|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:14:22 [Permalink]
|
Dude wrote: | A simple look at the many opressive governments that exist in the world today should be enough to make anyone realize that the 2nd ammendment to the US Constitution is still relevant, still provides us with a valuable protection, and should not be changed except to update the grammar and make it specifically applicable to modern times. The citizen militia does not exist, but the need for citizens to be able to defend themselves is still real. As someone famous said, people should not fear their governments, governments should fear their people. |
I agree with all of this except that "the citizen militia does not exist". Citizen militias do exist in the USA. My dad - a journalist - did a whole article about militias in Ohio a few years ago. Here's the wiki entry (scroll down to "Modern Private Militia Organizations": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29#Modern_private_militia_organizations
The ones my dad interviewed were very nice, decent people, although they are oftentimes demonized in the media as gun-toting, paranoid fanatics. The photographer my dad worked with took a photo of the militia leader and his family and deliberately made him look frightening. My dad didn't know until he saw the awful photo on the front page of the newspaper. The militia leader called him up and was pretty distressed about it and compared the photograph to Nazi propaganda photographs. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
 |
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:15:30 [Permalink]
|
Jerome, check it out. We agree, too!
 |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:20:39 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
Jerome, check it out. We agree, too!
|
Thats a double: |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:22:55 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by marfknox
I agree with all of this except that "the citizen militia does not exist". Citizen militias do exist in the USA. |
The citizen militia as described in the Constitution - the militia made up of all able-bodied men (etc.) - no longer exists. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:25:41 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by marfknox
I agree with all of this except that "the citizen militia does not exist". Citizen militias do exist in the USA. |
The citizen militia as described in the Constitution - the militia made up of all able-bodied men (etc.) - no longer exists.
|
When was it disbanded or outlawed?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:28:35 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
When was it disbanded or outlawed? |
Tell me why, again, I should answer such a false dichotomy, Jerome? |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:41:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dave W.
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
When was it disbanded or outlawed? |
Tell me why, again, I should answer such a false dichotomy, Jerome?
|
You may choose the answer as to why this form of militia no longer exists, those were just two options. You are not required to use the answers given in the question as the options.
Why or how did this form of militia (go away)?
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2007 : 21:58:42 [Permalink]
|
Dave wrote: | The citizen militia as described in the Constitution - the militia made up of all able-bodied men (etc.) - no longer exists. |
Doh! Thanks for correcting me. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 04:53:36 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
The concepts have changed over the last 200 years. As O.I. posted, the old militia was every single able bodied man over 17 in the nation. The militia was not under government control, and they armed themselves. |
A militia not under some level of government control is not a militia but an armed mob. Of course there was government control of the militias. The question is at what level - local town, county, state (colony), etc. The guarantee against an oppressive national government was the local militia which would oppose tyranny but would still be regulated by the local government.
| Also, the purpose of the militia was twofold. To become the army in times of war and to defend people from our own government, by overthrowing it, if it became necessary. |
More like to defend local levels of government from tyranny at higher levels - an insurance of local control / state's rights / federalism.
| The idea of a large standing army is not something the founding fathers would have approved of. Technology, however, has made such a thing necessary. |
The army George Washington lead in the Revolutionary War met the definition of large and standing. The founding fathers not only approved of it, but understood it as critical in defeating the Brits and establishing the US as a viable nation. To say they never intended for the US to have a large (depending on what you mean by large) standing army is clearly false.
| To update this to modern relevance, the right to bear arms ensures that if our own government ever decided to try for military control of the US population, they would never succeed in the long (and hopefully short) term. |
More like a guarantee of states rights. The militia was still a military entity that was regulated and controled by some level of government. And if you think the US government doesn't have military control of the US population, you're dreaming. It's all about degree of control, but control none the less.
| A simple look at the many opressive governments that exist in the world today should be enough to make anyone realize that the 2nd ammendment to the US Constitution is still relevant, still provides us with a valuable protection, and should not be changed except to update the grammar and make it specifically applicable to modern times. |
It might be relevant, but it's not a protection of the right for anyone and eveyrone to have a gun outside the context of a regulated milita. An update like you're talking about is really to create an entirely new provision in the constitution.
| I propose: "The right of US citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." |
As a new ammendment, I don't disagree. As a reinterpretation of the 2nd Ammendment, this is false.
