oralloy wrote:Advocate wrote:Oral, ah, you agree that the right to bear arms is in connection with one's membership in a militia.
One of the rights to bear arms is related to the militia.
It is within reason for the government to insist that this right be exercised in conjunction
with membership in an organized militia
IF the government
has organized such a militia for people to join.
If the government does not have an organized militia for people to join,
it is not reasonable for them to insist on membership in an organized
militia before people exercise their rights to have militia weapons.
Another of the rights to bear arms is related to self-defense.
That right is not related to the militia.
With all respect,
I must dissent from these points of vu.
I do not believe that thay accurately reflect history,
nor what 2A says, nor what 2A was intended to convey.
The structure of the Constitution is to organize the distribution
of political power and rights in limitation of that power.
The Constitution IS whatever it is,
regardless of anything being "reasonable" or not; what is "reasonable"
is what is hopelessly subjective and
UNDEFINABLE.
From reading their writings,
and from our knowledge of freedom loving political philosophers
for whom thay expressed hi esteem and adulation,
and from objective facts of the time (e.g., the American Revolution)
we know
EXACTLY what the Authors of the Constitution had in mind,
and the denial thereof is a defense by the liberal hypocrisy
of modern semi-marxist collectivist-authoritarians.
(That observation is
NOT directed to U, Oralloy.)
The Supreme Law of the Land says what it means and it means what it says.
It does not say that government is
obligated to create a private militia,
nor a militia of any kind,
tho it is empowered to create a government militia in Article I Section 8.
In the parlance of those times, and the centuries that led up to them,
a "well regulated" militia was a private militia of the guys in the neighborhood,
who were sufficiently well disciplined as not to shoot up the town
on a Saturday nite, and were sufficiently trained in combat skills
and were sufficiently well disciplined to hold the line,
and bravely keep fighting while in battle, not to turn and flee the scene.
If, for any reason, the citizens, or some part thereof,
become DISSATISFIED with a government militia, then under 2A
thay r free to organize themselves into militia that is to their preference,
the same as if thay did not like a government backed fire dept,
thay cud create their own, or if thay did not like a government sponsored
soup kitchen, thay cud start their own.
(This is not to say that thay were free to leave in the middle of a battle,
tho, in fact, thay were known to DO that, as did the regulars.)
The other kind of militia were the PUBLICly funded and government operated fellows,
as represented in Article I Section 8 of the Constitution.
In theory (and in actual practice, during the Civil War) well armed private citizens,
organized into private militia cud be brought into military conflict
with the militia of Article I Section 8.
Many things may be "necessary,"
but r not provided by government, for instance,
in those times, private citizens organized volunteer fire depts.
and volunteer libraries, long before government got into doing that.
Good weather is "necessary: for robust crops,
but government did not provide good weather
and clear skies r "necessary" for sailors to plot their courses,
but government does not provide clear skies.
Simply put, 2A was enacted to ensure that NO jurisdiction
of any government be brought to bear to interefere with
any citizens arming themselves for personal defense, nor
to interfere with their organizing themselves into militia,
if thay choose to do so.
This was against a historical background
of their being NO POLICE
anywhere in the USA in the 1700s, nor in England.
(Firewatches and private constables don 't count.)
David
