tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7938074.post9219384411189092719..comments2024-03-23T17:01:56.780-04:00Comments on Blog O'Stuff: How to Help Win HellerDave Markowitzhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00543441083086479631noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7938074.post-10697561396019268522007-12-21T07:41:00.000-05:002007-12-21T07:41:00.000-05:00What an ignorant, condescending post. I will leav...What an ignorant, condescending post. I will leave it up in the interest of exposing the mentality that we face. And at the risk of feeding a troll who doesn't even have the balls to put even a fictitious name to his screed, I'll reply.<BR/><BR/>The idea that the Second Amendment ("2A") is to only protect against a standing army is about the most ludicrous claim I've ever read in regard to it.<BR/><BR/>Let's review the text of the 2A, as it was actually adopted:<BR/><BR/>"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."<BR/><BR/>While the Framers indeed were fearful of a standing army, relying on the text of drafts which were rejected is foolish. If the Framers felt that the 2A was intended to apply as a means of preventing a standing army, then they would have included that text in the amendment as ratified, not stripped it out. As highly educated men with a mastery of the English language, they would not have deleted references to a standing army if indeed that is what they wanted the 2A to govern.<BR/><BR/>The operative phrase of the 2A is "shall not be infringed." What shall not be infringed? "[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms." Who or what are "the people."<BR/><BR/>"The people" is a term of art used in the Bill of Rights. It has a specific meaning. In every other Amendment in the BoR, there is no question that "the people" refers to individuals. Yet somehow in the context of the 2A, some people read this to have some sort of collective meaning.<BR/><BR/>However, even if we assume for the sake of argument that the right is only applicable in the context of providing for a militia, then it still refers to an individual right. The best indication of this is the Militia Act of 1792, which is contemporaneous with the Constitution and Bill of Rights, and which reads in part:<BR/><BR/>"Sec. 1. Be it enacted . . . That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia . . . . That every citizen so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch with a box therein to contain not less than twenty-four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball: or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder. . . ."<BR/><BR/>In other words, Congress expressly did not provide for militia arms. Rather, Congress required individual members of the militia (i.e., all free white males between 18 and 45 years of age) to provide their own small arms and a basic load of ammunition.<BR/><BR/>One should also keep in mind that the language in the Constitution as adopted in 1789 does not modify or restrict language in the Bill of Rights as adopted in 1791. Quite the opposite, in fact.<BR/><BR/>Finally, as to keeping my opinions to myself, your desire to stifle dissent exemplifies the one of the worst qualities of the authoritarians against whom the entire Bill of Rights was designed to protect.Dave Markowitzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00543441083086479631noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7938074.post-16961590772412373932007-12-18T19:00:00.000-05:002007-12-18T19:00:00.000-05:00Cool, Can I join in?I hope that you point out how ...Cool, Can I join in?<BR/><BR/>I hope that you point out how the Second Amendment was supposed to prevent Standing Armies. You <I>are</I> aware that is the issue which the Second Amendment addresses.<BR/><BR/>No where in the Second Amendment is Self-Defence, over throwing a tyrannical government, or hunting mentioned. You should look to proposed drafts to see how an individual right oriented Second Amendment might look.<BR/><BR/>Instead, the Second Amendment addresses Articl I, Section 8 giving power to "provide for organizing, <B>arming</B>, and disciplining, the militia." I bolded <B>arming</B> so you would be aware that arming the militia is under the power of the US legislature.<BR/><BR/>PAtrick Henry said "Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress 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. By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defence is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the states can do neither—this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed is ridiculous; so that this pretended little remains of power left to the states may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended, since I have already shown that a very small minority may prevent it, and that small minority interested in the continuance of the oppression.<BR/>" (Patrick Henry, Against the Federal Constitution, June 5, 1788)<BR/><BR/>So, it has nothing to do with private arms.<BR/><BR/>It has everything to do with standing armies.<BR/><BR/>And I suggest you keep your opinions to yourself unless you are seriously suggesting the military should be abolished in favour of the universal militia.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com