EDIT:
Per Wikipedia, for reference on the purpose and control of militias per the constitution:
United States
Main article: militia (United States)
There is a long history of militia in the United States, starting during the colonial era, with the colonial militias drawn from the body of adult white male citizens of a community, town, or local region. Colonial militia served a vital role in the French and Indian Wars and to a lesser extent the United States Revolutionary War. Militia service shifted from colonial control to state control with the creation of the United States in 1776. Regulation of the militia was codified by the Second Continental Congress with the Articles of Confederation, in conjunction with the creation of a regular army, and a trend of shifting military power from the militia to the regular army. With the Constitutional Convention of 1787 and Article 1 Section 8 of the United States Constitution, control of the army and the power to call up the state-based militia was transferred to civilian control through the federal congress.[6] Two years later, with the Bill of Rights in 1789, the congress provided that the federal government could not infringe on the rights of the states to maintain their militia by ratification of the Second Amendment.
|
|
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/29/2007 05:03:17 |
|
|
|
Dude
SFN Die Hard
USA
6891 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 11:38:11 [Permalink]
|
chaloobi said:
| The army George Washington lead in the Revolutionary War met the definition of large and standing. |
Way to miss the point and be wrong at the same time!
But no, it was not a standing army. A standing army is one that is not engaged in an active conflict and is maintained in times of peace. After the revolutionary war most of those soldiers went on home to their families and got back on with their lives.
What we have now is a large standing army. The Iraq conflict aside, even in times of peace we maintain a huge military under government control.
| A militia not under some level of government control is not a militia but an armed mob. Of course there was government control of the militias. The question is at what level - local town, county, state (colony), etc. |
No. When the militia mustered it was under the control of its officers. No level of government control came into play until they met up with the active army and submited themselves to the command of those generals.
| And if you think the US government doesn't have military control of the US population, you're dreaming. |
If you are going to slip into verlch-like delusion, then I'm afraid I have to recuse myself from further participation. Kil has asked me repeatedly to be less hostile, and the only possible response I have for this is extreme ridicule.
|
Ignorance is preferable to error; and he is less remote from the truth who believes nothing, than he who believes what is wrong.
-- Thomas Jefferson
"god :: the last refuge of a man with no answers and no argument." - G. Carlin
Hope, n.
The handmaiden of desperation; the opiate of despair; the illegible signpost on the road to perdition. ~~ da filth |
|
|
|
|
Boron10
Religion Moderator
USA
1266 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 17:36:17 [Permalink]
|
Would this count as a militia?
Selective Service System
I was extremely annoyed when I found out I had to register, and looked up the consequences of a failure to do so. I discovered that I could always register as a Conscientious Objector in the event of a draft (and I may have done so if pressed), but the principle irked me.
Anyway, does the US Selective Service fit similar functions as the description presented by Original Intent?§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(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. |
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 18:11:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Boron10
Would this count as a militia?
Selective Service System
Anyway, does the US Selective Service fit similar functions as the description presented by Original Intent?§ 311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(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. |
|
The selective service is just a registry from which the government can; if congress deems, draw from for a draft.
You are part of the militia according to the original meaning of the word when written. Remember, the constitution is a contract between the people of America; one can not willy nilly decided a new meaning for the words of the contract and thus change the contract.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 18:34:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Dude
| A militia not under some level of government control is not a militia but an armed mob. Of course there was government control of the militias. The question is at what level - local town, county, state (colony), etc. |
No. When the militia mustered it was under the control of its officers. No level of government control came into play until they met up with the active army and submited themselves to the command of those generals. |
And the officers reported to who? Please. You can't seriously believe that the commanding officers of militias in the early US reported to no one but themselves. The state governments controled the militia and the 2nd ammendment was a guarantee that the federal government could not force the states to disband their militias by disarming citizens. And so the states were guaranteed a military force to oppose the federal government should it become too oppressive.
| And if you think the US government doesn't have military control of the US population, you're dreaming. |
Perhaps military control isn't the word. Police control is better - though for practial purposes on the level of the individual citizen, there isn't much difference when it comes to limiting your personal freedom.
| If you are going to slip into verlch-like delusion, then I'm afraid I have to recuse myself from further participation. |
Suit yourself. |
-Chaloobi
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 08/29/2007 : 18:53:39 [Permalink]
|
Chaloobi said:
And the officers reported to who? Please. You can't seriously believe that the commanding officers of militias in the early US reported to no one but themselves. The state governments controled the militia and the 2nd ammendment was a guarantee that the federal government could not force the states to disband their militias by disarming citizens. And so the states were guaranteed a military force to oppose the federal government should it become too oppressive. |
Not to the Governor of the state as your response implies. Do you have evidence that the state government controlled all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Who in the state had this control; the legislators, or the Governor?
