Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Abandoning the Second Amendment

Discussion in 'Legal' started by horge, Dec 27, 2005.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. horge

    horge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,132
    Location:
    Philippines
    I'm not an American.
    I am however, largely the product of American colonialism,
    and it is with no trifling affection that I regard the United States;
    It is neither with minor concern that I observe recent trends in your country,
    else I would not presume to post my thoughts here.
    Bear with me, if you will.


    "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."



    To this foreigner, the Second Amendment is clearly framed to preserve
    a necessary, well regulated militia. It refers to a separate natural
    "right to keep and bear arms".

    The Constitutional Amendments seem to me, primarily a list of limits imposed
    on your Federal Government, to preserve freedoms and freedom.

    The Second Amendment is notable in that it not only exalts the
    people's ability to collectively take up arms in defense of freedom,
    but by default calls on the people to maintain said ability.

    It is thus a citizen's duty to keep and bear, because that preserves
    what the Second Amendment seeks to preserve: readiness.

    US vs. Miller resulted in the dubious analysis that a sawed-off shotgun was
    not a suitable weapon for use by a militia, and therefore was not protected
    by the Second Amendment. I feel the Court was incompetent to form any
    opinion on what constitutes a weapon that "has some reasonable relationship
    to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia".

    It was incompetent because the nature and needs of war change rapidly.
    Since one cannot predict what weapons the future will bring, nor what
    war will be like in days to come, it is foolish to set into stone
    what types of weapons are or aren't suitable for militia use.

    A lot has changed since the 1700's, and troops no longer face off by forming
    ordered lines. If war were to visit the native soil of the United States,
    there would likely be some very ugly house-to-house fighting,
    in multistory structures and very tight spaces involving many innocents,
    encouraging the use of short firearms and even handguns.

    Shortened shotguns. Handguns. Battle rifles. Crew-served weapons.
    Ownership of such weapons and maintaining proficiency in their use qualifies
    as necessary towards individual readiness to fight in a militia.

    There will still be conventional battles, usually on foreign shores.
    That is what a professional Armed Forces are for.
    However, in the modern age, the enemy is increasingly a coward.
    The enemy hides among civilians, and targets them,
    violating all accepted conventions of war.
    The enemy will be insidious, avoiding direct conflict with your military
    and law enforcement, while attacking the foundations of America.

    Terrorism is now recognizable as an act of war.
    At what point does foreign-state sponsored crime constitute an act of war?
    At what point does foreign-state sponsored illegal immigration constitute an invasion?

    If/when unconventional aggressions reach a critical level, there may well
    be fighting on US soil. Serious fighting that may preclude rapidly bringing
    the full weight of your vaunted military to bear upon it.

    Recent history has suggested how even the most powerful military on the planet
    can be stretched too thin; how the most powerful nation on the planet
    can be too slow to respond to massive calamity. The military, like disaster relief,
    is a branch of centralized bureaucracy. Law enforcement is a more local
    organ, but is often not sized to meet massive conflict.

    In the towns and villages, in the boroughs, districts and slums,
    the common people -and only the common people- are near enough
    and numerous enough to make a difference immediately.
    They must be ready to organize and take up arms at a moment's notice,
    in defense of all that they hold dear --freedom most of all.


    By propounding endlessly on a right to keep and bear arms, as
    essentially a selfish/personal liberty, Americans may be missing the point
    of the Second Amendment. .

    Again, there is an independent "right to keep and bear", otherwise
    the Second Amendment would not have referred to it.

    The Second Amendment howevermentions a "right to keep and bear arms",
    (and warns the Federal government not to mess with that right)
    because the Second Amendment is also a call to Americans
    --all Americans-- to maintain their readiness.

    A readiness to provide and take up arms in organized defense of flag;
    to take up arms in organized defense of freedom.
    If your country's Constitution exalts and calls for such readiness,
    then look about: does the word 'abandonment' come to mind?




    Deeply concerned,
    horge
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2005
  2. mbt2001

    mbt2001 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2005
    Messages:
    2,902
    Location:
    Texas
    I think that we all agree with what you said here....

    The militia is clearly understood to be the citizenry.
     
  3. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    Words more true have seldom been penned. Thanks, Horge!

    BTW, here's a question for the legal scholars amongst us... In light of the fact that our troops do indeed use sawed off shotguns in battle (proving them to be suitable for use by the "Militia"), what would the chances be of getting Miller overturned?
     
  4. Dave Markowitz

    Dave Markowitz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    6,930
    Location:
    Plymouth Meeting, PA
    Horge,

    Well said. I wish more Americans understood this.
     
