Militia question 1

[Ed]

If there is a need for a linguistic analysis, then there is disagreement to what it means.

I didn't suggest that there was a need, I just presented it. Anything can be analysed linguistically. Given that I suspect the Founders were a bit more careful with their language than we are today such a perspective is interesting, at least. Again, if you get hung up on the precise meaning you are missing the point. The Supremes would not take the Amendment alone but would look at intent, and that intent is clear.

 

[Nikk]

I think that outsiders, and probably many US citizens don't realize how popular firearms and shooting sports are. Europeans are used to rulings from on high that effect all, a situation which is not present in the US.

Come off it, Ed this is nonsense.

US laws are as much or as little from on high as European laws. People elect members of some sort of legislative system and the elected members legislate.

With the exception of Britain there is some sort of written constitution with which these laws must accord. There is nothing special about the US.

Shooting sports are also very popular in much of Europe. No politician in his right mind would seriously attempt to restrict the right of hunt in France for example. The big difference is that firearms rarely seem to have the emotional importance and quasi mystical association with freedom that many in the US seem to give them.

 

[Ed]

Come off it, Ed this is nonsense.

US laws are as much or as little from on high as European laws. People elect members of some sort of legislative system and the elected members legislate.

With the exception of Britain there is some sort of written constitution with which these laws must accord. There is nothing special about the US.

Shooting sports are also very popular in much of Europe. No politician in his right mind would seriously attempt to restrict the right of hunt in France for example. The big difference is that firearms rarely seem to have the emotional importance and quasi mystical association with freedom that many in the US seem to give them.

Maybe. It just seems that social agenda things sort of appear. With stories like this:

Don't enforce hunt ban, say 70pc
By Melissa Kite
(Filed: 28/11/2004)

Seventy per cent of the public believe that the police should not enforce the ban on hunting when the legislation comes into effect in February.

An opinion poll, conducted by ICM for The Sunday Telegraph, found that seven out of 10 of those questioned believed that police officers should concentrate on other areas of crime once hunting with hounds becomes illegal

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...28.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/28/ixnewstop.html

you might understand how I got that impression. I'd rather not discuss this particular issue since it will derail the thread.

Are you saying that gun ownership, shooting and hunting occupy a similar level of involvemet in Europe? If so, that is interesting, didn't know it.

 

[Nikk]

One last observation.


The analysis above notwithstanding, I cannot emphasize enough to non-USers how much the thinking of the Founders is taken into account when making decisions on the meaning of the Constitution.

I'm sure you are right about this.


I have often wondered whether this reverence which is so publicly given to ancient writings has any connection with the power of religion in the US. For many people what's the difference between revering the words of FF's and the constitution and revering the words of prophets and the bible?


Sorry Ed and Claus, off topic.

 

[Ed]

I'm sure you are right about this.


I have often wondered whether this reverence which is so publicly given to ancient writings has any connection with the power of religion in the US. For many people what's the difference between revering the words of FF's and the constitution and revering the words of prophets and the bible?


Sorry Ed and Claus, off topic.

Fair point and I have thought about it too. The issue is that arguments could make it seem reasonable to curtail speech and press since these are not those "ancient" times. That is why it is so god-awfully difficult to change the constitution. The guiding principle, IMHO, of the Constitution is that government is a good thing only in very small doses. This is understandable given that the experience of many here is not terribly positive with their prior governments. If you get this basic truth, everything else follows.

Regardless of the last election, anyone who forgets that the US is a very conservative country does so at their peril.

 

[shanek]

Provided that you can refrain from screaming at me in your usual uncontrollable manner, could you explain how this is so?

Are you saying that Great Britain did not abuse its power over the American colonists? Are you saying that said colonists did not take up arms against its own government? Are you saying they didn't win?

The Second Amendment was ratified in 1791, 8 years after the Revolution had ended in 1783.

Irrelevant. Our right to bear arms doesn't come from the Second Amendment.

 

[shanek]

I should note that this map was published in American Rifleman within the past year so what it depicts is reasonably current.

It might be interesting to look at a similar map of state crime rates, especially murders. If the gun control people are right, we should see more per-capita murders in the red states than the black; I predict it would be the exact opposite.

 

[shanek]

If there is a need for a linguistic analysis, then there is disagreement to what it means.

No, Claus, it only means there are blowhards out there trying to deny what it means.

Answer straight: Where in Article I Section 8 does it give the Federal government the power to restrict firearms ownership by private individuals?

 

[Cleopatra]

As regards the US at least, I think the right to bear arms has become a kind of political comfort blanket and substitute for thought. You can lose your job and health insurance at a moments notice; large corporations determine who can attempt to get elected and what their policies are; media corporations decide what information is accessible according to the needs of advertisers; religious corporations erode the ability to think - but it's OK, you are still free because you can buy a little bit of metal that goes bang. This is pretty much what you are saying I think.

Exactly. This is how I - as an outsider --sees it.I also agree with your comment regarding the religious-mystical reference to the FF when it comes to militia.

Let's take a very crude example. Nobody took his arms to defend the State from Ashcroft's Patriot Act.

There must have been some american citizens that must have felt threatened by it and yet I didn't learn that anybody took his arms to apply what the Founding Fathers have advised....

 

[Ed]

Exactly. This is how I - as an outsider --sees it.I also agree with your comment regarding the religious-mystical reference to the FF when it comes to militia.

Let's take a very crude example. Nobody took his arms to defend the State from Ashcroft's Patriot Act.

There must have been some american citizens that must have felt threatened by it and yet I didn't learn that anybody took his arms to apply what the Founding Fathers have advised....

So? Read this thread. The point is not militias nor government per se. It is that people have a right to be armed. Everything else is misdirection (like your note on (militias or whatever in Iraq).

