I agree. The civilian militia, organized at a state and local level, lives on today in the National Guard. If you interpret the Second Amendment in this way, we are in complete accord. The right of the people to serve in the National Guard should not be infringed.Originally Posted by Scat
I recently read that the idiom "bear arms", pre-Civil War, meant actual military service. It would not have been said that a man our shooting buffalo had borne arms.
The problem with the National Guard is that it has fallen under presidential jurisdiction and can be deployed by the Commander in Chief. It no longer serves the purpose that it once did. It is simply another branch of the federal military.
€¥€
Then the Second Amendme nt solution would be to restore the National Guard control tothe states, right?
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. They state that we have the right to have and bear arms, unconnected to military service.
Yep. Just a bunch of activist judges perverting the original meaning of the Constitution.
Haha.
http://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=255
Interesting read for you One Brow.
The 2nd Amendment makes a statement, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..." which essentially expresses why there is a need for the right, which is "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." So the right doesn't hinge on being a member of a government-run militia. Not at all. Not even a little bit. Beyond that, the phrase "well regulated" does not mean "subject to strict regulation" it means "well trained and equipped." Professional soldiers at the time were referred to as "regulars" implying that they were not just bands of peasants sent fourth by their masters to fight their enemies, they were fully trained, equipped and disciplined soldiers.
There is no possible way to twist the statement "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." using the first clause to mean that "the people" is limited to members of a government-run militia. Not only that but it is abundantly clear that the 2nd Amendment was intended as a safe-guard against a tyrannical government. How could it possibly protect "the people" if the only people the right applied to were members of a government militia? How?
Last edited by Gameface; 02-05-2013 at 01:16 PM.
Yes, it was. Not really persuasive, but interesting. For example, he quoted two examples of supposed clear references to an individual right that did not strike me that way. Also, his claim of circular logic was unfounded.
I am not saying there is definitive proof for the Linguist position, though. Of course, even if there were, the gunlobby would find some true believers with enough knowledge and skill to make a superficially convincing case.
I did not mean it to be persuasive. Merely something I thought you would have an interest in reading.
You mean like members of the left and gun control lobbies are doing on "assault rifles"?
I find you position (that the reason for the existence of a right has absolutely no bearing on the scope of that right) to be fundamentally unreasonable. Therefore, I shall not not reason further on that.
As was made clear in the Federalist Paper linked to earlier, Madison thought it protected the people from a tyrannical federal government by creating stronger state militia, with which to resist the federal government. That is how it was meant to protect the people.
No one makes money off an assault weapon ban, so the members of the left don't wind up with the sort of deep pockets it takes to create a disinformation campaign.
You are confusing the reasons with the actions. I never siad their reasons are the same. Just that their actions are. They are using "true believers with enough knowledge and skill to make a superficially convincing case". Their motives are different but the tactics are the same.
OK. As mentioned earlier the National Guard is out since they are now federal government controled. So now you have an increasing number of malitias forming and members joining them. They are using many of the weapons as their arsenal that the federal government is now seeking to ban. So again we are back to square one. They are infringing, or attempting to, on that right.
Not to mention that the "assault weapons ban" should be changed to the "cosmetic features ban".
A response here to the OB / Stoked remarks above.. . . .
The fundamental kernal notion of the "American" experiment in government, at it's bold beginnings. . . . was the notion that human beings have inalienable rights, including their right to deconstruct their government if they saw fit. A Communist ideologue would therefore call his brand of "revolution" just as justified, and our modern progressives, while variously invoking "history", or "mother earth", or "the children", or any of a hundred of social justice issues as being cause sufficient to deconstruct our Constitution, does in fact agree with this kernal notion.
The fundamental kernal notion behind the right of "the people" to keep and bear arms, and the clause in the Constitution prohibiting the Federal government from in way restricting or defining that right, is that people are possessed of the natural right to replace their government by force of any arms.
Many states have copied the Second Amendment into their state constitutions, as Utah has.
Having the capacity to protect ones' life and property from other threats, other than the Federal government, is merely a collateral human right that nobody should imagine they have any business or right to deny to others.
Sometimes, talking to brainwashed ideologues is like the rain in the redrock country. . . . . . nothing is ever going to sink in. The fact that it just runs off explains the Grand Canyon, and the fact that some people are willing to be owned, mind and soul, explains human slavery, and socialism in all its forms.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote