Rice: Gun Rights Important As Free Speech

gungasnake

The ammendment [sic] is not difficult to interpret and no reasonable person with a good command of the English language would interpret it that way.

So am I, but I wouldn't show for duty in A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, with a .22 .

The Second Amendment is written with the qualification that as long as a well regulated militia IS necessary the right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but a person not under the regulations of such an organized armed group, for instance, having your weaponry listed in a registry, seems to me not to have any license or right to bear arms. One end of the amendment supports the other, each end being equal.


Joe(here's shooting at you)Nation

There has been an attempt by some anti-gun fanatics--and how else may we describe one who would take away his neighbor's right of self-defense--to confuse a clear understanding of traditional American liberty, by citing the coupling of "a well regulated militia being necessary...," with "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"; as though the first clause was limitation to the second. But close scrutiny will not support such confusion.



The existence of the various State militia--regulated or unregulated--was never set up as a condition precedent, nor ever intended to imply a limitation on the manifest right and assumed duty of American free men to arm themselves to protect their selves and families. The emphasis--the thrust of the linkage, as anyone familiar with contemporary concepts will immediately appreciate--was entirely in the opposite direction. A population, self armed and well schooled in the use of small arms, was deemed essential to having an effective Militia. And the expectation of effective State Militia, trained to a common Federal standard, but always officered and ordinarily controlled by those appointed in the States except in times of common danger; was the reason the Constitutional Fathers were able to limit appropriations for a standing army to two years (Constitution, Article I, Section 8).



The Fathers saw a large standing army as a threat to liberty. A review of the treatises on the subject in the Federalist (the essays written to explain the proposed Constitution, and to obtain its ratification), by Alexander Hamilton (No. 29) and by James Madison (No. 46), will readily demonstrate that the cited linkage was never intended as limitation on individual freedom; rather as a safeguard against an overbearing Federal authority; one of our most vital "checks and balances"; a source, if need be, to overthrow usurpers.



The definition of State Militia, under our system, was always the able bodied manhood of a State. Jefferson explained the setup in his Notes On The State Of Virginia in 1782. (Note the tone of lament that the Militia were not better armed.) From Query IX:



Every able-bodied freeman, between the ages of 16 and 50, is enrolled in the militia... The law requires every militia man to provide himself with the arms usual in the regular service. But this injunction was always indifferently complied with, and the arms they had have been so frequently called for to arm the regulars, that in the lower parts of the country they are entirely disarmed. In the middle country a fourth or fifth part of them may have such firelocks as they had provided to destroy the noxious animals which infest their farms; and on the western side of the Blue Ridge they are generally armed with rifles.



What the Constitutional plan envisioned for the regulation of the militia, as it pertained to Federal, State and individual volition in the direction of arms, may be inferred from some of Hamilton's comments in the aforementioned Federalist Paper No. 29:



Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, [the unregulated, undisciplined and basically inactive part of the militia] than to have them properly armed and equipped...

But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned...; it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should ... be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. ...it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defence of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments; but if circumstances should ...oblige the Government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears ...the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army; and the best possible security against it if it should exist.



Madison (Paper No. 46) put the same concepts and concerns slightly differently:



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. ....To these [the regular army] would be opposed a militia... 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. ...Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate Governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple Government of any form can admit of.



Clearly Madison saw private arms as the security of a free State--and a free citizenry--against the potential of Federal tyranny. Where would stand that security, if the Federal Administration contemplating an unauthorized extension of Federal power, were to be permitted to define the circumstances under which a citizen might arm himself?



As a final witness that the Fathers' linkage of regulation of the militia with an acknowledgment of the people's right to keep and bear arms, was never intended as a limitation on the latter but rather as a prodding for the former, we cite George Washington. Throughout his Presidency, Washington repeatedly called for improvement and standardization of the training of the more active militia members in order to meet the security needs of the United States. A few years earlier, at the conclusion of the War, General Washington had put his thoughts on the Common Defence into a May 2, 1783 draft to Alexander Hamilton, entitled Sentiments On A Peace Establishment:



...to prove ...the Policy and expediency of resting the protection of the Country on a respectable and well established Militia, we might not only shew the propriety ...from our peculiar local situation, but we might have recourse to the Histories of Greece and Rome in their most virtuous and Patriotic ages.... we might see, with admiration, the Freedom and Independence of Switzerland supported for Centuries, in the midst of powerful and jealous neighbors, by means of a hardy and well organized Militia. ...