 

[shanek]

Let's take a very crude example. Nobody took his arms to defend the State from Ashcroft's Patriot Act.

It hasn't been necessary yet. As Ambrose Bierce summarized it, the stages are: ballot box, then jury box, then cartridge box. Taking up arms is a last resort.

There must have been some american citizens that must have felt threatened by it

Yes, and about a dozen states and several hundred municipalities have passed resolutions refusing to comply with its orders. How is taking up arms at this point necessary?

 

[shanek]

So? Read this thread. The point is not militias nor government per se. It is that people have a right to be armed. Everything else is misdirection (like your note on (militias or whatever in Iraq).

Which brings up another question: Why would we need a Second Amendment to support the militia, given that we already have I.8.(15-16) and II.2.(1) supporting a militia and giving the government the power to call it into action? What sense does it make if the Second Amendment was passed with that it mind?

It only makes sense to have the Second Amendment if it's protecting the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms.

 

[Cleopatra]

So? Read this thread. The point is not militias nor government per se. It is that people have a right to be armed. Everything else is misdirection (like your note on (militias or whatever in Iraq).

I don't understand why should we limit the discussion and subject it to legalistic interpretations.

The people have a right to be armed. Why do they need their arms for if not to protect their freedom?

"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 Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." -Thomas Jefferson.

"(The Constitution preserves) the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation...(where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." -James Madison.

These are just some quotes of the FF that I found with a quick google search.

I ask.

Which american exercised his constitutional rights to defend himself from the Patriot Act following the words of the FF?

Which American during the last 50 years has exercised his constitutioanl right to defend himself from the abuse of the power from the part of the authorities?

 

[Cleopatra]

It hasn't been necessary yet. As Ambrose Bierce summarized it, the stages are: ballot box, then jury box, then cartridge box. Taking up arms is a last resort.

So, I must presume that so far in the American history its citizens haven't faced the need to resort to the cartridge box. Ok.

 

[CFLarsen]

Let's take a very crude example. Nobody took his arms to defend the State from Ashcroft's Patriot Act.

Good question. Time for a separate thread. Let's keep this one on the subject.

There must have been some american citizens that must have felt threatened by it and yet I didn't learn that anybody took his arms to apply what the Founding Fathers have advised....

Apparently, the Founding Fathers saw it necessary to diminish the rights of the American people...

 

[shanek]

The people have a right to be armed. Why do they need their arms for if not to protect their freedom?

That makes sense to me. Of course, an individual needs to protect his freedom from a criminal intent on doing him harm just as much (if not moreso, as it happens much more often) as the people of a country have to defend themselves from invasion or a usurpation of power.

I ask.

Which american exercised his constitutional rights to defend himself from the Patriot Act following the words of the FF?

Which American during the last 50 years has exercised his constitutioanl right to defend himself from the abuse of the power from the part of the authorities?

Reread your own quotes:

"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 Papers (C.J. Boyd, Ed. 1950)

It's a last resort. It just hasn't come to that yet. There's enough resistance to keep it at bay, and growing opposition. All indications are that it won't even exist anymore by the time the 2008 elections come around.

EDIT: Of course, it has been necessary for individuals to protect themselves from others. Depending on whose figures you believe, anywhere from 400,000 to 2 million people use a firearm every year to foil a crime.

 

[Chaos]

Which brings up another question: Why would we need a Second Amendment to support the militia, given that we already have I.8.(15-16) and II.2.(1) supporting a militia and giving the government the power to call it into action? What sense does it make if the Second Amendment was passed with that it mind?

It only makes sense to have the Second Amendment if it's protecting the right of private individuals to keep and bear arms.

As anybody who has studied law (and many who didn´t) will tell you, laws can indeed be contradictory or tautological. This happens all the time.

Therefore, it is possible that the Second Amendment was passed with the militia in mind.

 

[Cleopatra]

It's a last resort. It just hasn't come to that yet. There's enough resistance to keep it at bay, and growing opposition. All indications are that it won't even exist anymore by the time the 2008 elections come around.

Shanek, I am not in the position to debate whether the american society has ever come to a point to use its arms to defend itself from the abuse of power of the central government because I am not an American and above all I do not live to the States.

So, if you and others say so, I cannot argue with you on that. It would be interesting to see though if any member of this forum has a different opinion.

Historically speaking though societies tend to get numb when they face an abuse of power if they do not have a leader to motivate them to react.

Correct me if I am wrong please but although USA is a very fertile soil for every exotic fruit because of the freedom of speech that its citizens enjoy, I have never heard of any politician that encourages the citizens to take their arms and resist to something.

I mean, I have heard of religious fundamentalists who want to erect statues of lunatics who murder homosexuals(I am having Phelps in mind) but I have never heard of somebody who asks the citizens to resist using their arms to something.

Isn't that sort of strange? Do you have an explanation for that?

EDIT: Of course, it has been necessary for individuals to protect themselves from others. Depending on whose figures you believe, anywhere from 400,000 to 2 million people use a firearm every year to foil a crime.

I might not be a constitutionalist to interpret the constitution but I happen to be a criminologist and in this forum I have debated this idea, I won't get into that discussion for the moment because I do not wish to derail the thread.

 

[shanek]

So, I must presume that so far in the American history its citizens haven't faced the need to resort to the cartridge box. Ok.

What, you haven't heard of the Civil War? And Richard did point you to the Battle of Athens, TN as another example.

 

[shanek]

As anybody who has studied law (and many who didn´t) will tell you, laws can indeed be contradictory or tautological. This happens all the time.

But this just isn't any law. It's a Constitutional amendment, and amendments are always passed after long and careful consideration.

Therefore, it is possible that the Second Amendment was passed with the militia in mind.

No, it isn't! These debates survive! The writings of the people who wrote it survive! Why is there all this speculation?