboring colony."

AFTER each of those men "shall with all convenient speed furnish himself with a good musket or firelock and bayonet, sword or tomahawk,..."; and "that every person directed to be enrolled as above shall, at his place of abode, be provided with one pound of powder and three pounds of bullets of proper size to his musket or firelock."

Or in Pennsylvania or Vermont: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State..."


Not much place (or "reasonableness") in reality for keeping the arms (firearms) of the people behind a locked door somewhere. Relatively useless for self-defence AND the effective defence of the state.

[SteveM]

13. So the National Guard is the militia? Better research that further...

The National Guard is a part of the U.S. military (note ".army" in your http).

I have mixed feelings about your language: "Now if you gun nuts actually had a lick of sense...", "whining about the gum'mint...", etc. Clearly, you have a cultural hatred directed at more than 80,000,000 Americans who own guns. MSM, politicians and some academics used this language over the last 20-30 years; but you don't see much of it now because they realize how counter-productive that bar talk has been. Currently, that wordage is tucked away on anti-gun websites and some flame bait in these threads.

So, maybe you should keep using your terms. So everyone can see it.

[Chulanowa]

16. I have no issue with people who own guns

I have a hunting rifle and a pistol myself (bear spray is no guarantee, after all). The trick is, fir me - and most gun owners - it is a tool. Like a screwdriver, or a doorstop. It's an object which provides a function. For many others, it is an extension of hte ego. These are the people who I take issue with.

They are, universally, people who believe that the 2nd amendment is, if not the ONLY part of the constitution, at least the most important one. They believe it gives them free reign to pursue vigilantism if they ever feel the need ("I woulda shot that sumbitch dead If I'uz there!") because they imagine that they are "militia" just by virtue of shelling out a few bucks for a gun. The "well regulated" part of the amendment, of course, does not exist for these people. Further they adore such phrases as "the second protects the first" and then heap glories upon politicians who promise to protect the second while taking away all the others. They're all completely convinced that, not only does the government want to strip away their guns, but that when the government tries to do so, they will be able to successfully fight it off with their stockpile.

It's not gun owners that are the problem. It's gun idiots who are the problem.

[jmg257]

17. Aaah - thanks for the clarification. What you said here makes sense.

I take issue with the people you describe too, as well as those who think that just because we are armed, and agree with the intent of 2nd, that means we are ready, or should be ready, to throw down with the govt (woo hoo! what fun!) over every action we don't agree with. Luckily most of us are not that ignorant.

[pipoman]

18. I too don't completely disagree with you

Of all the gun owners I know and have known damn few have been the gun idiots as you describe them. I have however found many, many car idiots what do ya do? Ban cars or just jerk the car idiots license when/if they do something egregious with their car? I feel the same about guns. We have rules in place already which limits firearms ownership. Felons and domestic abusers are not allowed to be in possession of firearms. Most gun crime is committed by people who either are in possession illegally or are in possession of an illegal gun. I feel like gun idiots are likely really just idiots in general who either have or will end up committing a crime resulting in their gun rights being curbed.

[Chulanowa]

19. They breed on the internet

I just want to make it clear - I don't have a problem with owning guns. I don't want them banned - as I said, they're a tool. Banning guns would be about as productive as banning hammers. My trouble is that so many people try to make guns out as being far more important than the aforementioned hammers. It has transformed from a tool into a fetish, a sacred, empowering object that makes some people froth at the mouth if it's place as the holiest of holies is questioned. The immediate assumption from any of these people is that anyone who questions their mental stability is seen as a "gun grabber."

This is not a discussion of gun crime. It is one of the second amendment. What bugs the hell out of me are the people who think personal, private gun ownership is protected in the second amendment. It's not, by any stretch. Are you part of a militia? Is it well-regulated? Who's your commanding officer when you're called up to serve? Don't know? Not very well-regulated, are you? And of course there's the definition of "arms." It does not say firearms. Honestly guns could be banned from public use the way military arsenal is, and the second amendment would still be intact - you can kill a motherfucker with that hammer, after all. There's a reason the hammer was the #1 weapon after plate armor was devised in the 13th century.

But hey, let's make mention of gun crime anyway. A poster below asked "What would Gandhi have done at Virginia Tech"? Now ignoring the stupidity of the example used (Seriously, research the man before you try to put him in a shootout) it's a question I've heard before: What if there were other armed people at Virginia tech" or alternately, "what if everyone were armed?"

