I know this is off topic, but I feel the need to educate the masses since some do not know their history very well. The founding fathers were clear as to what word "people" meant, that being those who are governed. The fathers wanted the citizens of the United States for all time to have the ability to overtake an obtrusive government, just as they did.
First off, lets define what a milita is. It can be a body of citizens enrolled for military purposes where full time duty is required only in times of need. It also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution: "To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"
A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. I know you will say that because militias are "owned," or at the disposal of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. Wrong... the militia is not "owned" by anybody, rather they are controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized.
So how do I know that being a member of a milita is not a requirement for owning a gun. Lets look at the Federalist papers to find out shall we?
"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the 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." After James Madison submitted the Bill of Rights, Tench Coxe wrote that "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Hmm... private arms yes. Trench later wrote "Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Not in the federal or state governments.
Going back to the term "people". This term is used several times in the bill of rights. In the first, second, fouth, and ninth amendments. Does the bill of rights protect the states right to peacefully assemble??? No, it protects the individuals rights just as the second amendment does. In the case United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 1990, Justice Brennan stated that "the people' is better understood as a rhetorical counterpoint 'to the government,' such that rights that were reserved to 'the people' were to protect all those subject to 'the government." In the words of Steven Halbrook: "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing."
Making another reference to another founding father: "The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2
Lastly, let's quote one of James Madison proposed amendments: "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." Do you honestly think that Madison proposed a collective right to the publish thoughts and speak? No!
It is also interesting to note that there is a direct link between the 14th amendment and the modern attacks on the 2nd amendment. Those opposed to the freeing of the slaves wanted to band guns so the slaves had no way to rise up and fight against segregation. Denying citizens the right to be armed is control pure and simple.
I am sorry, but I will take the chances of being shot by a criminal over giving up my God given natural rights to protection against an oppressive government. Think about it this way. Nazi germany banned guns because Hitler knew if the peoas a collective body
I am sorry, but I will take the chances of being shot by a criminal over giving up my God given natural rights to protection against an oppressive government. Think about it this way. Nazi germany banned guns because Hitler knew if the people were armed, a revolt against him would be possible. This goes the same for any such government, and our fore fathers knew this. An armed populas is a threat to the power of any government and the first move by any government trying to assume control over the people is to remove the right to own the means to defend themselves. The bill of rights does not grant us our rights, it is there to protect them, and this is why they wanted every man to armed.
Slashdot Mirror
I know this is off topic, but I feel the need to educate the masses since some do not know their history very well. The founding fathers were clear as to what word "people" meant, that being those who are governed. The fathers wanted the citizens of the United States for all time to have the ability to overtake an obtrusive government, just as they did.
... the militia is not "owned" by anybody, rather they are controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized.
... private arms yes. Trench later wrote "Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Not in the federal or state governments.
First off, lets define what a milita is. It can be a body of citizens enrolled for military purposes where full time duty is required only in times of need. It also refers to the eligible pool of citizens callable into military service. The federal government can use the militia for the following purposes as stated in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution:
"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions"
A militia is always subject to federal, state, or local government control. A "private" militia or army not under government control could be considered illegal and in rebellion, and as a result subject to harsh punishment. I know you will say that because militias are "owned," or at the disposal of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. Wrong
So how do I know that being a member of a milita is not a requirement for owning a gun. Lets look at the Federalist papers to find out shall we?
"What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the 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." After James Madison submitted the Bill of Rights, Tench Coxe wrote that "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Hmm
Going back to the term "people". This term is used several times in the bill of rights. In the first, second, fouth, and ninth amendments. Does the bill of rights protect the states right to peacefully assemble??? No, it protects the individuals rights just as the second amendment does. In the case United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez 1990, Justice Brennan stated that "the people' is better understood as a rhetorical counterpoint 'to the government,' such that rights that were reserved to 'the people' were to protect all those subject to 'the government." In the words of Steven Halbrook: "The Framers of the Bill of Rights did not purport to 'create' rights. Rather, they designed the Bill of Rights to prohibit our Government from infringing rights and liberties presumed to be pre-existing."
Making another reference to another founding father: "The whole of that Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals...[I]t establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of.
---Albert Gallatin to Alexander Addison, Oct 7, 1789, MS. in N.Y. Hist. Soc.-A.G. Papers, 2
Lastly, let's quote one of James Madison proposed amendments: "The people shall not be deprived or abridged of their right to speak, to write, or to publish their sentiments; and the freedom of the press, as one of the great bulwarks of liberty, shall be inviolable." Do you honestly think that Madison proposed a collective right to the publish thoughts and speak? No!
It is also interesting to note that there is a direct link between the 14th amendment and the modern attacks on the 2nd amendment. Those opposed to the freeing of the slaves wanted to band guns so the slaves had no way to rise up and fight against segregation. Denying citizens the right to be armed is control pure and simple.
I am sorry, but I will take the chances of being shot by a criminal over giving up my God given natural rights to protection against an oppressive government. Think about it this way. Nazi germany banned guns because Hitler knew if the peoas a collective body
I am sorry, but I will take the chances of being shot by a criminal over giving up my God given natural rights to protection against an oppressive government. Think about it this way. Nazi germany banned guns because Hitler knew if the people were armed, a revolt against him would be possible. This goes the same for any such government, and our fore fathers knew this. An armed populas is a threat to the power of any government and the first move by any government trying to assume control over the people is to remove the right to own the means to defend themselves. The bill of rights does not grant us our rights, it is there to protect them, and this is why they wanted every man to armed.
Cheers,