|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
November 9, 2010, 10:36 AM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|
November 9, 2010, 10:43 AM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
I don't see anything wrong with funny hats. Some of them are kind of neat, although I don't know of any that might be identified with the militia, other than three-corner hats or coonskin caps.
Do the officers have to come from the local gentry (if any), like they used to do? Can I bring my small sword and spontoon?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
November 9, 2010, 11:09 AM | #53 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
For instance, undue limits on your right to speak freely or contribute to political causes that can speak for you can serve to endanger 2d Am rights. I find that explaining the 2d Am as a civil liberties issue allows people who might otherwise be hostile to the idea to consider how comfortable they might be with draconian limits on the rights they value more. It doesn't necessarily win the argument or make a convert, but it does convey the fragile quality of constitutional protections.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|||
November 9, 2010, 11:28 AM | #54 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
You have hit upon a rarely mentioned quality of the law and the constitution and that is the essential fragility of them. A revolution can easily wipe out most of them, though even that won't surpress all of them, not even an invasion, judging from the way things have worked in the past. In the case of a revolution, it doesn't matter that much which side wins. In either case the government will invariably be stronger or more powerful than before. Likewise, most real revolutions and sometimes colonial wars are carried forward by preexisting military units, often as not the militia.
Be that as it may be, it speaks well for our own constitution that it has survived so long in such good shape and how it remains the base of much (though hardly all) of the law in this country. Perhaps the genius of the things is not what is there but in what was left out.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
November 9, 2010, 01:02 PM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
If the founders were so concerned that a new federal government might be necessary right away, a more effective and civilized means of accomplishing this would be a provision allowing the state legislatures to dissolve Congress and/or recall the President and force new elections. If Congress and/or the President ignored the order, THEN the state militias could be called out. However, such a provision is noticeably absent from the Constitution, which leads me to conclude that the founders believed that two elected houses of Congress would be sufficient restraint on the power of the federal government. Also, prior to the drafting of the Constitution, IIRC all of the states had a militia system that operated under state control. The organizational structure of the militias varied, and some states- albeit not all of them- allowed private volunteer militia companies to be sanctioned by the state, but the important thing to remember is that the states officially controlled the militia. I believe that in using the words "...the security of a free State..." in the 2A, the founders meant that the states would be secure from external forces, NOT from the federal government. In the 18th century, significant foreign powers- namely large organized Native American tribes, Britain, France, and Spain- still controlled huge swaths of North America near the settled areas of the USA. At the time, the states still viewed their militias as the primary bulwark against invasion by these groups. However, as the 19th century proceeded, all of these groups were either placated or expelled from America's sphere of influence, leading most citizens to view the 18th-century militia system as outdated and extraneous.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
November 9, 2010, 01:31 PM | #56 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
|
Quote:
Though "inalienable right" is a term from the Declaration of Independence, and has no real legal force. Quote:
As written the Constitution limits the power of the Federal government and not the states. What may have been discussed outside the Constitutional Convention has no import except when the words of the Constitution are in question. While it declares "Powers of Congress," "Limits on Congress," & "Powers Prohibited of States" among other sections, it does not purport to apply the BoR to the states anywhere until the passage of the 14th amendment. |
||
November 9, 2010, 01:40 PM | #57 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
The notion of a private militia santioned by the state, while sounding a little farfetched today, was essentially the method by which army units were raised in the 18th century and that method persisted into the 19th century. That was really the way the British Army worked. Basically, the government paid the colonel an amount of money to raise a regiment and unfortunately, it was worked as a profit making scheme. It developed some bad habits and it's a wonder it worked at all.
Real militias (not regulars) came and went with the perceived threat to the nation, here speaking both of the US and of Great Britain but there was great enthusiasm for the concept in the 1840s and 1850s. Enthusiasm for the idea on the part of war departments was usually not so great, however, not because of any doubt about the loyalty of those units but because of doubt of their fighting value. That eventually was proved, however, and some of those old units are actually still in existence, or at least their descendents. In this country, some saw Confederate service but they're still around. A couple are quite exclusive and have rather pretentious social opinions of themselves, both here and in Great Britain and in both places they have been thoroughly integrated into the defense planning of the country. Do you imagine anyone ever worried that the militia might be a threat to the state (not the national government)?
