Who here is an expert on the Constitution?

posted by DoBravery

When the Constitution was written, the term militia refereed to locals with their OWN personal arms forming organized fighting bodies . . the term militia has never been re-defined. [Edited by Don W]

1) I have never seen or heard this “ . . their OWN personal arms . . “ to be the case in the 1775-1790 time period.

2) OTOH, have you read the Articles of Confederation? “ . . every State shall ***keep up*** a well-regulated and disciplined militia . . and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores . . a proper quantity of arms, ammunition . . “ This was written in 1775. This seems to contradict the claim eacn man furnished his own personal arms. Note also my emphasis on the term “keep up.”

3) What is wrong with the above being the definition of militia?

“ . . you can include a modern idea of militia meaning the National Guard.
Actually these days, National Guard and Reserves are closer to regular military than militia . . the Guard serving in Iraq.

I do not think there is any militia in 2006. As you point out, the current NG is not a militia.



[edit on 12/26/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
I do not think there is any militia in 2006. As you point out, the current NG is not a militia.

I am not disagreeing, but how do the Dick Act and the National Defense Act fit into this theory? From what I can gather, the National Guard, is our militia. Or more correctly, the NG is the CotUS militia.

The militia other than the NG, isn't really valid. These are hostile combatants. Partisans, not entitled to anything.

en.wikipedia.org...

United States Senator Charles Dick, a Major General in the Ohio National Guard, sponsored the 1903 act, which gave Federal status to the militia. Under this legislation the organized militia of the States was required to conform to Regular Army organization within five years. The act also required National Guard units to attend 24 drills and five days annual training a year, and, for the first time, provided for pay for annual training. In return for the increased Federal funding which the act made available, militia units were subject to inspection by Regular Army officers, and had to meet certain standards.

The increase in Federal funding was an important development. In 1808 Congress had allocated $200,000 a year to arm the militia; by 1887, the figure had risen to only $400,000. But in 1906, three years after the passage of the Dick Act, $2,000,000 was allocated to arm the militia; between 1903 and 1916, the Federal government spent $53,000,000 on the Guard, more than the total of the previous hundred years.The increase in Federal funding was an important development. In 1808 Congress had allocated $200,000 a year to arm the militia; by 1887, the figure had risen to only $400,000. But in 1906, three years after the passage of the Dick Act, $2,000,000 was allocated to arm the militia; between 1903 and 1916, the Federal government spent $53,000,000 on the Guard, more than the total of the previous hundred years.

[...]

The 1916 act transformed the Division of Militia Affairs into a separate Militia Bureau, increasing its autonomy and authority. Eight new civilian positions were authorized, something which the various Chiefs had been requesting for years; the number of military assigned to the Bureau had grown to 13. The National Defense Act also gave Presidential authority to assign two National Guard officers to duty with the Militia Bureau. The inclusion of National Guard officers in the Militia Bureau was an important step towards creating a centralized planning organization for the National Guard headed by its own officers. The first National Guard officer assigned to the Bureau was Major Louis C. Wilson of Texas in 1916.

It seems like there is already a militia, and its called the national guard, and it is expected to answer to the Executive Branch.

Joe Sixpack down the street with his rifle, is an enemy of thestate, not a militiaman. Well, in the eyes of the current authority I mean. But it looks like the militia has been used politically since before the War of 1812, doesn't it?

www.iowanationalguard.com...

The National Defense Act of 1916, written originally for the mobilization for Mexican Border service, was used again for the mobilization for WWI. Because of the wording of this Act and the constitutional questions concerning state militias serving overseas, all mobilized Guard units were deactivated and then re-activated in federal service. The mobilized Guardsmen were then given the status of "draftees" by the Regular Army. (During and after the war, the National Guard Association worked tirelessly to get this status changed to "volunteer.")

At the beginning of the United States' entry into WWI, the Army consisted of three components: the Regular Army, composed of active duty units that existed prior the war; the National Army, composed of mobilized federal reservists (USAR) and draftees; and the states' National Guards. After the Guard units were mobilized, they were deactivated and re-activated as part of the National Army of the U.S. So, during mobilization and during the war, the states' respective National Guards ceased to exist.

When WWI ended, Gen. Peyton C. March was Chief of Staff of the Army. This was unfortunate for the National Guard, as March was an adherent of Emory Upton, a 19th-century military theorist who advocated the abolition of the Guard. He used his position to ensure that all Guardsmen who had been mustered into active duty were given complete discharges from the Army. This action outraged many governors because it left their states without a National Guard. This was the prelude to the legislative fight which would end in the National Defense Act of 1920.

posted by smallpeeps

I am not disagreeing, but how do the Dick Act and the National Defense Act fit into this theory? From what I can gather, the National Guard, is our militia. Or more correctly, the NG is the ConUS militia. [Edited by Don W]

Semantics. What’s in a name? Congress, which creates these things, has the prerogative to name or call it anything that appeals to them. Congress could designate the Eagle Scouts as the militia. But it did not.