The answer is simple: there would be more dead people. You have a gun. You know there's someone shooting. You hear shots fired around hte corner and see a guy holding a gun, another guy on the ground. You open fire - oops, you just killed one of the other people who were out looking for the shooter. Maybe someone nearby runs up and shoots you too. Having a lot of armed people in a confusing and dangerous situation is a damn good way to lower the population of an area.

[krispos42]

21. I am part of the militia

-CITE-
10 USC Sec. 311 01/02/2006

-EXPCITE-
TITLE 10 - ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A - General Military Law
PART I - ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA

-HEAD-
Sec. 311. Militia: composition and classes

-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/10C13.txt

I am an able-bodied male citzen between the ages of 17 and 45. I am, therefore, in the militia. Based on the "member of the militia" argument, therefore, my right to keep and bear arms is secure.

Are you going to stick by the "member of the militia" argument? Keep in mind that 55 million males, give or take, would have have the "right" to keep and bear arms while maybe 55,000 women (all National Guard members) would. Do you really think that this 1,000:1 ration of armed men to armed women isn't inheirently sexist and unfair?



And do you really want to change the definition of "the people" to mean a collective, not an individual, right? Think about his carefully. Changing the meaning of "the people" in one amendment changes the meaning of "the people" throughout the entire Constitution. Do you want the Fourth Amendment to be a collective right?

Preamble

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Article I, Section 2

The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States, and the Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.

No Person shall be a Representative who shall not have attained to the Age of twenty five Years, and been seven Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State in which he shall be chosen.

Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons. The actual Enumeration shall be made within three Years after the first Meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years, in such Manner as they shall by Law direct. The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand, but each State shall have at Least one Representative; and until such enumeration shall be made, the State of New Hampshire shall be entitled to chuse three, Massachusetts eight, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations one, Connecticut five, New York six, New Jersey four, Pensylvania eight, Delaware one, Maryland six, Virginia ten, North Carolina five, South Carolina five, and Georgia three.

When vacancies happen in the Representation from any State, the Executive Authority thereof shall issue Writs of Election to fill such Vacancies.

The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

Amendment I

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Amendment II

“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.

Amendment IV

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Amendment IX

“The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

Amendment XVII

The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of such State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

As to the "well-regulated" part, well, nobody has informed me when or where drill is. When the Pentagon sends me a letter, I guess I'll be showing up. Until then, here I sit.

[benEzra]

22. That's not what happened at the most recent mass shooting attempt...

But hey, let's make mention of gun crime anyway. A poster below asked "What would Gandhi have done at Virginia Tech"? Now ignoring the stupidity of the example used (Seriously, research the man before you try to put him in a shootout) it's a question I've heard before: What if there were other armed people at Virginia tech" or alternately, "what if everyone were armed?"

The answer is simple: there would be more dead people. You have a gun. You know there's someone shooting. You hear shots fired around hte corner and see a guy holding a gun, another guy on the ground. You open fire - oops, you just killed one of the other people who were out looking for the shooter. Maybe someone nearby runs up and shoots you too. Having a lot of armed people in a confusing and dangerous situation is a damn good way to lower the population of an area.

That's not what happened at the most recent mass shooting attempt, at that church (the ONLY person who died inside the church was the would-be mass killer). Nor is it what happened at Trolley Square.

In most mass shooting incidents I can think of, the killing stopped as soon as the shooter ran into armed opposition, either by being shot by a CHL holder (Colorado church shooting) or by merely being jarred out of his carefully planned scheme by the arrival of armed opposition (Trolley Square, Virginia Tech).

Around 1 to 2 percent of people have CHL's; I don't see anyone arguing that everyone at VT should have had a gun, merely that prohibiting the 1-2% who are already licensed and competent to carry a weapon from carrying in certain zones doesn't make anyone any safer. A lot more people would have died in the church shooting had Colorado prohibited licensed citizens from carrying guns in church buildings, for example.

I also think your perception of the mindset and capabilities of the typical CHL holder is a bit warped by the MSM.