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
November 9, 2010, 01:44 PM | #58 |
Junior member
Join Date: July 14, 2008
Posts: 217
|
How to explain the second amendment
The intention of the Second Amendment is to insure that the government does not have sole access to the means of coercive force. It's just that simple. |
November 9, 2010, 02:25 PM | #59 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
|
|
November 9, 2010, 02:52 PM | #60 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
|
|
November 9, 2010, 02:53 PM | #61 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 12, 2010
Location: Georgia
Posts: 556
|
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
November 9, 2010, 02:59 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
OBVIOUSLY, it is the people, not each person but the people, that consent to laws. Whether you personally consent or not has no bearing on the matter. "In every free government, the people must give their assent to the laws by which they are governed. This is the true criterion between a free government and an arbitrary one. The former are ruled by the will of the whole, expressed in any manner they may agree upon; the latter by the will of one, or a few." Antifederalist Paper #1 Last edited by Hugh Damright; November 9, 2010 at 03:05 PM. |
|
November 9, 2010, 04:34 PM | #63 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
No doubt some would have said that a monarch would be as just as a republic. After all, there is such a thing as a constiutional monarchy, although they would have not recognized it in the 18th century. Yet some had experience with dictators (lord protectors) and decided an old fashioned monarch was better. We had our own ideas.
They should have been particularly conscious of the security concerns for a free state at the time of the convention, the revolution not being all that distant an event and for some people, even the French & Indian War was not so long ago. Serious war was developing in Europe (as usual) and actual foreign invasion must have been on their minds, and that even happen not many years later. There was tension with Canada, too. In that sense, the constitution was not written in a vacuum (as I said before). A stronger (if not strong) federal government was one of the objects of the convention, the previous arrangement having shown up some shortcomings. No doubt that bothered some people, probably people with something to lose. There were troubles with Indians periodically, in places, but frontier security in most places was already being handled by quasi-regular state forces, sometimes referred to as rangers (even then). That was largely the arrangement up and down the Allegheny Front but it wasn't long before the regular army took on that function, especially after the battle of Fallen Timbers, but local militia forces continued to be important until the frontier went beyond the Mississippi River. At the moment we may not fully appreciate the role the regular army had in "pacifying" the west. However, even after local militia forces of a traditional sort began to be replaced by more regularly organized and equipped state forces, I think it is unquestionable that private ownership of firearms was a generally accepted fact, everywhere. The idea that the absense of a militia muster on the village square commanded by the local squire somehow made a difference in whether or not you could own a nickel plated, break top .38 S&W revolver is entirely a recent idea. The next thing you know is someone suggesting that you should pay a special tax to be able to vote.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
November 9, 2010, 09:28 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
The American system of government is based on the rule of law. IMHO this more than anything else has made the USA into a great country and a model for the world to follow. The rule of law falls apart if individual jurisdictions can choose to ignore it. It falls apart a lot faster if armed groups, even those acting under quasi-governmental sanction, believe they're allowed to overthrow the federal government by force of violence. This is not a legal remedy. The proper legal remedy is two houses of Congress representing the people. The 2A is not a self-destruct mechanism.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
November 10, 2010, 12:22 AM | #65 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
The US Constitution does not declare the right to alter or to abolish government. It does not follow that there is no such right. Both the Declaration of Independence and my Virginia Declaration of Rights declare that the majority of Virginians have a right to alter or to abolish our government, and that specifically means secede. The US Constitution does not seem to create a federal power to prevent secession, I don't see how we can construe the US Constitution being quiet on the matter to mean that the US power exists. Quote:
Quote:
What about in 1775 in Virginia, when we had British troops here, supposedly to protect us, but really to dominate us ... the French/Indian wars were over, and Virginians declared that we could provide for our own protection ... that a standing army in times of peace was a danger to our political liberty, that the proper/safe/natural defense of a free State is composed of the people of that State, organized into well regulated militia ... it was declared that we especially needed militia at that time ... it seems clear enough to me that the only threat at that time was from our own British government, and that the intent was to be able to stand up to them in defense of our freedom. I see no reason at all to believe that when Virginia requested the Second Amendment, declaring these same principles, that we meant to say that we have a right to resist only foreign threats to our free government. |
|||
November 10, 2010, 03:06 AM | #66 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,286
|
Didn't Thomas Jefferson say something to the effect the true reason for the RTKABA is to prevent tyranny in government?
|
November 10, 2010, 06:44 AM | #67 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
If I may interject a footnote of history here, one of the causes of the revolution was some disagreement over taxation. The taxes in question were to pay for the war that had ended recently. The colonists, and I might say, the British colonists, had no real say in the matter. But by then, they had ceased to think of themselves as "British colonists" and were thinking of themselves as American colonists. Few of the colonial leaders had lived overseas or gone to school there. They were new growing in new soil, so to speak, although even then, some of them had gone to Harvard, Mary & Bill and maybe even Yale. That part hasn't changed.
