[Webleymkv]

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

The 'well-regulated' militia has been expressly held to have nothing at all to do with either a citizens' militia or the 'unorganized militia': U.S. v. Warin, 530 F. 2d. 103 (6th Circuit,1976) and U.S. v. Oakes, 564 F. 2d 384 (10th Circuit,1977).

The decision of the court in both cases was predicated upon the notion that the Second Amendment only guarantees the collective right of the States to raise a militia. That notion was dispelled in D.C. v. Heller when SCOTUS declared the Second Amendment to be an individual right. Thusly, if the Second Amendment was set in order to guarantee the ability to arm the militia so that it may protect the country, and it also guarantees an individual right according to SCOTUS in the Heller opinion, it would logically follow that the individual, regardless of his membership to the Organized Militia according to the Heller opinion, is indeed considered to be a member of the militia. Likewise, SCOTUS stated the following in their opinion in U.S. v Miller:

The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

As the federal govenrment still retains the authority to call upon the Unorganized Militia to defend the country through military conscription, it would seem that members of the Unorganized Militia are still members of the Militia as a whole.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Certainly our experience in Vietnam and our current experiences in the Middle East demonstrate that even the best military will face great difficulty when they attempt to control a populace that is armed and unwilling to comply with the wishes of the force attempting to control them, even when that populace posesses inferior equipment and is not as well organized.

First of all, we haven't had that great a difficulty in Iraq and the insurgency is pretty much defeated in spite of what the newspapers might say.

If we have not had significant difficulty, why do we remain engaged there for nearly six years now? For the majority of that time, the regular Iraqi army has not been our opponent as Hussein's government was toppled fairly early on. Likewise, the formal military of no other nation has stepped into the fray to oppose us. Likewise, the Taliban is no longer the formal government of Afghanistan and the regular Afghan Army is our ally. Yet we remain unable to stabilize the country partly because a large segment of the population, though their arms and organization are inferior to our own, opposes us.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Another gun culture legend is that in Vietnam we were dealing with poorly armed, organized and trained adversaries. Just not true. North Vietnam was supported strongly by the Soviet Union and China. They were well armed with modern weaponry, had tanks and an Air Force. We still defeated them militarily at every turn but waged a war with no real strategy and so gave up politically later on. They were not merely a group of people with guns.

So if the NVA was not difficult to defeat, why did we lose the war? The answer of course is that a large segement of the South Vietnamese population (the VC) did not support the corrupt government that we were attempting to prop up. Thusly, the VC, whose equipment and organization was inferior to our own, was able to cause us great difficulty in Vietnam. It is generally accepted by historians that a large component to our difficulties in Vietnam came from the inability to distinguish between the VC and friendly civillians, thusly rendering us unable to quell them.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Yes, by legal definition it is. While it may have been modified from it's original form, it is still there.

It is also against the law in Tennessee to swim a horse across a river. You are taking a 100 plus year old law and twisting it around to suit your argument.

The age of a law has nothing to do with it's validity or purpose. Many very important laws date back to the founding of our country, yet their age has no bearing on their validity.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
well I guess I have a bit more faith in the Amercian People than you do.

I would argue the reverse. I have faith in our democracy which is the body of the American People. These Dr. Strangelove scenarios that many post about and cling to are really an insult to our citizenry and I would urge you to disregard such tripe. I don't think we are ever going to descend into the type of madness you might fear that would require us to revert to the law of the jungle with guns. I have more faith in the American People than that and you should too.

So was the founders lack of faith in democratic institutions in and of themselves, which caused them to include the Second Amendment into the constitution, insulting tripe as well? You have repeatedly stated that the founders feared a standing army, but if the oath of service and democratic institutions in and of themselves are sufficient to prevent military tyranny, why did the founders fear the large standing army? Remember, checks and balances were outlined in the body of the Constitution (which was ratified simultatneously with the Second Amendment) so it cannot be argued that such institutions evolved later. Likewise, the Militia Act of 1792, which you state attempted to negate the need for a large standing army, was passed after the ratification of the Constitution and its Separation of Powers. Thusly, it must be concluded that in spite of democratic institutions, the founders retained their fear of a large standing army. While their fear has yet to be realized (though it is not impossible that it might be), that does not change the purpose for their inclusion of the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webelymkv
The problem here is that, whether you acknowledge it or not, the militia does still exist. While it's structure may have changed, that does not necessarily change it's function or purpose.