[Chulanowa]

33. A one-on-one is different from a mob of armed people

Now about that church. How many people got shot before the woman decided to open fire? She froze for a while before acting, as most people would. It's fucking pathetic how many people think they would be calm and collected badasses in a shootout, because hey, did Charles Bronson ever piss himself in Death Wish? Did Clint Eastwood's hands ever shake? Has the pain of multiple bullet wounds ever stopped Bruce Willis? Naaaaaaah, and everyone knows that's exactly how THEY would react in a firefight, too. It's part of the fetishism of guns - if you have one, you automatically know how to use it and be a perfect hardass about it.

If everyone in the church were packing heat, what do you think would have happened? Rhetoric aside you have what was it, fifty nervous people, most of whom have probably never even thought of killing another human being, much less made the attempt, attempting to do so. The plain logistics of the situation would seem to have more people shot, don't you think?

My opinion of these people is largely formed by the people themselves, who as I have noted elsewhere, seem to flock to political message boards like Ron Paul supporters flock to David Icke books.

[pipoman]

34. Any examples of this happening in any of the states below?

Or is this just some image cooked up by the Bradys or some TeeVee show?

[Chulanowa]

35. Have a larger version? My eyes ain't in peak condition, can't make out what the map is counting.

And I think you missed my point. Do you honestly believe every individual person in right to carry states is packing heat? 'Cause that's the kind of hypothesis I'm responding to - "Well, if everyone had been armed, then Situation X would have never gone down like it did!"

"The Bradys or some TeeVee Show"? Christ. Do you whine about the liberal media and the "democRAT party" too?

[pipoman]

38. sorry bout that

To answer your question no, not every person should, will, or could if they wanted to. I have been following this issue here on DU for 2 1/2 years and don't recall a single person advocating "every person" carrying a gun ever. I also belong to some other gun owner boards and I haven't heard that advocated there either. Do you have a link to some site, DU post, or group who advocates such a thing?

Again my point is that I am not aware of the crossfire scenario you describe ever actually playing out in any of the states above. The argument has been made by the Brady's (the Pug group owned and operated by Pugs)t hat the wild west shoot outs, crossfire and road rage turned deadly will be the result of legalized ccw....to my knowledge it NEVER has in any of the above states.

[jmg257]

23. See, this is what I am talking about - someone who tries to reconstruct what the 2nd says,

and change what its intent was. It is especially ignorant (or outright lying) to do so in light of ALL the evidence that it was clearly understood, just like all the other rights enumerated, to be "private", "personal", "inherent", "natural", and "absolute".

There is NO DOUBT "arms" meant firearms, plus swords, knives, bayonets, and all the terrible implements of war. But specifically the 2nd refers to those arms that the people could keep and bear. We know this because that is how the term is used throughout that time period, especially in the Militia Acts when exactly what type of "arms" the people must provide themselves & keep were specified - rifles, muskets, pistols, & swords, bayonets. If you can not even get this part right - there is no hope.

As for the right secured - it is pretty damn specific too: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" {PERIOD}. NO qualifier, NO mis-use of the terms involved, so it is simple & makes perfect sense! Yes, surely it helps to ensure THE Militia would always be effective, AND ALSO so that THE PEOPLE will always be able to defend themselves and their liberties, kill game, &c. Self defense is a natural right - this too was well understood at the time. It is obvious, with the common use of phrases such as "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed", and quite clear what "keep and bear arms" means, and how the scope of the right was/should be understood.

Men like Mason & Madison himself proposed the right this way: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person" to clearly show that the right secured was an associated idea BUT clearly a separate command. Please note the semi-colon - exactly how the DIFFERENT constitution clauses are written.

They also thought such a right was absolute - Madison said so himself otherwise he would not have proposed it.

The Militia's right to arms was already secured by the Militia clauses anyway, the 2nd makes it explicitly PERSONAL.

When anti-gun nuts want to disarm the people, and do so regardless of ANY "reasonable reason" (what is so reasonable about disarming 99.88% of us because .12% may use a gun to commit a crime? What is so reasonable about outlawing objects like bayonet lugs and pistol grips? What is in ANY WAY REASONABLE ABOUT ENSURING ONLY THE STATE HAVE GUNS???), and to try to do so in spite of common sense AND the very explicit law of the land - that bugs the hell out of me.