It may be laid down as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every Citizen who enjoys the protection of a free Government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice...



The following month, June 8, 1783, Washington reported to the States, in surrendering the solemn trust of his command:



The Militia of this Country must be considered as the Palladium of our security, and the first effectual resort in case of hostility...



Washington's reference to the Swiss was quite revealing. Trained, as school boys, in the safe, correct and deadly accurate use of arms, the Swiss had and have managed to maintain an armed neutrality for generations amidst their more warlike, but less war efficient neighbors. While world travelers have reported for generations that Switzerland, where every household has its own military grade weapons, has the lowest crime rate in Europe. The Swiss have also managed to preserve the diverse rights of their 22 Cantons (or States) better than any other Federation in the world.



Yet perhaps the single most important reason why Washington wanted America to adopt the Swiss system, is that it teaches the youth--in the most immediate and compelling manner--the importance of that level of personal responsibility on which all of our other institutions are based. It gives youth a sense of purpose, importance and self-worth, for which all the words expended by "Liberal" theorists, from the Creation to this day, are no substitute.

The Fathers saw a large standing army as a threat to liberty.

I'm always intrigued when I read these historical statements surrounding the Second Amendment. I mean, aren't they really rooted in history?

In the context of a new and developing nation they make perfect sense.

In the context of a progressive, industrialised nation with very effective domestic law enforcement and a powerful military the idea of being able to keep arms for defence from government (or presumably foreign invasion) seems redundant.

Here's what the father of our country himself had to say:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

Brandon9000 wrote:

Here's what the father of our country himself had to say:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

Total defense spending, $380 billion. "sufficient arms and ammunition" Good luck, Brandon.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Here's what the father of our country himself had to say:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

Total defense spending, $380 billion. "sufficient arms and ammunition" Good luck, Brandon.

JTT wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Here's what the father of our country himself had to say:

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

Total defense spending, $380 billion. "sufficient arms and ammunition" Good luck, Brandon.

Yeap, seems, he has to increase his private spendings for arms a bit

{hand over heart, hat in hand} Yup, we foller them foundin' fathers' wisdom!

http://salt.claretianpubs.org/stats/2003/02/sh0302b.html
The United States leads the globe in expenditures and exports, accounting for 33 percent of total world expenditure in 1999 and 69 percent of all export agreements 1997-1999. These pre-9/11 figures do not take into account the recent surge in U.S. military spending. The 2004 total defense budget is $380 billion.

goodfielder wrote:

I'm always intrigued when I read these historical statements surrounding the Second Amendment. I mean, aren't they really rooted in history?

In the context of a new and developing nation they make perfect sense.

In the context of a progressive, industrialised nation with very effective domestic law enforcement and a powerful military the idea of being able to keep arms for defence from government (or presumably foreign invasion) seems redundant.

How would the army or police protect the people against a dictatorship???

Brandon9000 wrote:

goodfielder wrote:

I'm always intrigued when I read these historical statements surrounding the Second Amendment. I mean, aren't they really rooted in history?

In the context of a new and developing nation they make perfect sense.

In the context of a progressive, industrialised nation with very effective domestic law enforcement and a powerful military the idea of being able to keep arms for defence from government (or presumably foreign invasion) seems redundant.

How would the army or police protect the people against a dictatorship???

Depends. Given that policing in the US is intensely localised I would think that loyalty to the local community would be very important to the police so my impression is that the central government wouldn't be able to use them.

The military, well the military is compliant to the central government and I doubt if they'd defy a government intent on dictatorship. But I hope I'm wrong.

Of course the Supreme Court would stop a dictatorship too, again I hope I'm right.

But if a dictatorship were to occur and the military was compliant and the Supreme Court was also compliant (due to a policy of preparation for dictatorship by installing politically partisan justices over a period) I would think that any popular uprising by the people would be put down very harshly - whether or not the people were armed, superior force and tactics would prevail.