The only reason in 2006 we are debating what is a militia, or even, if there is a militia at all, is because the gun lobby asserts the Second Amendment excludes guns from regulation. Pro gun lobbyists think if they can “prove” the historic militia-man concept is applicable today, then they should be allowed to sell any weapon they can make.

Those who believe there is a serious epidemic of killing in America which is aided and abetted by so many easily available firearms - killing upwards of 30,000 a year depending on who is counting - dispute the idea a 1790s militia concept has any application today.

The Dick Act of 1903 created the National Guard Bureau. This came after Congress was dissatisfied with our military preparedness in the Spanish American War of 1898. I would guess that law has been amended so many tims - First World War 1917-1918 - Second Word War 1941-1945 - the Reorganization Act of 1947 creating the Air Force - that lt is out of date, if it is even still good law. What I mean is that to quote part of the original 1903 law as still applicable today is to be a century out of date.

Bottom line. This debate over who is a militia-man or do we even have a militia in 2006, is an effort to make the 3rd and 4th clauses of the Second Amendment stand alone. Those on the other side assert the 3rd and 4th clauses are totally dependant on the 1st and 2nd clauses and can only be understood as relating back.

Aside: This debate does illustrate the "one size fits all" is not valid, either. What guns that are ok in Wyoming are not ok in Rhode Island. The rules that apply in Boise won't work in Manhattan. We do need to be flexible.

Foot Note: In 1808 Congress allocated $200,000 a year to arm the militia, tending to refute the idea that each militia man was to bring his own arms.



[edit on 12/27/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by smallpeeps
So if you look closely, the 14th Amendment states clearly that all US born persons who place themselves under the US jurisdiction, are bound by it, i.e. slaves.

That is a gross mischaracterization. The 14th Amendment merely states in regard to US citizenship that regardless if race or gender if you are born in the US or have been naturalized as a US citizen you are guaranteed the rights and protections outlined under the Constitution of 1787. The 14th Amendment was passed in response to the oppression of the newly emancipated southern black populace after the Civil War. Prior to 1868 the power to enforce law was invested solely in each individual state. The 14th Amendment gives the federal government the authority to protect the civil rights of all US citizens and enforce the constitution as the supreme law of the land.

Originally posted by smallpeeps
Proof of this is obvious. Why would a person who is born in the US ever place himself under the jurisdiction of the US authority? There is no reason, and this is why most people do not even know how they become or remain slaves. Persons who are "naturalized" have to pass lots of tests and renounce their old allegiances. When does a native born American even renounce anything or accept anything or place themselves under the jurisdiction of the US? Well, if you get a driver's license (it's their main document of consent/compliance) then you are a slave, essentially.

Why would they not? Who else would have your best interests at heart other than your own government? If you don't want to be under the jurisdication of the US then just renounce your citizenship.

posted by danwild6

posted by smallpeeps

“ . . the 14th Amendment states that all US born persons who place themselves under the US jurisdiction, are bound by it, i.e. slaves.

That is a gross mischaracterization. The 14th Amendment merely states if you are born in the US or have been naturalized as a US citizen you are guaranteed the rights and protections outlined under the Constitution. The 14th Amendment gives the federal government the authority to protect the civil rights of all US citizens and to enforce the constitution as the supreme law of the land. [Edited by Don W]

May I offer this? The clause in the first sentence, “ . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . “ relates to or excepts from, foreign ambassadors and others who may be physically present in the US such as tourists, but who are not “subject” to its jurisdiction and who are not to be citizens. So, 2 elements are needed to be a “citizen.” 1) To be born or to be naturalized and 2) to be subject to its jurisdiction. It is arguable if a child born of persons in the US illegally are really citizens of the US.

Obviously, because such children are considered to be citizens, it follows Congress must have enacted a law to that effect or the courts must have ruled that is the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

Why would they not? Who else would have your best interests at heart other than your own government? If you don't want to be under the jurisdiction of the US then just renounce your citizenship.

Because one cannot “renounce” the fact of his birth, nor can he change the historical fact of where he was born, I take the position it is not possible to “renounce” your American citizenship.


[edit on 12/27/2006 by donwhite]

posted by DoBravery

When the Constitution was written, the term militia refered to locals with their OWN personal arms forming organize fighting bodies . . since the 2nd Ammendment, the term militia has never been re-defined. [Edited by Don W]

In 1808 Congress allocated $200,000 a year to arm the militia

Which would tend to refute the idea that each militia man was to bring his OWN arms when defending the country. Read Article 6, Par. 3, Articles of Confederation.

More: Common sense says no to the sentimental notion that each militia man brought his own arms very unlikely because it would make the supply of musket balls and flints, parts, wicks and powder much too complicated. Impossible. Uniformity is needed when you have organized units.


[edit on 12/27/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by danwild6
Why would they not? Who else would have your best interests at heart other than your own government? If you don't want to be under the jurisdication of the US then just renounce your citizenship.