[pipoman]

24. Well

You and I read the 2nd differently for sure. I will always believe the 2nd to be an individual right as the founders didn't mince words and if they meant "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms will not be infringed" that is what they would have written IMHO. It will be interesting to see how the SCOTUS rules on the DC case, it is time to put this argument to rest once and for all.

I also differ on the belief that people with CCW will result in crossfire situations, rage shootings, wild west scenarios or any of the other ideas some people espouse. So far none of those things have happened in reality even though over the last 20 years 46 states have adopted shall issue CCW. That is the fictitious meme of the Bradys and other groups who are only concerned with disarming people who are law abiding. There are literally millions of law abiding citizens in all walks of life carrying firearms legally and safely every day with almost no bad incidents what so ever.

Now my reason for believing in shall issue CCW isn't because I think all of the bad guys will meet their fate all the time or that I have visions of saving a school full of children on my white horse or that CCW will have any effect on the overall crime rate. My reason is completely anecdotal and selfish. I believe that I and my wife should, as law abiding, responsible, and mentally competent citizens be allowed to attempt to protect ourselves and our family from some nut job criminal who thinks he can kill us for our ATM card and $20 cash. I know that the police will arrive in time to draw chalk outlines and interview any surviving witnesses. I do tire of people decrying the proliferation of guns and the high gun crime stats in one breath then saying anyone who desires to exercise their right to CCW is paranoid in the next, my thought is 'which is it?' (not that that is what you have said). Bottom line we do and should have a right to defend ourselves regardless if others choose to do the same or not.

[gorfle]

45. Why did the founding fathers want a militia anyway?

Are you part of a militia? Is it well-regulated?

The "you aren't part of the militia" argument has many holes in it, Chulanowa.

The first is that there is, in fact, both an organized militia and an unorganized militia.

From: http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htmurph/articles/20080108.aspx

January 8, 2008: Most American men are unaware that they are in the army, or, as described by the Militia Act of 1903 (popularly known as the Dick Act), the unorganized militia. The main purpose of the Dick Act was to sort out over a century of confusion over the relationship between the state militias (now known as the National Guard) and the federal forces. The 1903 law was the first of many laws hammered out to create the system now in use. But in the last century, not much attention has been paid to the little known "unorganized militia" angle. This force contained every able-bodied adult male who was not a part of the organized militia. The 1903 law legalized the right not to be part of the organized militia, because a 1792 law had mandated that every adult male be part of the militia. The problem was, most men didn't want to be bothered. To deal with this, state governors created two classes of militia; paid (who trained and were armed and organized into units) and unorganized (everyone else.)

The militia is a state institution, and predates the founding of the United States. It harkens back to the ancient tribal practice, where every able bodied male turned out to defend the tribe. During the colonial period, this really only meant anything in frontier areas, where hostile Indians sometimes required the use an armed militia force. In the late 18th century, only about ten percent of American families possessed a firearm, usually a musket or shotgun. Weapon ownership was much more common on the frontier, and in more settled areas, men with muskets often joined the organized militia more to be with their hunting buddies, than to prepare for war. The urban militia was sometimes used as a paramilitary force, when there was civil disorder or some kind of natural disaster. During the American Revolution, the militia served mainly as a police force, especially since about a third of the population were loyalists.

Currently, the "unorganized militia" is expected to come up when the Supreme Court again considers the laws pertaining to the right to possess firearms. Many localities have outlawed or regulated that right, which is guaranteed (but not precisely spelled out) in the Constitution. Nevertheless, if you are an adult American male between the ages of 17 and 45, you are part of the militia, whether you knew it or not, whether or not you want to be, and whether or not you are armed. Just so you know.

But, as far as I'm concerned, all the legal wrangling over the meanings of what is a militia and who is really in it is just a bunch of semantic arm waving.

The real issue here is what was the intentions of the founding fathers. I urge you to read Federalist 29:

http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm

It is very clear that the founding fathers intended that there be no standing federal army, or at least a very small one. The reason was that they feared it would become a tool for a tryannical federal government. To counter this possibility, yet still provide for the defense of the nation, they proposed that the STATES would each have their own armies (militias), made up of men from those states, and led by officers from those states. By decentralizing the army, they hoped that the federal government would have no military muscle by which to enforce a tryanny. The purpose of militias - state run military forces - was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. It is essential to understand and agree on this point before any other debate can be served on the matter.