  5. longeyes

    longeyes member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    7,227
    Location:
    True West...Hotel California
    Rightly said.

    In light of the times we should all be equipped for "asymmetric warfare."
     
  6. Logistics

    Logistics Member

    Joined:
    Jan 13, 2004
    Messages:
    191
    Location:
    midwest
    horge,

    You are a very very wise man. Please post more often.
     
  7. Kim

    Kim Member

    Joined:
    Nov 19, 2003
    Messages:
    1,488
    A man after my own heart. Wish we had a nation full of them.:(
     
  8. Waitone

    Waitone Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    5,406
    Location:
    The Land of Broccoli and Fingernails
    Being an American is a state of mind. You qualify.
     
  9. Standing Wolf

    Standing Wolf Member in memoriam

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    24,041
    Location:
    Idahohoho, the jolliest state
    Well said, friend!
     
  10. sm

    sm member

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2002
    Messages:
    28,389
    Location:
    Between black coffee, and shiftn' gears
  11. Harve Curry

    Harve Curry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Black Range of New Mexico
    +100 Jorge,
    There are Americans on this very board that cannot grasp what you know for all the tea in China. Thank you.
     
  12. Spot77

    Spot77 Member

    Joined:
    Apr 1, 2003
    Messages:
    2,221
    Location:
    MD
    Horge for President!:cool:
     
  13. cz75bdneos22

    cz75bdneos22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    540
    Location:
    brownsville texas
    Sir, i disagree with some of your comments...
    1."if war comes to the US", no way is any soldier's army going to offend our shores. period..
    2." a lot has changed since 1700's", yes it has..we have USAF, States National Guard, National, State and Local Law Enforcement..if this is not enough to address threats by irregulars, then heaven help us...because no rag tag assembly of citizenry will aid in this one no matter what you say/ arms yourself with..
    3. your romantiziced notion of the second amendment is shared by many...War is not something to be taken lightly as we have found out throughout numerous "conflicts" since WWII...but you just have to experience the "dogs of war" to see that arms in and of themselves do not "peace" make, just the opposite..Sir, even warriors have codes of honor, we don't have to debase ourselves in the pursuit of "justice". As we now know, "War" is being fought for a number of contradictory reasons..political, economical, moral...it's nice to make decisions from the safety zone..War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!...we seem to think that might makes right, but they aren't buying our "ideals"..."they" are just in fear of being obliterated if they don't comply witht the misguided demands of the U.S....our idea that somehow "they" cannot coexist without our intervention in their affairs is just the ticket we are buying..as i've said before, "they" have dealt/lived with ethnic or racial conflict for millenia...but We know better...so much for the high road... YMMV
     
    Last edited: Dec 27, 2005
  14. horge

    horge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,132
    Location:
    Philippines
    Thanks to all for being so gentle with me. ;)

    Hello sir,

    Fortress America, what?
    America has already been attacked in a manner that bypasses
    the conventional forces you cite in your 1. and 2. I imagine that I offered
    sufficient distinction between conventional and assymetrical warfare.
    There are so many other ways to infiltrate and attack America from within.

    In 3., you seem to touch on several bases within the same long breath,
    but with respect to overseas conventional war and warriors,
    and the (im)morality thereof. I do not recall advocating a citizen-militia
    for the purpose of prosecuting a war overseas. It is defense of US soil
    that I was discussing, and I cannot find what 'comment' of mine
    you 'disagree with' here.

    Thank you for offering that "War zones, on the other hand, is hell!!"
    Having been caught in such situations (and worse) in my country,
    I'll... well, thank you!

    :)
    horge
     
  15. cz75bdneos22

    cz75bdneos22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    540
    Location:
    brownsville texas

    Hi from Texas, aking kaibigan...

    1."America's been attacked", we agree on principle just have differing perspectives on the greater issue of "War"...while you seem focused on the concreteness of "war"...i take a more abstract position when it comes to the finality of "war"..."conventional" war\, i can distinguish also. the fact remains that even in War, there is a rule of combat..you know abou it, no need to repeat..otherwise if we are heading towards a least common denominator-barbarism(sp) towards our aggressors, then let's just "nuke" everybody that does us wrong and to hell with everyone ..."Let God, sort em' out"..he, he!! "there are many ways to infiltrate/perpetuate terrorism" We agree again, and you couldn't be more correct as to the "within" part...Domestic terrorists whether by ignorance or stupidity with firearms have been wrecking havock as of lately in our Homeland...no need to go far looking for "terrorists" justified/unjustified abroad or overseas...just look around you and open your eyes...if you get my drift..
    2.neither did i i was referring to your idolizing of the term "militia"...i know what a "militia" means. however i don't ascribe to a modern idealistic/utopian version of it..i empathize with you as far as your having been exposed to the bestiality of war..I hope and wish to NEVER again experience here in America the misery, pain and trauma that is "War".. I care about people and unfortunately the innocent victims in all this are the same people we are supposedly trying to influence with our misdirected efforts to bring "freedom" to their "erroneous" ways of life...i hope i was a a bit clearer stating our differences.

