@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:oralloy wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:oralloy wrote:Cycloptichorn wrote:Fortunately, we no longer require militias
The Constitution says otherwise. It says we have to have militias, and it says that militiamen have the right to keep individual-style military weapons in their homes.
It says we are required to do so? I don't think so. In fact, I just looked at the Constitution, and in no area does it say that the US or individual states are required to field a militia.
You missed the Second Amendment. The first half of the Second Amendment is a demand that the US always have a militia on hand to defend the US.
The text of that amendment says no such thing.
Wrong. That is exactly what it says. Look at the legal history of the right.
The right as it was originally stated in England had language more to do with the restriction of standing armies than with guaranteeing the militia:
Quote:Whereas the late King James the Second, by the assistance of divers evil counsellors, judges and ministers employed by him, did endeavour to subvert and extirpate the Protestant religion and the laws and liberties of this kingdom;
By raising and keeping a standing army within this kingdom in time of peace without consent of Parliament, and quartering soldiers contrary to law;
By causing several good subjects being Protestants to be disarmed at the same time when papists were both armed and employed contrary to law;
...
And thereupon the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons, pursuant to their respective letters and elections, being now assembled in a full and free representative of this nation, taking into their most serious consideration the best means for attaining the ends aforesaid, do in the first place (as their ancestors in like case have usually done) for the vindicating and asserting their ancient rights and liberties declare
That the raising or keeping a standing army within the kingdom in time of peace, unless it be with consent of Parliament, is against law;
That the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law;
http://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/england.asp
However, when the Constitution was being considered and Amendments were being proposed, the Framers,
particularly Patrick Henry, were worried that someone would try to oppose or damage the militia as a matter of policy (and they were right, here you are making the very arguments that the Framers most feared someone would make).
In addition to Patrick Henry's denunciations in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, concerns over ensuring that the militia would always be a part of the nation's defense can also be seen in Alexander Hamilton's writings in
Federalist 29.
Because of their fears that someone would come along and try to enact a policy damaging the militia, people considering the Constitution began demanding a right similar to what they had in England, but with specific language supporting the militia added right next to the language restricting the standing army:
Quote:"17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms;
that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
"18th. That no soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the law directs.
"19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted, upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss9.html
Then when Madison condensed and streamlined all the proposed amendments, he removed the restrictions on the standing army (the Framers already had such restrictions in place in the Constitution; what they were most worried about was someone coming along and trying to do away with the militia), leaving us with:
Quote: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.
No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner; nor at any time, but in a manner warranted by law.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/bill_of_rightss11.html
The part about people with religious scruples exempting themselves was then removed from the text (they were still worried about someone in the future undermining the militia, and figured that such language would be abused to that effect), leaving us with the language we have today.
Cycloptichorn wrote:I must conclude that you are using your powers of Perception to interpret the meaning that you wish it to have - which is pretty funny, given your previous answers on that particular subject.
Bad conclusion. I am, as always, determining what the original authors intended, and going by that intent.
Cycloptichorn wrote:We have, instead of a Militia on hand, a standing military.
And that is a violation of the Constitution.
Cycloptichorn wrote:The text of the amendment is:
Quote: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.
But it's clear that the state no longer requires a 'well-regulated' militia to defend its security.
The Framers disagree, and you've not amended the Constitution to overrule their intent.
Cycloptichorn wrote:This is clear, because we haven't had one in 200 years and yet our security is very well defended indeed.
It hasn't been 200 years. Closer to 100 at the most.
But even if it had been 200 years, that would not change the requirements of the Constitution that we always have a militia on hand for our defense.
The only thing that could change the requirements of the Constitution is a Constitutional amendment.
Cycloptichorn wrote:Therefore, I must conclude that you are perfectly incorrect in your above statement.
No, the legal history of the right, along with the expressed fears that led to the right being adopted, make it very clear that the intent of the first half of the Second Amendment is to prevent people from doing away with the militia as a matter of policy.
