So how many more share his opinion?

Discussion in 'Free Speech Alley' started by LSUpride123, Apr 12, 2014.

Page 1 of 3
  1. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,702
    Likes Received:
    16,644
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html

    “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms when serving in the Militia shall not be infringed.”

    I thought the right to bear arms is a natural right?

    Further:

    http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
     
    LSUpride123, Apr 12, 2014
    #1
  2. shane0911

    shane0911 Helping lost idiots find their village

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2005
    Messages:
    37,754
    Likes Received:
    23,932
    Disagree
     
    shane0911, Apr 12, 2014
    #2
  3. gyver

    gyver Rely on yourself not on others.

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,001
    Likes Received:
    717
    "Shall not be infringed" is my favorite part. Never heard of that " when serving in the militia " shit.
    Damn libs always trying to change the 2nd amendment to suit their agenda.
     
    gyver, Apr 12, 2014
    #3
  4. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    It seem unnecessary. It is true that the Constitution was addressing the right to carry military arms but the entire "Minuteman" concept requires that the citizenry must possess the arms to be able to organize a militia. At the time military arms meant the musket and bayonet. Muskets were useless for hunting, just as rifles were unsuitable for military use at the time, being too slow to load and unequipped with a bayonet. Pistols were essentially useless at the time, few people possessed them as they were inaccurate, bulky, and expensive show pieces.

    No it is a Constitutional right, and subject to Constitutional changes. "Arms" have advanced while the laws have lagged. Clearly no one wants citizens to be able to own machine guns or artillery and they are not a right. Pistols have advanced to become small, cheap, and dangerous and get a lot of people killed. They are not useful in a militia. Most of the world bans private ownership of them or requires registration. Registration is probably coming some day soon for pistols and military rifles.

    It is pretty clear that "arms" needs a better, more modern definition and that is probably coming, too. It is entirely possible to enact good-sense gun control measures that don't infringe upon the right to own weapons.
     
    red55, Apr 13, 2014
    #4
  5. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423

    Thay are putting modern interpertations to the phrase militia. The "Minute Men" were militia. They did not practice or develop organization, doctrine or discipline but held arms and were ready to defend the community at a minutes notice.

    Most often it was to defend against indian attacks or the French. It also came in handy in 1776. This was a time of the frontier that had real meaning...the calvery was not around the bend ready to protect the settlers. They had to protect themselves.
    That was a time when society was more stratified than today...the local gentry (basically all of the leaders of the American Revolution) had the standing to assume command of the gathered citizens and form the militia to defend the community against aggression.

    Like much of the constitution exact phreasing doesn't fit today's society. As I noted earlier the need and right to bear arms is ingrained in our society and legacy. The need and right for individual citizens to arm themselves is as inalienable as any other....speech, press, etc.
     
    Winston1, Apr 13, 2014
    #5
  6. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    While neither very well trained, nor possessing proper military discipline, colonial militias did have organization, leaders, and doctrine. They rarely operated as guerrillas but mostly stood in the firing line with fire discipline and maneuvered on the battlefield under command. Their worst military failing was their tendency to go back home after a fight and tend to their farms and businesses.
     
    red55, Apr 13, 2014
    #6
  7. Winston1

    Winston1 Founding Member

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2010
    Messages:
    12,048
    Likes Received:
    7,423
    Had you bothered to read my full comment you would see where the leaders came from. As I said the society was more stratified and the local gentry took and were generally given leadership, It wasn't till much later after the War of 1812 that formal militias were formed in most of the country.

    You also missinterpert the difference between Geotge Washington his army and the militia leaders.
    Washington, because he was trained by the British military and because he understood the need for a real army created a standing army to fight the revolution. They were regulars paid to be in the army with uniforms etc .That was not a militia. They served a tottaly different purpose.

    The militia's like the minute men (as an example) and The Swamp Fox and The Green Mountain boys were irregulars and did not fight in line. They fought behind trees and barricades and hit and run operations in the reveloutionary war. As militia against the indians they adapted more to the requirements of forrest fighting and conducted hit and run raids. Any organization was ad hoc and changed as the need arose. Likewise they had no doctrine by any definition.
     
    Winston1, Apr 13, 2014
    #7
  8. LSUpride123

    LSUpride123 PureBlood

    Joined:
    Oct 20, 2008
    Messages:
    33,702
    Likes Received:
    16,644
    You sure about that? The second amendment was to protect our natural right to bear arms.

    http://www.constitution.org/leglrkba.htm

    (2) The right to keep and bear arms is a natural right of individuals under the theory of democratic government. This was clearly the understanding and intent of the Framers of the U.S. Constitution and was a long-established principle of English common law at the time the Constitution was adopted, which is considered to be a part of constitutional law for purposes of interpreting the written Constitution.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

    "The right to bear arms in English history is believed to have been regarded in English law as an auxiliary to the long-established natural right of self-defense, auxiliary to the natural and legally defensible rights to life.[31]"

    http://www.nccs.net/natural-law-the-ultimate-source-of-constitutional-law.php

    "The Founders DID NOT establish the Constitution for the purpose of granting rights. Rather, they established this government of laws (not a government of men) in order to secure each person's Creator endowed rights to life, liberty, and property."
     
    LSUpride123, Apr 13, 2014
    #8
    gyver likes this.
  9. gyver

    gyver Rely on yourself not on others.

    Joined:
    Sep 29, 2011
    Messages:
    2,001
    Likes Received:
    717
    To say the 2nd Amendment doesn't apply to modern firearms is like saying the 1st doesn't apply to tv, Internet, and radio.
    I don't give a shit what they change or how some damn judge wants to interpret it. I'm not registering or giving up any firearm.
    I lost them all in a boating accident anyway.
     
    gyver, Apr 13, 2014
    #9
    GregLSU and HalloweenRun like this.
  10. red55

    red55 curmudgeon Staff Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2002
    Messages:
    45,195
    Likes Received:
    8,736
    I read your post, don't be an ass.

    Militias of widely varying quality existed throughout the colonial era and were patterned after the English militias.

    You are off on a tangent, I didn't mention Washington. But the local militia's had meetings and were trained (however informally) by local leaders to march, maneuver, and fight in battle lines. The British were met at Lexington and Concord by a colonial militia in line of battle and under command.

    This is not true, as much as it is popular fiction. They sometimes did fight in this fashion, but more often they fought alongside regular Continental troops in the line of battle. Daniel Morgan was famous for how he used the militia to beat the British at Cowpens. The militia itself is famous for fighting the British straight-up in line of battle at Bunker Hill. Militias accompanied the Continental Army in most of its major engagements.

    This is not true either, Colonial militias practiced the Standard British infantry drills. They just were not equal to regular professional infantry in effectiveness.
     
    red55, Apr 13, 2014
    #10
Page 1 of 3

Share This Page