    P.S.
    i will be out of town for the New Year's break, so a happy and peaceful 2006, Nos vemos..Y'all.
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2005
  16. cz75bdneos22

    cz75bdneos22 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    540
    Location:
    brownsville texas
    US vs Miller...

    it was argued for a reason...since the second ammendment guarantees the "keep and bear arms" clause...which i agree to an extent...ever since the inception of a National Armed Forces the "militia" became a moot point...that is why ever since the turn of the 20th century, after the passage of the Old "Wild" West era...iit was in the first three decades that the states acted to restrict by law both the keeping and the bearing of arms to those who would comply with the parameters set forth by the individual states...also, contributing to the discrepancy in allowing a CCW to be issued/reciprocated among the states...it's late ...and i'm leaving in a few hours...see ya!
     
    Last edited: Dec 28, 2005
  17. IndianaDean

    IndianaDean Member

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2004
    Messages:
    541
    Horge, I second all of the positive responses to your excellent post!
     
  18. jeepmor

    jeepmor Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2005
    Messages:
    2,824
    Location:
    Stumptown
    Hogue for mayor, less bureacracy

    Hogue, very well put. I think I'm gonna print that out and put it on my cube. It captures the spirit and necessity of the militia, particularly considering when the document was written. I think some others may be interpreting your words as a fantasy by todays PC times. My interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is a check and balance. We, as citizens, get to keep arms, because arms are what provided our freedom. And if this government we made here becomes the one we just disbanded from, arms and organization is what's gonna bring it back in line. A time when law was the gun and organization.

    And very key in my view, it was the hunting arms that provided food, that also, when properly assembled en masse, ensured our freedom. That and several month trips across the ocean for reports, supplies troops and all that hindering our foes.

    As I grew up, I was taught, in school history class, that the 2nd Amendment created an atmosphere to the rest of the world that they can't just roll in on some isolated coastline or border in droves and not expect to be in the sights of some keen American game marksmen with a LOT of rounds that happens to live on our border. And he'll contact his friends, and organize, in droves....

    Back to my Hogue for mayor angle....;) The town could have a fire horn for something like that.


    jeepmor
     
  19. Colonel

    Colonel Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2005
    Messages:
    319
    Horge-

    I agree with most of what you say above, with the most notable exception of the following:

    Unfortunately, U.S. v. Miller is widely misunderstood and/or misrepresented.

    Some historical background:

    Jack Miller was charged with violating the National Firearms Act of 1934 for illegally transporting a short-barrelled shotgun from Oklahoma to Arkansas. At trial, Miller's attorney filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the NFA1934 violated the Second Amendment. The judge agreed, the charges against Miller were dismissed, Miller was released and he then disappeared.

    The government then appealed the case to the Supreme Court, where Miller's attorney did not appear, meaning that the Supreme Court heard only the government's side of the case (the prosecution). The Supreme Court held, in effect, that the Second Amendment protects militia-type arms, and that in the absence of any evidence in the record about whether the gun involved (a sawed-off shotgun) was a militia-type arm – since Miller's attorneys weren't there to offer any evidence to support such a claim – the Court said, in effect, that they didn't hold the NFA1934 to be violative of the Second Amendment and sent the case back to the federal district court. In the meantime, Miller (an informant snitch) had been murdered, presumably by those he had snitched upon, so the whole thing in effect died.

    In other words, as J.R. Labbe wrote in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram (August 5, 2001):

    “The Supremes never said the lower court decision was wrong. What they did was send the case back to the trial courts to answer whether a short-barreled shotgun is the type of firearm that was useful for the militia.

    “The court did not question the individual right to keep and bear arms as asserted in Miller's original trial. If the court believed that the Second Amendment guaranteed only a right of the states, the justices would have dismissed his claim for lack of standing.

    “In fact, the court said in Miller that the physically capable adult males who were called upon to act together as a militia for the common defense of the country are expected to supply their own firearms.

    “How can they do that if they don't have an individual right to own them in the first place?”

    In fact, in U.S. v. Miller, the Supreme Court said “the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of the colonies and states, and the writings of approved commentators ... show plainly enough that the militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.”

    I hope this helps clarify U.S. v. Miller for anyone out there who might not have this information.

    Col.
     
