Why Second Amendment absolutists are crazy wrong.
Does the Second Amendment mean what the gun rights movement think it does? Does Heller v DC correctly find an individual right to gun ownership in the Second Amendment? I don't think so and here's why.
The authors of the Constitution did not keep or publish minutes of the meetings and debates leading to the finalizing of that document. Some scholars think it was because they wanted the document to be intentionally vague and some think the debates were too violent and divisive to be recounted. Either way, going back to the Federalist Papers, authored under the name Publius to sell the new constitution, we get a glimpse of what the authors thought about a Militia.
In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton said, "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it.
From this it seems pretty clear that the militia envisioned by Hamilton was a truly well regulated, full time, finely trained group of soldiers.
In Federalist No. 46 James Madison said, Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, . . . Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, . . . it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.
But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, . . . and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, . . . , it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned . . .
Madison also believed in a full time professional military organization complete with Officers appointed by the state that is organized and operated by the state and available to be called up, along with the militias of the other states, by the federal government for the national defense.
If that isn't enough evidence that the phrase a well regulated militia was intended to be a core cadre of professional full time soldiers to be augmented by conscription from the population at large there is Article 1, section 8, paragraph 16 of the U.S. Constitution which reads, (The Congress shall have Power To) . . . provide for 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, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Hmmm, seems that if the Militia wanted you to have a gun it would issue one to you.
Nowhere in any of the literature of the time or in the Constitution itself is the individual right to own arms cited. While it was recognized at the time that the citizenry was in possession of guns nowhere is it mentioned that any but the Militia must be armed. Further the Militia as described by both Hamilton and Madison closely resembles the current National Guard at the State level. That a conservative supreme court would overturn hundreds of years of precedence linking gun ownership to a formal Militia does not stand up to serious scrutiny and like Plessey v Furguson will no doubt be overturned at some point.
The idea that the founding fathers believed that the Militia was every good ole boy with a gun is pure fantasy.
Aristus
(68,269 posts)If you want a gun and consider yourself part of a 'militia', support the abolition of a standing military. That's right, get rid of the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and the Coast Guard, and we'll talk. We can keep the National Guard, which is without question a well-regulated militia. And you can have all the guns you want. The Founding Fathers distrusted standing military forces as tools of monarchical tyranny. So if all of your anti-government beliefs are sincere, let's get rid of the military.
Plus our country will save a trillion or so a year in tax dollars.
NutmegYankee
(16,305 posts)The Navy has to be standing because ships and trained crews took years to build/develop.
Aristus
(68,269 posts)Okay. A Navy, then.
mwrguy
(3,245 posts)billh58
(6,641 posts)continue to own politicians, are allowed to lie through advertising, and are given full reign to write and promote lax and dangerous pro-gun laws to increase profits, there will be no SCOTUS ruling which reflects the true intent of the Second Amendment.
The game is politically rigged, and Holder is correct: the right-wing gun lobby has bought and legislated an unsuspecting customer base, which in turn has created a public health menace for this country.
pansypoo53219
(21,696 posts)no gun other than a musket a good idea as well.
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts).. some poster with initials Nyc-S is challenging you on rkba on this; here is some supporting evidence which I used to rebut him (since fed46 1788 written prior to 2ndA 1791), from the articles of confederation (when states were confederated rather than federated):
dec 2012: In the American Revolution, a loosely-affiliated group of colonial states, operating under the Articles of Confederation (1777-87), provided arms to those serving in well-regulated militias. Art VI of the Articles stated in part:
Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed
and shall provide
a proper quantity of arms
... When the Founders realized the Articles were too weak, and the nation needed a stronger central government, they adopted the U.S. Constitution, which created a federal system, and delegated to Congress the power to raise an Army.
So, guess what was so important that it was left out of the Constitution altogether? Any reference to arms either private or government owned. The Second Amendment is just that, an amendment, which means it wasn't even a part of the Constitution until some of my relatives helped stage the Shays's Rebellion and "lobbied for a statement of rights similar to those they already had in the Massachussets Bay Colony. But the language above was borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, under which the big bankers were foreclosing on every landowner's property and evicting them.
Subsequent Acts of Congress, such as the Militia Act of 1792, which ordered every 18 to 45 year old man to be enrolled in the militia and to provide himself with a good musket or firelock
or with a good rifle showed the Founders were connecting the right to bear arms with enlistment in a militia.
I know five members of the Supreme Court can't read English, but four of them can. And I think you can, as well. Just because the Supreme Court had five votes for it doesn't make it right, or true, or accurate, does it? It only makes it the law, for now.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/second-amendment-came-from-articles-of-confederati/
jimmy the one
(2,717 posts)An interesting sidelight: Justice Scalia ruled (in heller), in order to distance 'well regulated' from conferring any restrictions upon the militia or firearms: ".. the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Yet the articles of confederation separated 'well regulated' from 'disciplined', which counters Scalia's contention:
Articles of Confederation (1777-87), VI: .. but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered...
The articles contend well regulated and disciplined are two separate ideas, contradicting Scalia's definition.
If 'well regulated' implied nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training as scalia ruled, why do the articles of confederation separate 'well regulated' and 'disciplined'?
Because 'well regulated' had a different connotation than 'disciplined'.
Webster's 1828 dictionary:REGULATE 1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate
Nothing more, scalia? how did you miss definitions #1 and #3 in Webster's 1828 dictionary? because the nra paid your minions to dismiss it?
flamin lib
(14,559 posts)S/he is one of the least cogent gun fetishists and literacy challenged. There once were some reasonable people in the RKBA group who would read and consider what people like me had to say and on occasion agree and even improve on ideas presented. But like me and others they were chased away by the spittle flingers.
When their eyes roll back into their heads and they levitate it's time to disengage.