Anyhow, that was the gist of the problem. Read the Declaration of Independence for more details. Some of the grievances sound a little quaint today, like the thing about quartering of soldiers but you have to think like it was 1775. The pot really only boiled over when the British tried to take the arms that the colonists thought were theirs, both in Massachusetts and in Virginia. It was a bad time to be a governor.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
November 10, 2010, 08:20 AM | #68 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Hugh, we are not going to re-fight the civil war. This thread is not about the sovereignty of the Commonweal of Virginia or Virginians.
If you are not here to discuss the topic of this thread, then I suggest you leave. |
November 10, 2010, 09:26 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
How to explain the Second Amendment
How to explain the Second Amendment?
While there is a good deal of substantive material in this thread, the other way to respond to the question is as a question of method. One error advocate often make is to omit the first step of identifying who you are communicating to. If you are hashing an issue out in front of an audience, your first priority is not to convert your opponent, but to persuade the audience. That can make an enormous difference in what you say. The other error advocate routinely make when they identify an opponent is to fail to identify the basis of their opposition. Knowing why a person might not care for the 2d Am might take some questions and listening. Talking past his position is rarely persuasive to anyone, and may even convince your opponent in conversation that your own position is associated with some level of personal vice. If you let someone vent about their frustrations and concur on the reasonable ones, you are more likely to receive a genuine hearing for your own.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
November 10, 2010, 10:28 AM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
Someone said that a "free State" meant individuals in a state of freedom, someone else said that it meant being free from external/foreign threats but not from federal threats. I think it has to do with free government at the state level and state sovereignty. And I think militia was intended to defend our free States against both foreign and domestic threats. I don't see how other people are on topic when they say what they think these things mean, and then I am off topic when I express my opinion. Last edited by Hugh Damright; November 10, 2010 at 10:35 AM. |
|
November 10, 2010, 10:53 AM | #71 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
While the 2nd admendment did not establish militias or the concept thereof, at the same time I cannot see that the right to bear arms was written into the constitution in order to enable revolt against the entity created by it. You, anyone, may think the constitution establishes a loose confederation of states that any could leave if enough people wanted to but clearly that was what it replaced. In any event, that could not be the purpose of the 2nd admendment.
I'm still not certain how I would go about explaining the 2nd admendment to anyone who had never heard of it but it is only one sentence long and it would seem to be wrong to leave anything out, given how short it is already.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
November 10, 2010, 12:48 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
For argument's sake, let's say that elements of the US federal government choose to openly and blatantly abrogate the Constitution- the President declares himself "President for Life", and with the help of a junta of US Army generals, marches an army on the capital, forces the Congress and Supreme Court to dissolve, imprisons the congressmen and justices, and replaces them with handpicked US Army officers. If something like this were to happen, the states could then call forth their well-regulated militia to restore a constitutional government. I can agree that the militia clause of the 2A was written with this sort of scenario in mind. OTOH, if a constitutional federal government is in place, the Congress has the power to call forth and organize the militia under Article I, Section 8 and the President is the militia's commander in chief under Article II, Section 2. Any action by the militia against a duly elected and constitutional federal government is by definition an illegal and treasonous act.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
|
November 10, 2010, 01:18 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,451
|
Quote:
The idea that a federal government would take more than a quarter of someone's income would have stressed their imagination.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
November 10, 2010, 02:34 PM | #74 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
|
Quote:
At the time of the founding individuals and familys had firearms and other types of arms, some (a very few) familys even had personally owned cannons. The reason the founding fathers had these weapons was it directly derived from english law and common customs in many places and times throughout anglo saxon history although the concept itself is not solely a anglo saxon idea by any means. It was and is a inherent right of every individual to be armed so long as they are not under some form of arrest or confinement. These individuals as they had arms and were armed could be called upon to form militias for the defense of any community or state but it was up to the will of the individual to join a militia. In fact without doing a lot of digging in early american history you can find lots of felons who had no need of expungement to bear arms as the right was absolute and only later became corrupted due to religious or poliical considerations. (Again only once the confinement or arrest was over) The right to keep and bear arms simply points out that the armed people may indeed form militias and there right to keep and bear arms was not to be infringed. I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified to see where we are in this country now on this issue, but thats my opinion, your milage may vary. |
|
November 10, 2010, 02:46 PM | #75 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
|
Quote:
The Constitution was created because the former colonists wanted a legal and self-determined method by which to resolve grievances without again resorting to war. If one dislikes the level of federal taxation, the constitutional solution is to elect representatives who will legally change it, not to take up arms and depose the federal government! Quote:
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak |
||
|
|