But you see Webley it's function and purpose was assumed by another institution, namely the US Military. The republican ideal of a citizen militia was abandoned two decades after the COTUS was ratified. The militia has no more relevence today than privateers or Letters of Marque. Look here:http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstrac...649D946397D6CF. This was in 1902 and even the people living then knew it was gone!

Function, perhaps but not its purpose. 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.

Also, the militia, the Unorganized Militia included, was not abandonded as to do so would negate the government's ability to institute a draft. 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. By redefining the people, or at least a large segment of them, as the militia, the government is able to legally conscript that segment into the military. The government is therefore unable to completely abandon the concept of the militia without also abandoning its legal authority to conscript a segment of the people into the military should that be needed. Since the people have been conscripted into the military multiple times within the last century, it is impossible that the institution of the Militia, the Unorganized Militia included, was abandoned over 100 years ago. 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. While you may argue that the militia is not the same institution that it was at the time the Constitution was drafted, the fact remains that by legal definition the Unorganized Militia remains a part of the Militia. Because the Unorganized Militia, and thusly the people, remain a part of the Militia and because the purpose of the Second Amendment, as defined by SCOTUS, is to equip the militia so that it may defend the country, deductive reasoning dictates the the purpose of the Second Amendment is to equip the people to defend the country.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

Quote:
Originally Posted by Webleymkv
Because hindsight is always 20/20, it is well within the realm of possibility that the military could carry out an illegal and unconstitutional order that, at the time, may appear to be both legal and constitutional. Such was certainly the case with suspension of Habeus Corpus and Japanese Internment and there is no guarantee that such an act could not be carried out against another branch of the government or the majority of the people rather than a singel small minority (Japanese Americans) or location (New York City).

I really think it is clear that to equate something like the Japanese Internment during WWII, a move supported by all three branches of government as well as most Americans at the time,to a far out scenario that a clever President could turn the US Military against the rest of the nation and it's own government is not only far fetched but a little wild. The leap of logic is unsustainable.

No, the leap of logic is not unsustainable. History shows multiple examples of Persuasive leaders convincing the military to help them seize power in spite of legal safeguards that were in place to prevent such an occurance. Julius Caesar used the military force that he commanded to seize power from the Roman senate in spite of the fact that Roman law forbade a dictatorship outside of times of crisis (which had passed). Likewise, Hitler used the SS to eliminate his potential enemies in the SA during the Night of the Long Knives in spite of German law mandating due process of law. To say that laws forbiding such an occurence and the morality of the military in and of themselves are sufficient to prevent a miitary coup is a notion that is not supported by history.

Originally posted by Tennessee Gentleman

I think your quote here:
Quote:
While I concede that the scenario I presented was highly unlikely, improbability does not equate with impossibility.

could also be applied to space alien invasion or zombie war. I guess nothing is impossible. Should we prepare for those outcomes as well?

This is nothing more than a strawman argument. 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.

Originally posted by Tenessee Gentleman

The "Unorganized militia" in modern terms is more a draft-dodging loophole, not a Rambo clause.

Herein lies the crux of our disagreement. I think this statement as well as the picture that you posted in post #40 demonstrates that you subscibe to what I refer to the sheep/sheepdog/shepherd mentality. Basically, it seems that you view the police and military (the sheepdogs) as the only ones with a duty, or right for that matter, to use arms in order to defend the country and thusly the people. Similarly, it seems as though you view the government (the shepherd) as bearing sole duty, as well as right, to command both the police/military and the people in defense of the nation because it alone is able to determine what is best for the country with regards to defense (the flock if you will). Finally, it would seem that you view the people (the sheep) has having only one duty and right with regard to use of arms in defense: the defense of their individual selves. It seems as though you view anyone, outside of the police or military, who states that they wish to be armed in order to defend liberty as some sort of misguided redneck that wishes to play "Rambo" and is some sort of "draft-dodger" because they refuse to join the ranks of the military or police. It appears as though you believe that the "sheepdogs" are the only ones who have a right to use arms in order to defend the country and that the "sheep" should stand aside and concern themselves only with their own well being and have the right to use their arms to that end and that end only.

I reject this mentality and instead subscribe to what could be called the "Dog-pack" philosopy. While individual members of society are selected to lead and bear specific duties that ensure the well being of the "pack," each and every member of society bears both the right and duty to ensure not only his own well being, but that of the "pack" as well. This duty extends to the use of arms should that be necessary.