All of this changed in 1903/1910. At that point the state militias became the National Guard. What this did was effectively convert state military forces into federal reserve forces. Now, instead of serving to counter federal military power, the National Guard serves to augment federal military power.

If you stick to the argument that only people in the National Guard can own firearms, then you have destroyed the counterbalance clearly intended by the founding fathers.

Thus even if the founding fathers intended for the people of the militias to be able to keep and bear arms, the reason for this was to serve as a counterbalance to federal military power. Even if the militias they envisioned are gone, the people are not! In order for the vision of the founding fathers to be preserved, the right to keep and bear arms must fall back to the people, militias or no!

Usually at this point anti-gun folks give up the militia angle of the argument and proceed on to say that any resistance of the people against a modern military force is futile. Iraq is a great example of how this is untrue. We will ultimately be driven out of Iraq because the American people are tired of the cost, morally and in lives and dollars, of staying there. Just like happened to the British a couple hundred years ago.

[SteveM]

53. "...personal, private gun ownership..." IS protected by 2A...

In reviewing the opinions of legal scholars, political scientists, historians and others, you may find that the "...personal, private gun ownership..." outlook is referred to as the "Standard Model" of Second Amendment interpretation. This includes William Van Alstyne (Duke), Akhil Amar (Yale), Sanford Levinson (Texas) and the great poo-bah of the "militia clause" view, Laurence Tribe, who in 1999 changed his tune and agreed with the individual right viewpoint. Oh, and so does Alan Dershowitz. The last I heard, all these folks were left of center as well.

You continue to play dodge-ball with Gandhi. What do you think he meant by his quotes? In light of your views on what Gandhi meant, what do you think he would have done? (You talk willingly of hypotheticals in the VT shooting, but fail to come to grips with Gandhi's own hypothetical. Why the hesitancy?)

[beevul]

30. Most of them...

"I have a hunting rifle and a pistol myself (bear spray is no guarantee, after all). The trick is, fir me - and most gun owners - it is a tool. Like a screwdriver, or a doorstop. It's an object which provides a function. For many others, it is an extension of hte ego. These are the people who I take issue with."


The people you have an issue with are .01 percent of gun owners as a whole.


"They are, universally, people who believe that the 2nd amendment is, if not the ONLY part of the constitution, at least the most important one. They believe it gives them free reign to pursue vigilantism if they ever feel the need ("I woulda shot that sumbitch dead If I'uz there!") because they imagine that they are "militia" just by virtue of shelling out a few bucks for a gun. The "well regulated" part of the amendment, of course, does not exist for these people. Further they adore such phrases as "the second protects the first" and then heap glories upon politicians who promise to protect the second while taking away all the others. They're all completely convinced that, not only does the government want to strip away their guns, but that when the government tries to do so, they will be able to successfully fight it off with their stockpile."

A can of worms there, certainly. And a bit of untruth. The second amendment is unique. It is the only amendment that a person can look at, and feel that it protects a specific possession. People see that as important, particularly when you have a group of organized lobbyists and special interest groups dedicated to the elimination of firearms from the hands of the average citizen - whether that be ALL firearms, or only some classes of them. Like it or don't, it is what it is. These people...the ones you say are convinced that the "gov" wants to take thier guns...are probably aware of the brady bunch, the Schumers and McCarthys, the DiFis, the Obamas, Clintons, the Kuciniches,Pete Shields, Adrian Fenty, Daly, Bloomberg, Kristen Rand, gunguys.com, the fifty caliber terror people...need I go on? Theres Democrats and repubs among those I listed, and many more I didn't list. They all have in common at least one thing - they all support elimination of firearms from private hands to one degree or another. That ain't opinion, thats fact.



Militia...US code defines militia. No reason to debate it. "Well regulated", on the other hand...if you are at all interested in reading and interpreting it as was intended, you'll have to see what "well regulated" meant when the second amendment was written...in the language of that day and age.



"It's not gun owners that are the problem. It's gun idiots who are the problem."

The problem. Which problem? I am not defined by a few idiots whom construe less than 2 percent of gun owners, nor will I be. "Gun idiots" might be a problem, but they amount to such a small percentage of gun owners...and I'd like to see that term expanded to include into the "gun idiot" category those that own firearms but don't see any reason for others to AKA "guns for me, but not for thee" ala sly stallone, and the "I own a gun, but I support the bradys and HCI/AGS" types too.