Are you serious? The government is there to protect us? I am sorry but I do not believe this. I know our founding fathers viewed the "people" as the "squirming masses" and while they may have been sympathetic to the common man, they did not see themselves on his level. Government has as its only goal, subjugation of the people.

I was born here, on the American continent. I don't need to renounce anything because I am of the Posterity of the People of the Constitution. Anyway, how can I own/renounce that which I did not apply for. Is this citizenship my birthright? Then let me have my a priori birthright of self autonomy and we'll call it even.

Do you know what citizenship is? Then please explain how I came to possess it simply by being born. The fact of the matter is that the US continent has always been controlled by the people with the money power. It is they who so kindly allow us to be citizens (under subjection) to them, if we choose. Sovereignty devolved onto the people, just like John Jay said. I'll quote him from Chisolm vs. Georgia again:

caselaw.lp.findlaw.com...

"all jurisdiction implies superiority of power."

"The sovereign, when traced to his source, must be found in the man."

[regarding the US states] "the people of [...] could alter, as they pleased, their former work: To any given degree, they could diminish as well as enlarge it. Any or all of the former State- powers, they could extinguish or transfer."

"at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects [...] and as joint tenants in the sovereignty."

I will have no Oligarch, King or fictional Uncle Sam as my authority. I have one authority, and it's not on Earth.

Originally posted by donwhite
May I offer this? The clause in the first sentence, “ . . and subject to the jurisdiction thereof . . “ relates to or excepts from, foreign ambassadors and others who may be physically present in the US such as tourists, but who are not “subject” to its jurisdiction and who are not to be citizens. So, 2 elements are needed to be a “citizen.” 1) To be born or to be naturalized and 2) to be subject to its jurisdiction. It is arguable if a child born of persons in the US illegally are really citizens of the US.

Obviously, because such children are considered to be citizens, it follows Congress must have enacted a law to that effect or the courts must have ruled that is the meaning of the 14th Amendment.

The State does not have the power to tell persons born on this continent (God's continent IMO) that they will do this or that. The State GETS TOLD what they will do or not do. That's why states go away when they become disobedient. Any authority must derive its power from the consent of the persons they presume to have power over. Jurisdiction is ALWAYS about power, just as John Jay said above.

Because one cannot “renounce” the fact of his birth, nor can he change the historical fact of where he was born, I take the position it is not possible to “renounce” your American citizenship.

True. I never applied for citizenship so how can the state make me a hostage by their own "generosity" of giving my little infant-self citizenship?

Is it a favor that the Catholic Church does when they baptize an infant? Is it a favor the US does when they bind every infant to the citizenship burden? Hmmm...

Anyway my points are these:

1: The CotUS was written by wealthy elites, and written with subterfuge but honestly. Truth is there, but it's partially hidden in plain sight.

2: The idea that gun rights derive from the second amendment is a false flag which wastes time because the authority (executive branch) is only going to recognize the official (army) militia. Guns will be collected and no court will hear 2nd amendment issues, in the future I expect.

3: BUT, if Americans understand political jurisdiction and birthrights, they can keep not only their guns but their country, and we need only go back to the 14th amendment to see the major gimbal on which this whole circle turns. "Citizenship" was granted to the freed negro slave, yet he remained a slave. They partially elevated him to a better class, but also by lowering the rest of the population to an enslaved state, they accomplished their larger goal.

Own guns because it is your sovereign right. Period. There is no other issue to discuss than jurisdiction.

Originally posted by donwhite
Because one cannot “renounce” the fact of his birth, nor can he change the historical fact of where he was born, I take the position it is not possible to “renounce” your American citizenship.

Well actually there are a number of ways.

US Citizenship FAQS

I fear that technology will render the second amendment moot, but I would urge anyone argueing the issue to examine the ideological origins of the American Revolution and the importance of the English experience in encouraging an armed yeomanry to defend it's natural rights against governments who would become dictatorships.

I am appalled at the ignorance and socialist mentality of the anti-gun posters here; governments do not confer rights to you, they take them away.

Originally posted by aaaaa

I am appalled at the ignorance and socialist mentality of the anti-gun posters here; governments do not confer rights to you, they take them away.

NOW THAT!!! is the most intuitive post yet... As well as 100% correct..

You have voted aaaaa for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have used all of your votes for this month.

Perhaps the Founding Fathers did not completely confer the 2nd Amendment on us to protect us from the Government. (Although that I am sure is one main reason) Perhaps they knew that in any society there would be Brigands, Robbers, Rapists, Thieves etc, and they at least understood the complete necessity of having the ability to defend your home and your family.

Face it, we have plenty of gun laws. They are simply not enforced. So what if we create more, even repeal the 2nd Amendment, how is that going to effect the availability of forearms to those that flaunt the law? Common sense, if they care so little about the law to break it, why would they care how they obtained the weapon they use?
How much more free we would make criminals feel if we effectively disarmed the Good Folks in this country. You think Home Invasions are bad now? Disarm all America and see how fast that particular crime escalates.