  20. Harve Curry

    Harve Curry Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,756
    Location:
    Black Range of New Mexico
    Col.,
    Thanks for that info.
     
  21. yonderway

    yonderway Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    197
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    Respectfully but strongly disagree.

    Our monstrous "standing army" (comprising all of the US armed forces, National Guard, reserve units, etc) are all controlled by the federal government. The impetus behind Amendment II had as much to do with putting down tyrrany as it did putting down a foreign invasion.

    Our government has been flirting more and more with despotism, which has been at least as true of this administration as the one before it. I'm not saying it's time to take up arms or anything like that, but there is a definite trend underway, and at some point if the federal government does not significantly deviate from its current path it will contradict the constitution so strongly as to stir up a sense of duty in many common Americans that will have been sufficiently angered to take up arms against a tyrant. When the interests of ultra-liberal groups like the ACLU start to mesh with the interests of ultra-conservative groups like the GOA and the John Birch Society, it's enough to make any observer sit up and take notice.

    The USA Patriot Act was a warning shot across your bow. The revelation of blanket warrantless searches on domestic email and phone calls (supposedly with the other end being an international source, but I think on closer examination we'll likely see domestic/domestic communications sniffed as well) should be enough to have mainstream people start reconsidering any thoughts of the contemporary militia being unneeded.

    It is a point of fact, via treaty, that our barriers with Mexico will be breaking down in the year 2010. It is very likely that Senor Bush's "guest worker program" will become obsolete before the 6 year visa is expired, because by then Mexicans will be allowed to cross our borders legally back and forth as they please. Our sovereignty is being carved up. When we have a North American counterpart to the EU, how long do you think our RKBA will last when our sovereignty is shared with Canada and Mexico?

    Maybe the tinfoil hat is on too tight, who knows, but it all warrants a heightened sense of awareness about where our Republic is now and where it is going.
     
  22. horge

    horge Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    1,132
    Location:
    Philippines
    Thank you for pointing that out! :)
    The Supreme Court indeed would not distinguish if sawed-off shotguns
    were 'militia-type' weapons, citing lack of evidence:

    ''(i)n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession
    or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length' at this
    time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a
    well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment
    guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is
    not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military
    equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense
    .''



    Ultimately, the tragic failure remains:
    that of assuming such a distinction could be made, of whether a weapon
    is "militia-type" or not, even with Miller's representation present.

    As I said, the nature and needs of war can change rapidly, often demanding
    the unforeseen, and sometimes requiring the nearly-forgotten.
    For this reason I believe it is dangerous to limit the range of weapons
    that American citizens can develop and maintain proficiency with.

    Again, thanks for bringing more clarity to the issue :)


    horge
     
    Last edited: Dec 29, 2005
  23. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    When (not if) this happens, some on this list have argued that the federalo government will be too powerful and a citizen militia will stand no chance. That is not true. The federal government is only as strong as its military forces. Should the Posse Comitatus Act be overturned (remember Bush asked to have it repealed in order to fight a war on avian flu just last month) and the federal government be given the authority to turn military forces against the U.S. population, the military will disintigrate. The majority of U.S. soldiers will not take up arms against their fellow Americans. Think about it--in this instance the enemy will not be nameless people who speak another language but the fathers, brothers, cousins, uncles, and even grandfathers of the soldiers themselves. There will be mass desertions if the federal government were to order soldiers to attack U.S. citizens.

    And those citizens won't be sitting ducks for the ragged forces that remain in the service of the federal government. They will be heavily armed, well-trained, resourceful, and most importantly, they will posess intimate knowledge of the environment in which any fighting might occur. Think about the Russian invasion of Finland on a much larger scale. The Russians are stilled scared witless about the prospect of going back into Finland. I suspect that should things progress along current lines, the federal government would be as successful in subduing the American people as Russia was in subduing Finland.
     
  24. ceetee

    ceetee Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,998
    I have to disagree on this one. If (when) it comes to that, it won't come as one giant leap into totalitarianism. It'll start (as most things do) with baby steps. Probably something on the order of using active-duty military to patrol our borders. Something almost everybody would cheer about. Then, using military CID to aid in investigating things like smuggling, or illegal immigration. Security at seaports. Then airports. Then assorted "essential" Federal buildings like courthouses. High profile terrorist targets like monuments, and power generating plants. Bridges. Shopping malls. Gas stations.

    Soon, people will be required to carry "travel identification". People will start to be "disappeared".

    All for the good of the people...
     
  25. Lobotomy Boy

    Lobotomy Boy Member

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2004
    Messages:
    2,449
    Ceetee, the scenario you describe already appears to be happening.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page