These gun enthusiasts further hold the reference to the word militia in the Second Amendment refers to the armed populace in general. As such, this militia has the right to own the type of weapons that would be required to overthrow the government if need be.
Let’s take a look at exactly what the Founding Fathers put in the Constitution and other laws about the Militia:
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution lists among the powers of Congress: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
Article II, Section 2: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States;
Amendment 2: 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.
Amendment 5: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;
That is every reference to the Militia in the Constitution. The description of the Militia in Article I sounds very much like our country’s National Guard. It is supposed to be well-organized with officers and training.
Not only does the Constitution not say anything about bearing arms to use against the government, it specifically says the Militia can be called upon by the President to suppress insurrections against our government.
ReplyDeleteLet's look at the latest interpretation of what the militia is, courtesy of Heller vs. DC,
"The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederal- ists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf
Is your point one of disagreement with the article I posted?
DeleteIt is Mike, Heller clearly distinguishes between the citizens' militia which consists of individual gun owners and the "select" militia which clearly the state organized militia, known in modern times as the National Guard.
DeleteSo every single gun owner is a militia member? Crooks, killers, and the rest of your sides criminals.
DeleteAll of your distinctions are irrevelant. The entire thing is anachronistic, the concept of militia in 1790, not to mention the weapons that were available.
DeleteNo more anarchistic than the concept of freedom of the press. Most seem to have no problem applying the First Amendment to modern speech never thought of in the 1790's such as this blog.
DeleteHowever for some reason, no one can think beyond muskets when we move on to the Second. If the concept is so anarchistic, you have but to repeal the Second. I'd like to see the argument used that its out of date. It would be entertaining.
The entire thing is anachronistic . . .
DeleteThen repeal it . . . if you can (snicker). Until that happens (snicker again), it remains in force.
Here's a bigger myth, the Constitution is the Law of the Land.
ReplyDeleteNo federally elected or appointed official has followed it for over 200 years, so why even bother bringing it up now
The argument here is that an individual has no right to defend his ownself, he may only be armed to defend the government. Sure, that makes sense.
orlin sellers
Having a right to defend oneself is not the same as a right to a gun, but since you conclude the Constitution is NOT the law of the land, then certainly you have no right to defend yourself, no right to a gun, in fact no rights at all.
DeleteMy self-regulating (well self-regulating) Militia of One is vigilant and loaded for bear.
ReplyDeleteHahahahahahaha
Delete"the Second Amendment to the Constitution was written, not for the purposes of hunting or even self-defense, but specifically to give people the ability to rise up against the government when they no longer support that government."
ReplyDeleteThat doesn't match up with the laws the founders wrote, like free elections to replace unwanted government.
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in Government” – Thomas Jefferson.
ReplyDeleteOh well, what did he know.
orlin sellers
Is that a true quote or one of the many bogus quotes you gun nuts love to repeat to each other?
Delete