I can promise you that I WILL NEVER in my official capacity ever EVER disarm a citizen of the United States because of some MIS-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment.

Semper

First off the usage of semantics is used to mislead people ..to get a issue confused.

There is nothing complicated about the usage of the term... "the right of the " People " to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. "

Notice the usage of the first phrase ..second through fourth phrase.

Notice also the slight of hand in assuming the importance of the 2nd Amendment is to the first part... The militia necessary to a free state.

When you look at the Constitution ..particularly the first 10 Amendments..one thing is quite obvious. The first 10 Amendments are limits on the Government. Read it some time with this in mind. It becomes quite obvoius.

Let me say this again ..for clarity. The first 10 Amendments are all limits on Government ..not on the people. Read them sometime.


All other debates over historically anachronistic...outdated ...semantics are all to cloud and confuse this point.

We are not a more intelligent or educated people than the Founders.

This needs stating again... We as Americans are not a more intelligent or educated people than the Founders.


Someone made a comment about uniformity...in the firearms of those days. Wow.!! To whom were they counting on to weild those firearms???

People who had firearms had a whole hogepodge of firearms in different calibers ..from smoothbores to rifles to shotguns..pistols etc...no uniformity. But they had them.

I am not sure when Eli Whitney made his cotton gin and began the process which was to become commonality of parts by manufacturing processes...uniformity. Was it before 1808..perhapsed some of you know. This definitely affected the firearms industry as well as other industrys.

I have no reason to trust Government ..state or federal. Especially a career politician or bureaucrat. They have numerous ways to make a short story long so to speak. Read that as you will.

The militia has always been the people..not the Federal Armys..national guard or any other.

The emphasis on the 2nd amendment has always been the people ..not the militia.. Read it carefully. Limited Government. Not limited people.

Thanks,
Orangetom

posted by Semperfortis

Perhaps the FFs did not confer the 2nd Amendment on us to protect us from the Government. Perhaps they knew that in any society there would be brigands, robbers, rapists, Thieves etc, and they at least understood the complete necessity of having the ability to defend your home and your family. [Edited by Don W]

Why this discombobulated reasoning? 18th century armies could not move faster than men could march. Quick step is 120 paces a minute (3.5 mph) but that only works on smooth pavements. Marching in the 1700s would be closer to 60 paces a minute, unless it was wet and slower, with plenty of resting time. I think an army could march 6-8 hours a day and cover 12 to 24 miles. We learned in the Civil War that after a long march it is very much desired to let an army rest for a day before engaging in combat.

I said all that to say this, early settlers could not depend on the army for security. Local militias - not mobs or vigilantes or pick-up game types - but trained, organized and well disciplined units were the only way to provide for frontier security. Because the Brits tried to take the arms and ammo from the locals in 1775 at Lexington, Concord and Bunker Hill, it was thought wise to guard against that future possibility. That is all there is behind Article 6 of the 1775 Articles of Confederation and the 1787 Constitution’s Amendment 2.

I can promise you that I WILL NEVER in my official capacity ever EVER disarm a citizen of the United States because of some MIS-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Semper

Uh, Mr S, unless you are the C-in-C, you’d be well advised to obey all lawful orders of your superiors or you will find yourself in the stockade. And unarmed.

posted by orangetom1999

First off, semantics is used to mislead people . . Notice also the slight of hand in assuming the importance of the 2nd Amendment is to the first part . . The militia necessary to a free state . . Let me say this again for clarity. The first 10 Amendments are all limits on Government . . not on the people . . Someone made a comment about uniformity . . in the firearms of those days. People who had firearms had a whole hodgepodge of firearms in different calibers . . I am not sure when Eli Whitney began the process which was to become commonality of parts - interchangeability.

What are we arguing or debating? The British Army used the “Brown Bess” flintlock musket from 1722 to 1838, with improvements added over the years. See Wikipedia. Interchangeability of parts was not a concept invented by Eli Whitney but he is credited with being the first arms maker in the US to use that technique. If we are discussing the implications of the Second Amendment in today’s world, then I say we need to read the Article 6, paragraph 3, of the forerunner Articles of Confederation to better understand what the FFs meant in the later Second Amendment.

I have no reason to trust Government ..state or federal. Especially a career politician or bureaucrat. They have numerous ways to make a short story long so to speak. Read that as you will.

This is the most serious thing you have said, Mr O/T. And the most consequential. I assume you really do not mean what you have said. I assume you said that to demonstrate the depth of your frustrations with governance. Maybe you are a Green person and are disappointed the budget act just passed allows oil well drilling off the south Florida Gulf Coast. Or maybe you are a pro-energy person and are aggrieved Alaska’s ANWR area is still off-limits to oil exploration. Maybe you are a Kyoto type and want to see real limits set on carbon dioxide emissions, or maybe you oppose Kyoto and want to see “full speed ahead” as the clamor over global warming is all false.

