[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

You see Webley, things change and evolve as we learn. That's why the COTUS was amended 27 times. As I posted a quote in post #80 the Founders had a republican ideal (which btw did not include an unorganized militia) that every able citizen would be armed and by obligation stand up and defend when necessary the state.

The people still bear obligation to stand up and defend the state and they have been called upon to do so 4 times in the last century alone through conscription into the military. Also, while the Constitution had indeed been modified 27 times through amendments, none of those other 26 removed or modified the 2nd Amendment in any way.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

This was not an option but an obligation. This ideal did take care of the fear of a standing army in that the Founders believed that if the defense of the nation lay mostly in the hands of state militias that no standing army could be a threat to the liberty of all.

Last time I checked, the draft was not optional. As I have already demonstrated, armed people can and have demonstrated a significant obstacle to rule by force. I see no evidence that should a military, be it foreign or domestic, attempt to overpower the people of our country that the armed citizens would not give them great difficulty. Therefore, the founders were right, a standing army such as we have today cannot be a threat to liberty so long as we have armed, liberty-loving people.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Al Norris in his post above lays out some good quotes to illustrate this republican ideal. I agree that the COUTUS was written with that ideal in mind. However, the "unorganized militia" that you keep hangin your hat on from 1903 was NOT that ideal.
Nevertheless, it didn't work!

Your whole argument hinges upon the notion that the armed citizenry, through compromise to practicality, is now so ineffective that they are rendered a moot point. However, you forget that the original republican ideal that was outlined in the Militia Act of 1792 was in and of itself a compromise. Hamilton admitted in the Federalist Papers that a militia regulated in accordance with specifications almost identical to those of the Militia Act of 1792 would not be as effective in defense of the country as a standing army (which was not prohibited by the constitution), yet he remained confident that in spite of such compromise the militia could nonetheless remain effective enough to serve its purpose. I do not see how further compromise (and not really all that great a compromise as the required duties of the militia under the 1792 Militia Act were pretty rudimentary to begin with) necessarily renders the militia ineffective and thusly useless. Remember, prior to the Militia Act of 1903, the Volunteer Militia and Conscripted Militia were commonly recognized as different institution although both served the same basic purpose and were subject to the authority of their individual state governments and the federal government in times of crisis. The 1903 Act simply removed the inconvenient requirements of the Conscripted Militia (which were already rather rudimentary), and legally redefined the Volunteer and Conscripted Militias as the Organized and Unorganized Militias respectively. The basic duty of defense of the the country remained unchanged as the Unorganized Militia may still be called upon through conscription into the regualr military.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
By the time Jefferson left office as governor of Virginia, the ineffectiveness of the militia had left him deeply disillusioned. Painfully humiliated by – and criticized for – the rout of the Virginia militia that forced him to abandon Monticello just hours ahead of British raiders, he had long been frustrated by the lack of commitment to martial obligations in the state. He had witnessed the difficulties of raising effective forces since his appointment to the Virginia Convention’s militia committee THOMAS JEFFERSON’S ARMED CITIZENRY AND THE REPUBLICAN MILITIA Albany Law Review David Thomas Konig

So, as I posted earlier the grand idea of the citizen republican militia didn't work (George Washington didn't like them either) and so the Militia of the 2A went away over time and today we have a large standing army. Jefferson wouldn't like it if he saw it today at first. But once he understood how the world had changed he would see the need.

The basic principle of the citizen republican militia, while some of the details have been modified, did work and is still in effect as I have already demonstrated.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
An editorial in the New York Times proves nothing as newspapers, that one included, have quite often published editorials in favor of measures that are unconstitutional.

OK, how about Teddy Roosevelt who at his first State of the Union declared the militia law to be "obsolete and worthless". My point is that even 100 years ago the militia was a dead letter and it is even deader today.

