A well regulated Militia

POSTED BY: AnthonyT
UPDATED: Friday, July 25, 2025 19:29
VIEWED: 8277
PAGE 1 of 7

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE

ANTHONYT

Thursday, May 11, 2006 7:46 PM

The meaning of the Right to Bear Arms

Hello all,

The Constitution was written with a rather interesting provision. It 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."

Now, most people who pay attention to my posts know that I am an advocate of gun (and other) weapon ownership. They know that I have carried a weapon for sport and defense. They know I feel strongly about the right of the individual to protect themselves.

However, given all of these facts... I also must admit that the Constitution appears to grant citizens the right to keep and bear arms only by an accident of wording. I do not believe the federalists intended to protect the right of individuals to have armaments or firearms. I also do not believe it occurred to them that such a right would need protecting. I honestly think they were referring to actual state-run militias when they wrote the second ammendment.

Now, I can't believe very many (if any) of the Federalists who wrote the constitution thought that a man ought to be disallowed to carry a rifle for hunting, or a dirk or pistol for defense. But because the idea of completely disarming the population was so far from their minds, I really feel the 2nd ammendment only protects this right entirely by accident. Because of this, I fear for our right to keep and bear arms, because we are one interpretation ruling away from losing it.

What do you all think?

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

CHRISISALL

Thursday, May 11, 2006 7:58 PM

I think the right to bear arms entails a lot of personal responsibility, and that also means a level of awareness that would heighten intelligent thought to a degree.
That's never a good thing in your subjects.

So yeah, they'll take away the right first chance they git.

Semi-facetious Chrisisall

KHYRON

Thursday, May 11, 2006 8:41 PM

On principle, I'm opposed to gun ownership, but having grown up in a country that's ripe with violent crime and senseless murder (South Africa), I have to admit that my principles on this are a bit detached from reality. Banning personal gun ownership just gives the people who will then own guns illegally (which will mostly be criminals) an even clearer advantage.

Plus, if one as an ordinary, usually law-abiding citizen still keeps guns (illegally), and then uses a gun to defend oneself against burglars that have malicious intent, then one will be in even more trouble later on. Just look at how many rights criminals already have these days, as was already dicussed in another thread - defending oneself with an illegal weapon will just result in the victim of the crime being locked up and the criminal being let off the hook.

I'm reminded of the sketch Family Guy did on this:
Founding fathers around a table, one of them is holding up the Bill of Rights
FF1: "Alright, we're done!"
FF2: "Do you think the language in the second Amendment is clear enough? You know, about the right to bear arms?"
FF3: "Of course it's clear! Every Amercian has the right to hang a pair of bear arms on their wall, how can that possibly be misconstrued?"
FF1: "Alright, fantastic then. Wait, you know what? Before we send this to the printer, let's take that abortion thing out..."

Other people can occasionally be useful, especially as minions. I want lots of minions.

CHRISMOORHEAD

Thursday, May 11, 2006 9:00 PM

I'm all for the "natural process" interpretation of this. In the end, anyone who doesn't know how to operate a firearm will die, and only the best of those that do will live. See? Everyone's happy.

ANTHONYT

Thursday, May 11, 2006 10:33 PM

"I'm all for the "natural process" interpretation of this. In the end, anyone who doesn't know how to operate a firearm will die, and only the best of those that do will live. See? Everyone's happy."

Actually, the use of firearms is quite the opposite of Darwin's Natural Selection.

One might argue that in the past, when the weapon of choice was a dagger or sword or club or even bare fists, that the strongest or most skilled would absolutely dominate the weaker and less skilled.

The reason some called the Peacemaker the 'Equalizer,' and the reason that they said 'God created man, but Sam Colt made them equal' is because you no longer had to be stronger or have superior martial training in order to protect your rights. Anyone with basic instruction could operate a firearm with an even chance of success at close range.

I recall one such encounter from my youth, reported in the Miami Herald. An elderly wheelchair-bound lady was beset by a burglar who was wheeling her about her house, demanding that she point out the locations of items of value, on pain of death. At an opportune moment, the lady produced a firearm from under the blanket in her lap, and dispatched the burglar. It is almost certain that she was in no physical condition to persevere against her aggressor had she not been armed with a firearm.

I wish I had a clipping of that article. It gave me a gratifying sense of justice.

--Anthony

"Liberty must not be purchased at the cost of Humanity." --Captain Robert Henner

FREDGIBLET

Thursday, May 11, 2006 11:18 PM

I agree, gun control is one of the few issues that I have a Conservative view of. The fact that so many lawmakers and whiners seem to forget is that criminals by definition do not adhere to the law so making a law that says no one can have guns just means that only criminals will have guns.

"Gun control means using both hands" - Bumper Sticker

"When guns are outlawed my sword collection will make me feel safer" - random text file I found on the 'net

CHRISMOORHEAD

Friday, May 12, 2006 6:18 AM

Not that I'm taking offense, but I don't recall saying anything about Darwin. Obviously, the confusion is in the fact that I used a term like "natural process", but I'm more than aware of the ability of firearms to make people equal.

My point is that in the long run, it is the people who have better discipline with the weapon who will be left, and anybody that those people decide are worth keeping alive. Wow, it sounds so harsh saying it like that, but isn't that the reality of any nation? If we as a people didn't provide services for the incapable, they would die, right?

Well, I'm going further into this than I really want to. As tounge and cheek as my first response was, I'm an avid supporter of the freedom to bear arms. Usually, the big argument I hear in opposition is about innocent people dying, and I suppose I was trying to make an extreme statement to sum up a sad life fact: Those who don't prepare, die.

HERO

Friday, May 12, 2006 2:29 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AnthonyT:
What do you all think?

Who needs the 2nd Amendment? Most state Constitutions, like mine here in Ohio...the best of all the States, 'have a right to bear arms' clause that is not so poorly worded. Ohio's leaves out the frilly language and is essentially just 'right to bear arms'. Then there's Texas, which is essentially 'have gun, will travel'. So who needs the stupid 2nd Amendment anyway?

I did recently notice that the Federal law prohibiting weapons within 1000 yards of a school makes nearly the entire City of Cleveland a gun free zone. Not that most people noticed. It'll be overturned on those grounds alone.

H

ZISKER

Saturday, May 13, 2006 1:28 PM

I believe that they'll come and take our books away ala Fahrenheit 451 before they take our guns away. Why?

1. The NRA and other gun lobbyists are very powerful. Never underestimate the sway of cold hard cash in a politician's pocket. Librarians make far less in terms of funds.

2. The logistics of removing every gun from every home. Books don't shoot. People do.

3. If you really want to get paranoid, most people (not all, but many) in the military love their guns. LOVE their guns. And know how to operate them. And wouldn't take kindly to someone saying they couldn't have their toys at home. This would be a problem. Not so many are as fond of literature (or, such has been my experience).

So I don't think the Second Amendment is going away any time soon.

One day.
One plan.
One army of Browncoats.

On June 23rd, we aim to misbehave.
http://www.serenityday.org/
http://forum.serenityday.org/

Little or no free time, but want to help?
Help Spread the Signal: http://www.geocities.com/browncoatsignalcorps

CAUSAL

Sunday, May 14, 2006 8:40 PM

"The Constitution shall never be construed...to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
-Samuel Adams, 1786

________________________________________________________________________
I wish I had a magical wish-granting plank.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT PAGE