There is enough out there to make anyone mad. But we cannot live without government. Administrations come and administrations go, but government remains. The quality of government is one of the most important items anyone can deal with. America is “lucky” to have the best large bureaucracy in the world. It is one of the most valuable assets of our vast infrastructure. We need to nurture it, not to mindlessly bad-mouth it. It serves us well. I love my government, but I do not love the Administration.

The militia has always been the people . . not the Federal Army . . national guard or any other. Thanks, Orangetom [Edited by Don W]

True, once upon a time. But it’s not true in 2006. Neither you nor I have ever seen a live militia-man. We read about them. We argue over them. I don’t know when the lat militia-man died, but it was long ago. There are none in 2006. The Second Amendment plainly describes “militias” and since there are none, the amendment is anachronistic.


[edit on 12/29/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
This is the most serious thing you have said, Mr O/T. And the most consequential. I assume you really do not mean what you have said. I assume you said that to demonstrate the depth of your frustrations with governance. Maybe you are a Green person and are disappointed the budget act just passed allows oil well drilling off the south Florida Gulf Coast. Or maybe you are a pro-energy person and are aggrieved Alaska’s ANWR area is still off-limits to oil exploration. Maybe you are a Kyoto type and want to see real limits set on carbon dioxide emissions, or maybe you oppose Kyoto and want to see “full speed ahead” as the clamor over global warming is all false.

donwhite, I like your posts and your knowledge is obvious, but please, let's not polarize those who mistrust the government as greens or whatever. The simple and plain conduct of our government is enough reason to dislike all of Congress and the Senate.

There are many reasons to dislike the whole of both houses, the senate and all the executive branch also. These are elites who want control and that is why politicians are so eager to become politicians: Power.

Which great ATS moderator had the tagline, "America is divided into two groups: Those who can get close enough to shout their hatred at politicians and those who can't." ...Something like that.

There is enough out there to make anyone mad. But we cannot live without government. Administrations come and administrations go, but government remains.

I disagree fully. John Jay said we are "joint tenants in the sovereignty". Joint tenants can be likened to an apartment building. Now when your neighbor plays his music loud, do you need to call the landlord, or can you peacefully call your neighbor or knock on his door and deal with him directly?

The scenario described above is akin to our own here in America. We have the one lone State which is fully and totally in the control of the multitudes born in America. As a result, we do not need a landlord, except where we joint tenants cannot discuss the issue and solve it for ourselves.

In a way, it's as if the landlord (government) has placed himself in the position of supreme arbitor. But this isn't a place where we pay rent. WE OWN THE BUILDING and the landlord is appointed by the tenants, in this case.

Can Americans learn to deal with each other as joint tenants in sovereignty? We shall see.

The quality of government is one of the most important items anyone can deal with. America is “lucky” to have the best large bureaucracy in the world. It is one of the most valuable assets of our vast infrastructure. We need to nurture it, not to mindlessly bad-mouth it. It serves us well. I love my government, but I do not love the Administration.

Mindlessly? C'mon.

Nurturing the bureaucracy doesn't seem to be the best thing IMO. Personally I agree with those who say that Democracy always and without fail becomes Totalitarian. I think this is due to the tenants in the building getting lazy and preferring to call the landlord for every stupid little thing. This encourages the landlord to assume dictatorial power over the building, even assuming it for himself as owner, which he is not.

I am describing the way I see things, but as Orangetom has pointed out, Americans today are not equipped mentally or emotionally to seize their birthright and so the landlord will probably push them to the limit and seize the property at the right time.

Either that or the building will be infected with bird flu and you'll have to trade your handguns to get the antidote. Oh, I mean "To be safer in these difficult times when so many are dying, we have momentarily halted the second amendment..." yada yada...

No, I would have to differ from your position. I love my country but I fear and do not trust my government. It would be so utterly simple for the authority to turn a bit more power back to the people, but we see them tightening the reins instead.

Also let me say that I respect and honor anyone who fights in war on behalf of America, even if they disagree with what I am saying. They fight for their country, not for the bureaucracy, and for that their sacrifices have full meaning. They died as joint tenants in sovreignty even if they didn't understand the full beauty of what was theirs. Even if a man dies for the flag, and nothing else, he deserves respect from all Americans. Just because the world is designed to make us feel like we need a huge government to protect us, doesn't make it so.

It is nuclear bombs which give us this world of supposed peace. Without nukes, we'd be excercising our gun rights on a daily basis, so let's not get too preachy.

[edit on 29-12-2006 by smallpeeps]

Uh, Mr S, unless you are the C-in-C, you’d be well advised to obey all lawful orders of your superiors or you will find yourself in the stockade. And unarmed.

Been there and done that; got the "T" shirt...