First of all, Presidents in and of themselves are not necessarily Constitutional scholars and have supported unconstitutional measures on several occasions in the past. Secondly, Roosevelt declared the Militia law not the militia itself to be "obsolete and worthless." The law was subesquently changed with the Militia Act of 1903, yet the most basic duty of the militia remained unchanged.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webelymkv
You see, COTUS does not grant the government the ability to conscript the people into the military; it only grants the ability to call forth the militia.

The SCOTUS says otherwise. See Arver v. United States in which the court says:
Quote:
The power ... was clearly an unmixed federal power dealing with the subject from the sphere of the authority given to Congress to raise armies and not from the sphere of the right to deal with the militia as such, whether organized or unorganized.

The draft authority comes from Article One Section Eight. Congress has the right to raise armies. The militia of the 2A referred to the states. When we are called to active duty by a draft by congressional law it is through Article One Section Eight and not the 1903 Militia Act.

Article One Section Eight grants congress the authority to raise an army. British law, prior to the Revolution, did not grant the government the power to conscript British citizens into the army, and the British government did not do so (though they did gain volunteers often through trickery or outright deception) so it is illogical to think that the founders did not know that it was possible to raise an army through means other than conscription. As the Constitution does grant the government the power to call forth the militia, defining an entire segment of the population gives the government the power to call upon that segment and thus makes conscription of that segment legal. Arver v Unitied States makes clear that the power of congress to call forth the militia, and thusly the entire segment of the population defined as the militia, does not hinge upon that segments inclusion in the Organized Militia. Certainly, congress does not have the power to conscript members of the population who are not defined as members of the militia, such as women and men who are either too young or too old, into the military.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
To say that concern over a situtation that could be perpetrated by a large and powerful military, which we certainly posess, which posesses inherent human faults, which soldiers certainly do, equates with concern over defence from things which cannot be proven to even exist is a weak attempt to discredit a legitimate argument.

Human weakness is not the issue or the problem. It is power and who has it and can they be checked. In our system government no one has the type of power to do what you have suggested regardless of the "human frailty of soldiers". I really think Webley you don't understand the military and how it functions either and that is why I have warned you against believing the Dr. Strangelove scenarios, they aren't real and are as plausible as martians. Checks and balances acutally assume that power corrupts (human frailty) and that no one person or group should have too much of it.

It is not that I misunderstand the military, it is that I realize that power can be seized through means that are both illegal and immoral. The founders understood this and thusly feared a standing army without an armed citizenry to check its power. To say that an army who cannot be opposed by an armed citizenry would be unable to sieze power is the notion that is as implausible as martians.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Thusly, because the people are still legally considered to be the militia and because the Miller decision specifically defined the purpose of the Second Amendment as ensuring that the Militia can be equipped to defend the country, it must be concluded that, legally at least, the Second Amendment's purpose is to guarantee that the people are able to be equipped in order to defend the country.

I don't think Miller says any such thing as you conclude. I think you should reread it

I assure you that I have read it several times. Perhaps it is you who should review the Miller decision as well as the other historical documents that I have mentioned.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
that you subscibe to what I refer to the sheep/sheepdog/shepherd mentality.

How wrong you are my friend. I despise the sheep/wolf/dog/shepard crap I read posted about. To my mind it is nothing more than romantic hollywood superhero garbage. What I believe in is first

That being the case, I find myself wondering why you display such disdain and fear of the armed citizenry of the country. It would seem as though you equate any mention of armed citizens as defenders of liberty to the stereotypical gun-toting rednecks displayed in your image (which I find offensive as it implies that anyone disagreeing with you is the same as the people in the image).

It is because of this dogmaticism that I grow tired of this debate. It has become clear to me that neither of us will sway the other from his position and thusly the debate becomes pointless. You are indeed an intellegent and skilled debater and thus far we have been able to conduct our argument in a respectable fashion. It would seem though that we are drawing dangerously close to a debate of emotion and pure ideology and such a debate is not one in which I wish to participate (and I doubt that you wish to either). Because of this, I choose to leave the field of debate while it still remains on the high road, and I wish you the best Sir.