Based on your argument the civil war ended the right to bear arms, as the Federal government won the war and forced its power on the states. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment. It is defunct according to your reasoning.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
chaloobi
SFN Regular
1620 Posts |
Posted - 08/30/2007 : 05:25:57 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Not to the Governor of the state as your response implies. Do you have evidence that the state government controlled all able bodied male citizens between the ages of 17 and 45. Who in the state had this control; the legislators, or the Governor? |
Why not the governer? You seem so certain - please show me a link that implies early American militias reported to no authority other than some local officer who reported to no one but himself. How does one becomes an officer in a militia if some structured military isn't involved anyway?
You and others have this sentimental or idyllic nostalgia for the early American milita that day dreams of anarchic freebooters ready to topple the government at any level should it attempt to infringe rights. That's quaint and fun but not in line with reality. Here are some links to articles about colonial and early American militias. If you read them, you'll understand that militas were structured and regulated by local governmental authorities from towns to provinces and counties to colonial and state level. They were called up by these authorities and they were under command of regular army officers, who in turn reported to government officials.
http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/bookmarks/minutemen/
http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.htm
Here's a good exerpt from the link above:
Reverend Samuel McClintock (1732-1804) was commissioned to deliver a sermon on 3 June 1784, the occasion being the adoption of the newly adopted New Hampshire state constitution. He had served as a militia chaplain in both the French and Indian War and the American Revolution, and was thus well acquainted with the concept, organization and purpose of a militia system. His comments on that portion of the new basic document of the New Hampshire state government read like a passionate and patriotic definition of militia. "An army of freemen, voluntarily assembling at the alarm of danger -- men who had been nurtured in the bosom of liberty, and unused to slavish restraints . . . willing to submit to the severity of military government, for the safety of their country, and patiently endure hardships that would have overcome the fortitude of veterans, following their illustrious leader in the depths of winter, through the cold and snow, in nakedness and perils, when every step they took was marked with the blood that issued from their swollen feet, and when they could not be animated to such patience and perseverance by any mercenary motives . . . ."(8)
|
and this from the same link:
| The New England colonies maintained a politically stable militia system during the pre-Revolutionary War years. There was virtually no standing army but all the provincial governments were able to provide large numbers of militiamen when and where they were needed simply by drafting them out of the town militias. The New England colonies lost some territory and many men during the last quarter of the seventeenth century, but the political authorities never lost administrative control. |
http://www.colonialwarsct.org/colonial_military_experience.htm
A relevant quote from the above link:
| During the course of the seventeenth century the colonists adapted the English militia system to meet their own particular needs. Several regional patterns emerged. In the Chesapeake Bay area a plantation economy took root, leading to dispersed settlement. Virginia and Maryland formed their militia companies from all the residents of a particular area, in New England religion and a different economy led to a town-based residential system. Each town formed one or more militia companies as soon as possible after establishing its local government. |
Do a search for early american militia and you'll find a huge number of links on the subject. In those links you'll find the reality of the militia to be different from the government opposing, freedom protecting ideal.
| Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME Based on your argument the civil war ended the right to bear arms, as the Federal government won the war and forced its power on the states. Therefore, there is no need for the amendment. It is defunct according to your reasoning. |
That's more or less what I meant when I worte this a page ago:
| While I like the idea of any law-abiding, sane American owning a weapon should he/she desire to, I don't believe said right is constitutionally protected per the 2nd ammendment. Really, our society isn't structured in a way that the 2nd ammendment applies anymore. Either the ammendment's obsolete or the way our military, reserves and/or national guard are structured is unconstitutional. But the claim that the 2nd Ammendment was intended to protect the right of any law abiding American to have a fire arm outside of some structured military context is clearly false. But then, just because it's not a constitutionally protected right doesn't mean it must necessarily be illegal for Americans to own fire arms. |
Presumably a state can establish its own military today and have that protected by the constitution. I'm not sure if the national guard units are under state command or not. They seem to be named for the states they come from, staffed locally, and deployed locally, so maybe they're the modern militia analog. I suppose I could find out if I did some research... |
-Chaloobi
|
| Edited by - chaloobi on 08/30/2007 05:28:30 |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Second Amendment