When do the consequences of your actions out weight the honor of a man? For me, Never...
I do not have the fear in me to even have considered that particular equation Mr. D.. And I have been in that particular business now for better than 26 years so I know a little of what I speak..

As for making the conclusion that specific areas of the Constitution are not applicable today, that is a very dangerous and slippery slope. What is next? The first amendment? 4th?

The Constitution is what it is. It says what it does and the fact the Writers considered Personal Weapons so important as to make it the 2nd such inclusion goes a long way in my book. Interpreting the Constitution to fit any personal agenda makes no more sense than interpreting the Bible so that you can be free to commit whatever sin you want at the time.

The fact is the Second says what it does, the definition of Militia is clear and concise, both now and during the time of the writing. Being anti-gun does not change that nor does it make those of us not so convoluted as to want a change that makes no sense, see it any different.

The Second has stood the test of time and will continue to do so until enough people get into power that feel they have a better way for me to live and feel they should be telling what I can and can not believe. Perhaps that is not too far in the future and God help us all when that does happen.

This Representative Republic was founded on the principles of self reliance and personal responsibilities. Yet now the movement is taking hold of people that apparently know more than me about how to run my life. Yet more and more accepted are the excuses for personal behavior. "It was because I was abused", "It is genetic and I could not help it". I much prefer "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." Enforce the laws we have now, that would be great don't you think?

I believe there was another person in history that wanted to run peoples lives, Hitler.
Kind of coincidental that one of his very first actions on taking power was to outlaw all personal gun ownership. It seems the anti-gun crowd is in good company.

The fact is, as corney as it sounds, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns. You may not like it and may want to change it, but the fact remains we live in a violent society, hence the need for me, and that combined with the 675K Police in the nation protecting 300M+ does not inspire confidence in my response time. Just a fact that if you are going to be protected, you need to takes steps to do it on your own.

Still those wonderful people that are looking out for our well being, that know far more what is better for us than we do ourselves; they are reaching for that wonderful little walk in the daisy field society where no one hurts another. (Appropriate music please) Well it does not exist and is not going to in our life time and I for one do not want to sacrifice innocents attempting to create that society as some of you apparently do.

Yeah, people with guns kill, so do Baseball Bats, Knives, Icepicks and oh yeah... most of all cars... Why not just outlaw cars and everyone take the bus. Think of all the lives we could save. I mean FAR more people are killed in cars than ever with Guns... Now THAT makes sense. Not this foolishness about disarming good honest American citizens.

If you are that opposed to the Constitution why live here? It is 2006 and you could move somewhere that has a big brother that will take care of your every need and heck, you wont really have to work for any of it. Just sit around, get the Government check your due and hope no one takes anything else from you...

Semper

SMALLPEEPS!!!

That was a TREMENDOUSLY moving and eloquent post....
If I had a WATS, I would bestow it on you...

Very well said and the comparison was right on the money...

S

[edit on 12/29/2006 by semperfortis]

[edit on 12/29/2006 by semperfortis]

True, once upon a time. But it’s not true in 2006. Neither you nor I have ever seen a live militia-man. We read about them. We argue over them. I don’t know when the lat militia-man died, but it was long ago. There are none in 2006. The Second Amendment plainly describes “militias” and since there are none, the amendment is anachronistic.