Just a few thoughts.

JTT wrote:

{hand over heart, hat in hand} Yup, we foller them foundin' fathers' wisdom!

Given the choice between following our founding fathers and a gang of pea brained liberal quacks, you can bet your last nickle I choose the former.

SHOCK OF SHOCKS!

See, these "founding fathers" declared, fought, and won a war for their independence and then proceeded to form the foundation for one of the most successful countries in the history of man.

Tell me please what defense spending has to do with the issue of private citizens arming themselves?

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."

--George Washington

SHOCK OF SHOCKS!

I think that the correct term for them, in the eyes of the British, who were the "rightful" owners of the land, would have been terrorists and most would have ended their careers at the end of a rope. But this shows you the power a native insurgency can have. Can you say "Vietnam"? Can you say "Iraq"?

The operative word is "one". You mistakenly think that the USA is tops because you are constantly fed this tripe by politicians who end everything they say with a benediction exhorting America's greatness.

Any sane adult would tell a parent that this doesn't benefit a child. How have y'all missed it for so long?

And to boot, you've missed the whole point. That founding father said that a big powerful standing army was a no no.

Better stock up on them there peas; they're cheaper by the bushel

I havent missed anything. Where did they say it was a "no no"? They said it was a potential threat to liberty, but they also realized the necessity of a standing army which is precisely why they advocated the formation of State Militias State militias to act as a check to a Federal Army.

A well regulated militia implys many and several things:

That the right to bear arms depends upon the necessity of that well-regulated militia. I will leave it to you to decide what well-regulated might mean, actual membership in a organized armed group which stands ready to provide security for the free state comes to my mind.

Good to hear from you, fishin. I don't think this is a new twist.

I think there was a SCOTUS ruling back in the 30's based on this thinking. (The decision concerned the ownership of saw-offed shotguns, who could possess them (no one) and what State regulation was Constitutional. (Any State can regulate the ownership of weapons. Wyatt Earp could prevent the carrying of weapons in Dodge City. The Federal Government can regulate the interstate transfer of said ownership. I'll look it up)

Meanwhile
Fishin wrote:

Quote:

Based on you logic here one could interpret the entire Consitution as being meaningless if they decide that they no longer want a "more perfect union".

Quote:

Our Republic rests on a living document, any citizen may propose to change the very foundation of it's life politic. I am not even proposing that, I am saying that the Second Amendment ought to be read as it is.

The right of the people to bear arms rests upon the need of a regulated militia to maintain security for the Free State and is not an individual right but a easement to the maintenance of the Free State's security.

The body of Constitutional history research leads in the other direction. From the records of the dicsussions on the debates when the Amendment was drafted and ratified and the research by people like the Hon. Joseph Story it is fairly clear that the Amendment was intended as an individual right.

I don't go as far as some and claim that it is an unlimited right that protects one's right to own any weapon they want ....

True, all true. It was what they thought and it might have been what they intended, but it's not what they wrote in the US Constitution. What they wrote clearly qualifies that pre-existing right to bear arms to be a function of the Free State and not a wholly individual right as pertains the citizens of the USA.

That's why States can and do license gun owners, require carry permits or dis-allow the practice altogether, require gun shops to maintain records of sales and prosecute the ones who don't (See the recent Sniper cases).

Remember Uncle Joe's sixteen semi-automatic and 6000 rounds of ammo. Do you live in a State where it's legal to have such a cache?

The unlimited right to bear arms is another one of those myths that seems to be foisted upon the ignorant, the same ones who thought they had the right to refuse service to someone based on race or fall for that "the Federal Government can't tax wages" dodge year after year.

Now, we still don't have enough control over the transfer of weapons in this country. You can't sell a truck without a registration, but I can buy your over/under shotgun off it's gunrack without a trace. That's not freedom, that's crazy behavior in this life.

30,000 gun deaths to about 40,000 auto deaths, but a helluva lot more people come in contact with cars then with guns. So, I asked this before, why do so many people end up dead from guns in America?