|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 23, 2005, 06:36 PM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 25, 2005
Location: Florida panhandle
Posts: 128
|
Why is it that the term "the people" is not consistent.
Can someone explain to me why some people think the term "the people" refers to a collective right in some circumstances and not others? The Constitution of the United States begins with "We the people of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...". Does this apply to all of the people or just some of the people? The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to asssemble and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Who is this refering to? All of the people or some of the people? The second amendment says," A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". Who are these people? I don't see any difference in any of them all I see is the people. Can anyone shed any light on this for me?
__________________
Doug Helms <>< "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Ben Franklin. |
December 23, 2005, 09:08 PM | #2 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: March 24, 2005
Location: Steubenville, OH
Posts: 4,446
|
I think you'll get more response in Legal & Political Doug, so I moved it there .
__________________
TFL Members are ambassadors to the world for firearm owners. What kind of ambassador does your post make you? I train in earnest, to do the things that I pray in earnest, I'll never have to do. --Capt. Charlie |
December 23, 2005, 09:31 PM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 2, 2001
Posts: 4,988
|
Basically I suspect collectivist interpretations of 'the people' as regards RKBA falls under the rubric of The Big Lie. If you recall Hitler found out that if he told a lie loudly enough and long enough people would start believing it. The hope is that one day if it is iterated until 'the people' forget the truth 'the government' can get rid of these unwashed masses who want to have sayso about their own destiny.
__________________
In a few years when the dust finally clears and people start counting their change there is a pretty good chance that President Obama may become known as The Great Absquatulator. You heard it first here on TFL. |
December 23, 2005, 10:32 PM | #4 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 9, 2004
Location: MA
Posts: 620
|
It's simple - the liberal/left interpret 'the people' in the way that most favors their socialist agenda.
Free armed citizens don't fit into their plans to reduce us all into docile worker ants in their utopia, so that 'the people' means no RKBA for, well, the people. |
December 23, 2005, 11:45 PM | #5 |
Junior member
Join Date: August 30, 2005
Location: State of KALI
Posts: 1,531
|
The people were men, land owners, and white.
Women need not apply and the darker of the population was considered 3/5 of a person and then I don't think women were involved either.
The True constitutionalist worries me. What are they stupid or what. In the real world there were many indentured servants, not just the slaves of the south. We still have the same problem in the Asian community, the Indian (hindu) community and how about the Braceros, now that is pitiful. Oh well the Republicans are doing such a good job at covering it up and the liberals are such dolts. I think I will just stop and wish everyone a Happy Holiday. Harley |
December 24, 2005, 12:08 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 18, 2002
Location: Texas, on the border
Posts: 846
|
Quote:
The Constitutional use of the words "the people" is explicit and difficult to criticize, even today, but the current definition of "militia" has changed from it's original intent. Originally, the "Militia" was every able bodied male between about 15 and 65 and they were expected to be prepared to take up arms for the protection of their greater community. Today, we have a (semi) professional Militia in the Guard and Liberal social engineers use that as the foundation of the argument that only the State, through the Militia, has the right to keep and bear arms. I believe it would be correct to understand that the original intent in the Constitution was that it was expected that "the people" would be armed and able to defend themselves and their communities. I recognize that we could debate who was counted amongst "the people" in those days but I really don't wish to debate that now. Simply put, there weren't sufficient Federal, State or local troops or police to protect "the people" and they needed to handle that themselves. Today, we have mulitple levels of law enforcement and 911 at our fingertips but they aren't going to arrive until after the crime has been commited and the criminals have departed. The need and right for "the people" to be armed, and not be infringed, still exists.
__________________
Packin' Heat Leather Company Galco Distributor & Bianchi Dealer McAllen, Texas USA |
|
December 24, 2005, 04:54 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 25, 2005
Location: Florida panhandle
Posts: 128
|
I'm not sure the term "militia" has changed as much as some people might think. I think federal law still considers every able bodied male from 18 to 45 part of the militia. It seems like I have seen this somewhere. But I'm sure the gungrabbers won't agree with that.
__________________
Doug Helms <>< "Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither." Ben Franklin. Last edited by delta58; December 24, 2005 at 09:21 PM. |
December 25, 2005, 10:57 AM | #8 | |
Junior member
Join Date: November 19, 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,920
|
The US Supreme Court says that the usage *is* consistent
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...=494&invol=259 United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 494 U.S. 259 (1990) Docket Number: 88-1353 Quote:
|
|
December 28, 2005, 06:39 AM | #9 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
Anyone here care to have a go at what "well regulated" means? And while we're at it, what we're supposed to do once we are outside the age limit of the militia?