mi·li·tia /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[mi-lish-uh] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə) Pronunciation Key
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

~~~~~~~~~~~~

militia

noun
1. civilians trained as soldiers but not part of the regular army
2. the entire body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service; "their troops were untrained militia"; "Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia"--United States Constitution

That is from the online dictionary...

Now consider this...

A Well Regulated Militia?
From and by: Ken [email protected]

Lost in the gun rights debate, much to the detriment of American freedom, is the fact that the Second Amendment is in fact an "AMENDMENT". No "Articles in Amendment" to the Constitution, more commonly referred to as the Bill of Rights, stand alone and each can only be properly understood with reference to what it is that each Article in Amendment amended in the body of the original Constitution. It should not be new knowledge to any American the Constitution was first submitted to Congress on September 17, 1787 WITHOUT ANY AMENDMENTS. After much debate, it was determined that the States would not adopt the Constitution as originally submitted until "further declamatory and restrictive clauses should be added" "in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (the Constitutions) powers". (This quote is from the Preamble to the Amendments, which was adopted along with the Amendments but is mysteriously missing from nearly all modern copies.) The first ten Amendments were not ratified and added to the Constitution until December 15, 1791.

In this Light:

"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." What provisions of the original Constitution is it that the Second Amendment is designed to "amended"?

THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS AMENDING THE PROVISIONS IN THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION APPLYING TO THE "MILITIA". The States were not satisfied with the powers granted to the "militia" as defined in the original Constitution and required an amendment to "prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers. "(Again quoting from the Preamble to the Amendments.)

What was it about the original Constitutional provisions concerning the "Militia" that was so offensive to the States?

First understand that the word "militia" was used with more than one meaning at the time of the penning of the Constitution. One popular definition used then was one often quoted today, that the "Militia" was every able bodied man owning a gun. As true as this definition is, it only confuses the meaning of the word "militia" as used in the original Constitution that required the Second Amendment to correct. The only definition of "Militia" that had any meaning to the States demanding Amendments is the definition used in the original Constitution. What offended the States then should offend "People" today:

"Militia" in the original Constitution as amended by the Second Amendment is first found in Article 1, Section 8, clause 15, where Congress is granted the power:

"To provide for the calling forth the MILITIA to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16 further empowers Congress:

"To provide for the 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, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" Any "patriot" out there still want to be called a member of the "MILITIA" as defined by the original Constitution?

Article 2, Section 2, Clause 1 empowers: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the MILITIA of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;" The only way the States would accept the "MILITIA" as defined in the original Constitution was that the Federal "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED". The States realized that "THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE" required that the "MILITIA" as originally created in the Constitution be "WELL REGULATED" by a "restrictive clause." How did the States decide to insure that the Constitutional "MILITIA" be "WELL REGULATED"? By demanding that "restrictive clause two" better know as the "Second Amendment" be added to the original Constitution providing:

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." The States knew that "PEOPLE" with "ARMS" would "WELL REGULATE" the Federal "MILITIA"!

Now read for the first time with the full brightness of the Light of truth:

"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."

For those still overcome by propaganda:

The Second Amendment declares by implication that if the "MILITIA" is not "WELL REGULATED" by "PEOPLE" keeping and bearing arms, the "MILITIA" becomes a threat to the "SECURITY OF A FREE STATE."

The "MILITIA" has no "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS" in the Second Amendment, rather it is only "THE RIGHT OF THE ""PEOPLE"" TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS (that) SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
www.godseesyou.com...

Kind of says it all...

Semper

posted by smallpeeps

donwhite . . please, let's not polarize [patronize?] those who mistrust the government as greens . . The simple and plain conduct of our government is enough reason to dislike all of Congress and the Senate. There are many reasons to dislike the executive branch also. These are elites who want control and that is why politicians are so eager to become politicians: Power. [Edited by Don W]

True, true and true. That’s why we so much praise the FFs who gave us 3 independent and coequal branches of government. It works! It was no accident the FFs put the Legislative branch in Article 1, the Executive branch in Article 2 and the Judicial branch in Article 3. The Executive branch - representing the English monarch - is “surrounded” by the Legislature and Judiciary. For 217 years we have avoided a Napoleon or a Hitler, despite a Civil War and a Great Depression and two world wars.

It is important (to me) that you make (or recognize) the distinction between “government” as the enduing institution that serves the nation, year in and year out, and “administration” as the elected people who are temporarily running the government. It may well be that I see this as a larger issue than you do. For example, I strongly oppose the privatizing of both our state and Federal governments.

Did you know that the second largest armed force in Iraq is a private army paid for by US taxpayers? That the private security operatives - say mercenaries - in Iraq number more than the Brits contingent of 7,200 men? (The 4 guys who were strung up on the Iraq bridge worked for Blackwater, a Virginia based private army.) This is why we have to get special agreements from local governments to exclude our forces from the general laws of that nation. We are putting our guys above and beyond the law. Never a good idea. It leads to such things as Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay and other black ops. This is why our Marines who are accused of the murder of civilians are being tried in San Diego and not in Baghdad. This involves the issue of extra-territoriality which is another whole bag of worms. And just imagine, Mr S/P, all this on a thread about the Second Amendment. Part 1.


More Later.


[edit on 12/29/2006 by donwhite]