[Chulanowa]

32. Oh, I know I'm talking about a small number

And if you paid attention to anything I've written here, instead of hopping on the bandwagon of people assuming I want to ban all guns, you'd notice that I'm very aware that I'm talking about a small number of people, and their inane rhetoric. It's really not that hard to follow, and I feel the fact that so many people seem so threatened by my dislike of that sort of babble really takes many strong steps towards proving my stance that some people take their guns WAY too personally.

It just so happens that this small percentage of gun owners all seem to have every political messageboard I attend bookmarked.

What's your stance on other weaponry? If I carry a sword in public, I WILL get arrested. If I make bombs in my basement, yup, I'll get arrested, and likely charged with conspiracy or what have you. Where's the NRA on these subjects? Maybe I want to be fashionable with a cavalry saber, and perhaps I enjoy blowing up pumpkins in the field behind my house. What makes guns sacred, and every other weapon ever devised flexible?

[jmg257]

40. Are restrictions on swords another wacky unreasonable DC law? You should

challenge it in court! Clearly it is a protected arm under the 2nd, which means you have the right to keep and bear it individually. Maybe start a new "National Sword Association" to help fight for the right? Not sure how popular it will be - sword restrictions/bans seem fairly limited in the US. (none in NY, other then "cane sword")

Anyway, guns are "sacred" 'cause they are currently the most effective and convenient portable means for (self) defense. They are also the "arm" of choice for so many individuals, and one constantly under unreasonable attack by anti-gun nuts, people who "just don't like them", and the misguided who prefer to trust the State for their defense instead of themselves.

[krispos42]

20. This "gun nut" is also worried out a lot of amendments

But that does not usually come up in the "Guns" forum. Because we're talking about firearms and the Second Amendment, you see.

However, the attack on the Second by anti-gun people (mostly Democrats) hurts the Democrats far more than the attack on the Fourth by security-at-any-cost people hurts Republicans. So we'd kinda appreciate it if the Democrats ripped the "ban assault weapons" plank out of the party platform and used the wood to build a bridge to the blue-collar vote!

[dmallind]

27. Yep I'm pretty keen on all the BOR myself too.

I don't however see a well-funded and politically powerful group securing the backing of a good portion of a major party trying to make it legal to forcibly quarter soldiers in my house though, so it's fair to say my concern for their continued force is not equal.

I'm more worried about the first - the religion part of it mostly but speech itself too - than the second but both are getting some pretty tough treatment in the last few decades.

[krispos42]

28. Well in my opinion you can't pick and choose

I mean, you can of course choose not to exercise a right, so if you don't want to own guns you don't have to, but I want you to have the choice!

The basic fact is that once a right goes away, it is very unlikely that it will be restored. As a result, just on that priciple alone I don't see why defending the Second is not important to many Democrats.

Think about it... once the Second is nullified, the organization that fought and won that victory is not going to just go away! There's going to be a new cause to fight for. And what, pray tell, will that organization attack next?

I don't know, and I don't want to find out.

[dmallind]

31. Oh trust me I think the second deserves protection too

heck even the quartering soldiers one (3rd IIRC - maybe not) needs to be preserved. My point is that all of them are not in equal danger. The second has already been harmed to a great degree, and is in danger of further harm, but IMO the first in this specific administration especially is more imperilled.

[Chulanowa]

37. What attacks, exactly?

Regulations? Restrictions on certain makes or models, or modes of weaponry? Do you also believe that laws against libel, slander, conspiracy, instigation, etc violate the first amendment as well?

[krispos42]

39. Makes, models, cosmetic features...

arbitrary characteristics, ballistic fingerprinting, magazine limits, FOID cards, waiting periods. All of them have zero effect on public safety, the alleged reason for enacting the laws in the first place. It's about pandering to the public, it's about an election issue, it's a stump-speech issue, it's about campaign dollars, it's about inventing some mythical standard of "how things should be" and trying to live up to it.

It's about marginalizing gun ownership and making more hoops to jump through.