__________________
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. |
December 28, 2005, 08:41 AM | #10 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Quote:
Your comments about slavery in other parts of the world are a red herring, as they have no bearing upon the US and the operative law here. This is unlike you, Harley. I would almost think you are suffering from Holiday Depression. |
||
December 28, 2005, 02:33 PM | #11 | ||
Junior member
Join Date: November 19, 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,920
|
Rkba 101
Quote:
Quote:
As you can see, Judge Cooley's words show that RKBA is not limited to militia. I have been unable to find contrary views by the Founders or contemporary figures during the times of these writings. They were excepted views. Did I answer your questions? Rick |
||
December 28, 2005, 02:55 PM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Maybe we examine the term "militia" in relation to the draft: Only members of the militia are eligible for the draft. The draft pulls from the militia. In order to have effective draftees in time of war, the militia must train itself, and remain "well regulated".
Perhaps if we see further assaults on the 2nd ammendment, we could counter-strike on legislation regarding the draft? I don't have anything against the draft in general, it just seems that the themes relating "militia" to "arms" share common legal components with democratic conscription. The gun grabbers have hopes of one day using law enforcement and military to take guns away... So if the military is made to safeguard our private ownership vis-a-vis its dependence on the militia in time of wars and drafts, the libs will get another enemy. I know most armed forces are conservative, but I sometimes think that the top military brass around DC have more in common with liberals than conservatives. That might light a fire under their keisters to not go along with any BS. |
December 28, 2005, 02:59 PM | #13 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
In fact, if we simply stated that the draft may only pull from members of the militia, this would fix all problems with the second ammendment.
Obviously you can't draft the "National Guard" as liberals think the militia refers to. If the draft refered to you and I as the militia, that would cement the integrity of the 2nd ammendment once and for all. |
December 28, 2005, 03:49 PM | #14 |
Junior member
Join Date: May 17, 2000
Location: Eugene, OR
Posts: 3,427
|
Because if the words, The People, are taken as it should, then they would have no ground to stand on with trying to ban firearms.
To make it a collective and not individual gives credit to their argument, at least to those that aren't schooled or are lacking in intelligence. With the creation of the National Guard, by federal mandate, a hundred years after the signing of the Constitution/Bill of Rights, this gave even more "credit" for those that don't know history, and thus firmly believe that the National Guard was in force in the 18th century and they were/are the militia. When a person or persons have a fear, as they do with firearms and firearm owners, anything can be rationalized in their minds to gain their goal, that goal is "feeling safe". The People in the 2nd are the same as outlined in the original 10. But when one has such a fear that they will rationalize anything in order to feel safe, they find that words and definitions are the easiest to manipulate. It's been shown here, on this very board, with some members. People hear or read what they want to hear or read. Wayne |
December 28, 2005, 04:36 PM | #15 | ||||
Junior member
Join Date: November 19, 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,920
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
This is basic stuff. It should already be part of your intellectual arsenal. Get to work. Rick |
||||
December 28, 2005, 05:45 PM | #16 |
Junior member
Join Date: September 28, 2005
Location: Mesa, AZ
Posts: 6,465
|
Guys, I understand that the terms "militia" and "the people" are synonymous and interchangeable in 18th century American English.
Consider this, though: 1. Gun grabbers want guns out of the hands of individuals. 2. Gun grabbers think the militia refers to "official" military or law enforcement. 3. Gun grabbers want to use their "militia" to take guns away forcibly if need be. This would require conscription because it would start a civil war. If the law reads that conscripts must come from the militia, which regulates itself in times of peace, then the entire confiscation argument collapses because either: 1. The national guard is then the only body from which to conscript, or: 2. Using conscription affirms that the militia is indeed the citizenry at large and they have another point of law aside from the 2nd affirming the RKBA. I think it would be a great move! I am in no way suggesting that only the national guard can keep weapons. I am only suggesting playing word games with conscription law to re-affirm the 2nd ammendment. |
December 28, 2005, 05:48 PM | #17 |
Junior member
Join Date: November 19, 1999
Location: Arizona
Posts: 1,920
|
It would have interesting fall-out possibilities.
Rick |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|