Providing security is different than a Merc. Blackwater, Triple Canopy, etc.. aren't running any offensive ops. They free up soldiers and marines to conduct offensive ops rather than have to post security at static locations, or having to escort every convoy travelling in Iraq. They get paid very well for the risks they face to their personal safety. What civilian is gonna go away from their families and get shot at for $5/hour?

As for the 2nd Amendment being anachronistic- the People in the 2nd Amendment, are the same People in the other amendments. The writings of the founding fathers confirm this to be their intent.

Lawful orders- the first word their is lawful. One isn't obliged to carry out unlawful orders. I don't know anyone that I've ever worked with that would agree to disarming the public. Most of my buddies have nice gun collections themselves, and would raise the BS flag on that one.

posted by semperfortis

As for the conclusion that specific areas of the Constitution are not applicable today, that is a very dangerous and slippery slope. What is next? The first amendment? 4th?

I thought for sure you were going to say the Third Amendment was passe. I also offer the 9th and 10th amendments could be gone and we’d never know it. They are what I call rhetorical statements. No reply needed. The 27th amendment is embarrassing to me. Introduced along with the first 10 - 13 altogether - in 1789, but not “adopted” for 203 years, until 1992. It has proven to be worth the same as the teats on a boar hog. Only a Republican Administration would have done that.


[edit on 12/29/2006 by donwhite]

posted by GT100FV

Providing security is different than a Merc. Blackwater, Triple Canopy, etc.. aren't running any offensive ops. They free up soldiers and marines to conduct offensive ops rather than have to post security at static locations, or having to escort every convoy traveling in Iraq. They get paid very well for the risks they face to their personal safety. What civilian is gonna go away from their families and get shot at for $5/hour? [Edited by Don W]

Geez. I wonder how we got across North Africa, Italy, France and into Germany in 1942-1945 without private armies? I guess $50 a month buck privates did a lot of this low intensity work. Those tasks were good to give the GI much needed time out of the fornt line. The popular story is the mercenaries in Iraq are paid $10,000 a month. I believe that, and if it is true, then just how many Army types and MC types can the taxpayer afford to “free up” for guard duty? This sounds like a scam on taxpayers run by former Pentagon types - revolving door - who had “special” influence with the Republican Congress and Administration. I'm definitely afraid any man's loyalty is to the man who signs his paycheck.

As for the 2nd Amendment being anachronistic- the People in the 2nd Amendment, are the same People in the other amendments. The writings of the founding fathers confirm this to be their intent.

You can ignore the facts, but that really does not change the facts.

Lawful orders- the first word there is lawful. One isn't obliged to carry out unlawful orders. I don't know anyone that I've ever worked with that would agree to disarming the public. Most of my buddies have nice gun collections themselves, and would raise the BS flag on that one.

Soldiers do not have the luxury of determining what is a lawful order. If you are a member of the uniformed Armed Forces of the United States, than I expect you to promptly obey any lawful order of your superior officers. I do not believe the UCMJ allows a squad by squad vote on what is or is not lawful.

Soldiers are stuck in the Nuremberg paradox. As at Mi Lai you can only hope your lieutenant got it right. If the US decided to send a company to disarm a group of self styled so-called militia men in Idaho, I’d expect you to do it. It’s one of those hard choices in life that come back to haunt you, after the fact. But soldiers have to follow Alfred Lord Tennyson’s tragic lament.


[edit on 12/29/2006 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by GT100FV

Providing security is different than a Merc. Blackwater, Triple Canopy, etc.. aren't running any offensive ops. They free up soldiers and marines to conduct offensive ops rather than have to post security at static locations, or having to escort every convoy traveling in Iraq. They get paid very well for the risks they face to their personal safety. What civilian is gonna go away from their families and get shot at for $5/hour? [Edited by Don W]

Geez. I wonder how we got across North Africa, Italy, France and into Germany in 1942-1945 without private armies? I guess $50 a month buck privates did a lot of this low intensity work. Those tasks were good to give the GI much needed time out of the fornt line. The popular story is the mercenaries in Iraq are paid $10,000 a month. I believe that, and if it is true, then just how many Army types and MC types can the taxpayer afford to “free up” for guard duty? This sounds like a scam on taxpayers run by former Pentagon types - revolving door - who had “special” influence with the Republican Congress and Administration. I'm definitely afraid any man's loyalty is to the man who signs his paycheck.

As for the 2nd Amendment being anachronistic- the People in the 2nd Amendment, are the same People in the other amendments. The writings of the founding fathers confirm this to be their intent.

You can ignore the facts, but that really does not change the facts.

Lawful orders- the first word there is lawful. One isn't obliged to carry out unlawful orders. I don't know anyone that I've ever worked with that would agree to disarming the public. Most of my buddies have nice gun collections themselves, and would raise the BS flag on that one.

Soldiers do not have the luxury of determining what is a lawful order. If you are a member of the uniformed Armed Forces of the United States, than I expect you to promptly obey any lawful order of your superior officers. I do not believe the UCMJ allows a squad by squad vote on what is or is not lawful.

Soldiers are stuck in the Nuremberg paradox. As at Mi Lai you can only hope your lieutenant got it right. If the US decided to send a company to disarm a group of self styled so-called militia men in Idaho, I’d expect you to do it. It’s one of those hard choices in life that come back to haunt you, after the fact. But soldiers have to follow Alfred Lord Tennyson’s tragic lament.


[edit on 12/29/2006 by donwhite]

To answer your first question, we had 16 million men in uniform and a conscript military on a world war footing. Now we have a much smaller volunteer force that is being spread thin as it stands. The folks getting $10k per month are former SF, SEAL, SAS, etc.. so they're highly trained security specialists/consultants, and have very good skills at defending themselves and others. They're not taking Joe Sixpack off the street, and paying him like that. When you have limited resources, you have to use force multipliers(i.e. if you can accomplish a mission without diverting combat power, then do it) The soldiers and marines have plenty of other things to worry about, conducting raids, etc..

As to the second comment, servicemen and women have an obligation not to follow unlawful orders. It is true that lawful orders aren't subject to popular vote, they will be held accountable if they follow illegal orders. "I'm a dumb private" isn't gonna keep them out of trouble.