I also believe that Democrats have been suckered into being the party of gun control by the fascist Republicans out there. Tolitarians, such as fascists, love disarmed populations and gaining political power so they can achieve their goals. By letting the Democrats be the party of gun control, they've created a win-win situation for themselves. When Democrats are in power they try to restrict guns, which has the result of either a) disarming the citizenry (especially in blue states) which will be useful in the future, or b) getting Democrats booted out of office, allowing fascist Republican to wield political power for the benefit of corporations.



Laws against libel and slander are not protected by the First Amendment because you cannot use your rights to harm other people. That's why we also have laws against shooting people, discharging firearms within city limits, etc.

Nobody is proposing limiting the consonants or vowels you can use in your free speech, or how many public speeches you can give a month, or taking away a medium of free speech like, say, the Internet. But could somebody say to you "Taking away your Internet is not a restriction of your free speech because there are other ways you can exercise it?" without you going through the roof?

[Chulanowa]

41. Legally, or emotionally?

Let me ask you something. If all these regs are horrendously unconstitutional, why have they not been taken to court? Why have they not been declared one way or the other, in a legal manner? Why does the NRA, with is buckets of bucks, shy away from this, instead mailing out newsletters to grumpy people with guns about the unconstitutionality of it all?

[jmg257]

42. They have been taken to court. That is why the decision in Heller

MAY be so important. If the USSC declares correctly once and for all, and articulates, about the secured individual right to keep and bear, AND the importance of the people's role in THE Militia, unreasonable restrictions like are being discussed here will be "officially" unconstitutional (especially national bans); even DC states as much in their brief.

DC brought up many points to (unsuccessfully) convince us how the 2nd is about "state perogatives" & "strict military use" - these points are easily proved wrong. If the court addresses them in their decision, much of what's left of the typical anti-gun BS will be shown to be wrong "legally" too (their argument already gets rid of the lies about terms like "well regulated", "militia", "arms", "national bans".)

It is already public law that the 2nd protects an individual & private right. Now, instead of ignoring pro-individual 2nd USSC cases like Dred Scott and citing only the narrow-minded Miller, future gun cases will have to refer to Heller.

[krispos42]

43. Frobably for the same reason you can't joke about bombs in an airport

and say your First Amendment rights are being violated. Or that a state can pass a law mandating a waiting period or a mandatory counseling for an abortion. There is a perception that such restrictions are in the public interest.

Of course, they are not. What they are are acts passed into law by an angry, oppressive segment of the population seeking to make that right harder to exercise and to turn public opinion away from supporting those rights.

The other reason is is that the Second, unlike the rest of the Bill of Rights, has not been declared to be equally applicable to State governments. It is still held on a Federal level only. Remember, the US Constitution is a Federal document, describing the powers and limits fo the Federal government. Court rulings have held that, for example, the First and Fourth also apply to the government of the several States, and their counties and cities.

It's part of a culture war, as usual. A large segment of the population thinks that a civilized society is a non-violent society and work tirelessly to achieve that goal of non-violence, often to the point of insanity. And part of that work is getting the insurments of violence shunned and banned and restricted.

The anti-gun movement such as the Violence Policiy Center uses arguments that are easily refuted by the knowledgable, yet despite that fact have succeeded in misinforming the gun-ignorant with those lies and therefore stick to them, knowing that a large portion of the population wants to believe them so desperately that factually accuracy takes a back seat. This is a common tactic by those with a political agenda. Remeber how many Americans did (and still do) think that Saddam was deeply involved in the 9/11 attacks?

And the pro-gun movements often comes across as batshit insane, which doesn't help either. One thing I've noticed about the NRA is that, while usually being factually correct, they sound like frothing nutjobs.

[Chulanowa]

44. So it's a big web of conspiracy by people out to get your guns?

[krispos42]

46. Conspiracy implies secrecy. This is right out in the open.

House bill HR 1022, introduced in 2007, would ban all semi-automatic rifles as well as any gun the Attorney General deems inappropriate for sporting use.

Dennis Kucinich wants to ban all handguns. All of the rest of the Democratic presidential candidates except Richardson want to at least bring back the now-expired federal Assault Weapons Ban.

Hell, the 2004 Democratic platform specifically states that:

...We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x136200

The Violence Policy Center and gunguys.com make no bones about what guns need to be banned, that civilians should not be allowed to own, and what senators and congressmen agree with them.

