A book to stay away from or if you need something to make you sick...

Status
Not open for further replies.

gryphon

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
401
Location
Columbus, OH
Decided that it was time for me to get serious about my own personal studies. Decided a good place to start would be in my own back yard, look at the Constitution and the Bill of Right. So I went to the library and started getting books on one of my most passionate subjects, the Second Amendment(that's as good a place to start as any, right?)

Book titled:
The Militia and the Right to Arms, or How the second amendment fell silent
by Uviler and Merkel.

Now, I have not read Bellesilles(sp?) book, but this one must rank right up there with that as far as junk goes(my opinion, you can read it for yourself and determine).

The book starts out in the introduction with such tantalizing reading as:

"While the second amendment surely did once speak loudly and clearly to the issue of arms in private hands, we will conclude from an examination of langauge of the provisions, as understood by the ratifiers, and from the history of the militia since the eighteenth century, the the 'right of the people' has become a vacant and meaningless sequence of words."

Some other interesting tidbits:

"While many of us regard guns in private hands as the scourge of our times, and favor government imposition on controls and punitive deterrence of all sorts..."

"The gun people and their friends..."

Couldn't get much past that. Essentially they are trying to prove the 2A is no longer valid since we don't have militias like we had in 1700's and 1800's.
 
It takes a village...:barf: :barf: :barf:

Vigilence my friends. Too many of our rights have become irrevelent in today's world.

This is from the Amazon editorial review:

Merkel, a doctorate candidate at Oxford, offer a fresh interpretation of the Second Amendment, aiming to recover it's original intent and to examine how the passing of time has affected the amendment's meaning and vitality.

Oxford? Whether the 2nd defends our right to self-defense or not, the citizen is the meaning and vitality of its intent. Our right to self-defense shall not be infringed.
 
Couldn't get much past that. Essentially they are trying to prove the 2A is no longer valid since we don't have militias like we had in 1700's and 1800's.

Essentually we do, all it takes is Congress to enact the draft again. All able bodied men of a certain age range (which can be flexible according to the need), except for a few exemptions, are required to serve in the armed services as called. That is nothing more than a call for the militia, and it has been done in the recent past.
 
Quick suggestion:

If you have the money, you might consider picking up some of the books that have been put out by the likes of John Lott, Gary Kleck, or Wayne LaPierre and donating them to the local library.

Ya know, in the interest in offering all points of view.:)
 
It's funny, the same library has almost all of Ayoob's work. The donation idea isn't bad, might have to do that as a Christmas present to our fair city here in Columbus, OH.

Just as another aside, they also bash Lott and his research as "questionable" and "flawed".
 
We don't have a Militia anymore ????

Gentlemen:

We not only have a Militia, we have one that is established and defined in the U.S. Code (Federal laws). Below is an excerpt from "THE LAW!"

Do pay particular attention to: "(b)(2) the unorganized militia."

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------


TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > Sec. 311.

Sec. 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

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/10/311.html
 
The State National Guards are really an adjunct of the Pentagon as things stand now. They can be mobilized by the Federal Government and deployed overseas regardless of the objections of the State's Governor. IIRC, the US Supreme Court settled that issue years ago when Mike Dukakis was Governor of Mass.

The State National Guards are part of the Pentagon's war fighting strategy an fit into their war plans.

During WWII some entire State Guard divisions served overseas and were considered able combat formations. One was the MD/VA/PA 29th Infantry Div. which took part on the Normandy invasion as assault troops. In about 11 months they suffered 211% casualities, both combat and non-combat.

So, I figure the only real "militia" in the nation is the un-organized militia as cited by US Code.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top