[Chulanowa]

47. So then "Arms" is all-inclusive, I see...

So if by some convoluted means you get your hand on a "missing" soviet nuke, it's your'n and the government can't disagree?

Now honestly, I don't think you carry it THAT far, am I right? What's the breakoff point? If we're all in agreement that I probably have no right to make, own, or practice the use of chemical weapons, or that the US military is probably fully in its power to come and snag the Chinese fighter jet I bought on Ebay, then I really want to know, at what point does denying the right to arms become okay?

[krispos42]

48. The line is currently being drawn at...

non-discrimatory weapons, and weapons that are lrage enough physically to require a crew to operate them.

By non-discrimatory, I mean weapons with produce an uncontrollable area or fan of destruction. Poision gas, bombs, and nukes fall into this catagory, as well as exposive shells, hand grendes, and land mines. I also consider fully-automatic weapons to be in this catagory, as you can hold down a trigger and just spray bullets around.

Discrimatory weapons, on the other hand, are aimed and shoot only one shot per pull of the trigger. And the shot it fires is solid, not explosive.

Since 1934, the "line in the sand" has been .50-caliber and smaller firearms that have rifled barrels and fire only one shot per trigger pull. Those are perfectly normal, everyday firearms. Hunting rifles, "assault weapons", handguns, shotguns, etc.





Of course, non-discrimatory weapons are still perfectly legal to buy and own. You can buy a fully-automatic machine gun, but their is an extra tax involved, a fairly extensive background check, and each sale must be personally approved by the Secretary of the Treasury.

You can also buy a MiG and fly it as a collectable "warbird", just like you can with a bunch of other old military planes. Arming it may be another story, however.

[Name removed]

50. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jmg257]

49. Go with what the framers intended. Since, by acts of Congress and the states, they

set guidlines for the arms the people must supply themselves for militia duty to include rifles, swords, muskets, tomahawks, bayonets, pistols, &c; i.e. - weapons an indiviudal could supply and carry.

Today any similiar-role small arm would be acceptable. That would at the least include arms like M16s, M4s, AUGs, FALs, ARs, SRs, M1As and most other service rifles, M9s, 1911s, SIGs, Glocks & other pistols, shotguns, light automatic rifles, sniper rifles and the like, plus their associated accoutrments (full capacity mags, ammo, bayonets &c.). Also knives of course.
These would be secured thanks to both the militia clause and the private right clause. These, and most other personal arms will serve in the individual role for self-defense and sporting purposes, and so be secured as well.

[jmg257]

51. More like a web of idiots, would-be tyrants, liars, and wussies.

idiots: those who can read the simple phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" and not know what it means.

tyrants: those who take oaths to support the constitution and still (try to) pass laws violating that constitution and the people's liberties & natural rights

liars: those who know what the 2nd says, who can easily spend an hour researching that the intent is just what it says, and still tell us it means something else

wussies: those who choose not to enjoy the right to arms or self-defense because they feel they are so inept they cannot handle the responsibilities, and feel it better to leave their security and the securtity of their loved ones to someone else

idiot wussies: those who leave the safety of their loved ones to the state

elite wussies: wussies or idiot wussies who tend to think because they are too inept, everyone else must be too inept too

[Recursion]

29. I find it funny that someone with a "Defy Authority" sig picture...

...doesn't have a problem with the government disarming us.

[Chulanowa]

36. I find it funny that someone who can type...

Can't read.

I'm going to hell, I know. Laughing at the illiterate... Shame on me.

[SteveM]

54. Oh, and Gandhi was a fan of Thoreau. Here's what Thoreau said...

"We cannot but pity the boy who has never fired a gun; he is no more humane, while his education has been sadly neglected." -- Walden

[jmg257]

3. Militias are still necessary; however Congress usurped power to

re-create and redefine what "the Militia of the Several States" are (they have NO constitutional power to do so). The National Guard is a FEDERAL entity, is part of some new "Militia of the UNITED STATES", is a reserve force of the Standing Army, and serves in rolls NOT mandated by the Constitution. The Constitution layed out a "system of govt", once that system was changed, all sorts of other things tend to get affected - our rights are one of them.

Anyway, while the 2nd's declaratory clause is a keen observation, the RIGHT secured is secured for "the people of the United States", whether they are in a militia or not.