Right to Keep and Bear, what does it really mean?

[zeos]

my dad forwarded this email. it is probably just a joke, but it is an interesting way to look at things.

Why didn’t someone think of this one before????
This would certainly shake up the liberals!!!!!
THIS MAY MAKE YOUR DAY!

Vermont State Rep. Fred Maslack has read the Second Amendment to the U..S. Constitution, as well as Vermont 's own Constitution very carefully, and his strict interpretation of these documents is popping some eyeballs in New England and elsewhere.

Maslack recently proposed a bill to register "non-gun-owners" and require them to pay a $500 fee to the state. Thus Vermont would become the first state to require a permit for the luxury of going about unarmed and assess a fee of $500 for the privilege of not owning a gun.

Maslack read the "militia" phrase of the Second Amendment as not only the right of the individual citizen to bear arms, but as a clear mandate to do so. He believes that universal gun ownership was advocated by the Framers of the Constitution as an antidote to a "monopoly of force" by the government as well as criminals.

Vermont 's constitution states explicitly that "the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the State" and those persons who are "conscientiously scrupulous of bearing arms" shall be required to "pay such equivalent.."

Clearly, says Maslack, Vermonters have a constitutional obligation to arm themselves, so that they are capable of responding to "any situation that may arise."

Under the bill, adults who choose not to own a firearm would be required to register their name, address, Social Security Number, and driver's license number with the state. "There is a legitimate government interest in knowing who is not prepared to defend the state should they be asked to do so." Maslack says Vermont already boasts a high rate of gun ownership along with theleast restrictive laws of any state .. it's currently the only state that allows a citizen to carry a concealed firearm without a permit. This combination of plenty of guns and few laws regulating them has resulted in a crime rate that is the third lowest in the nation.

" America is at that awkward stage. It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards."

This makes sense! There is no reason why gun owners should have to pay taxes to support police protection for people not wanting to own guns.
Let them contribute their fair share and pay their own way.

Sounds reasonable to me! Non-gun owners require more police to protect them and this fee should go to paying for their defense!

 

[GambJoe]

Ours has become a monster and we let it happen.

Why do you say that?

 

[Owen Sparks]

There is no “right to keep and bear arms” anymore, only a very limited privilege that varies from place to place. Suppose the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion was subject to the same “reasonable restrictions” as firearms?

You would have to pass a background test before being allowed to worship freely. After all, we can’t have just anyone exposed to such dangerous ideas.

You would be limited to only certain traditional denominations as approved by the government.

Your Bible would have to be serial numbered and registered.

In some places it would be a crime to poses a Bible outside your home unless you were on the way to or from church. Illinois would require a BOID card (Bible Owners IDentification Card)

Some people would still support all this because they don’t question authority, after all it is THE LAW.

 

[CraigC]

Why do you say that?

Which part? Look at our deficit. Look at our taxes. Over 20% of our income goes to income tax and social security alone. We pay out billions of dollars to rebuild countries like Haiti, three times in the last hundred years. All for nothing. Starting with Lincoln's internal improvements, government funded railroads, we throw away money like it's free. All of the government funded railroads were bankrupt before they even opened. Only the private funded railroads actually turned a profit. It's snowballed from there. Our government is corrupt and basically run by special interest groups. Legislation is bought and sold to the highest bidder. It is completely out of control, it has never been run like a business and we let it happen. Now there are those who think we only have the rights the Supreme Court says we do and others who think the government should be in control of healthcare. It's completely out of control and the problem is too big and too deep to fix. "We the people..." let it happen and have only ourselves to blame. Future generations will realize that they are enslaved to the nanny state and good men will again have to die to regain the liberty that We so foolishly gave away.

"We the people..." are slowly boiling frogs.

 

[USAF_Vet]

As I understand it, the Founding Fathers set the 2A in place to give We, the People the means to overthrow a tyrannical government, even if it is our own. At some point over the years, our government realized that the 2A was there to get rid if THEM, potentially. Since that profound realization, government has done what it can to infringe the 2A so they CAN'T be overthrown.
Federally regulated organized militias gave way to the National Guard, which although in theory belong to the states, can be commanded by the federal government 'in times of crisis.'
And look at the uniform, I wonder if you can tell the difference between a guardsman and an active duty Soldier, Sailor Airman or Marine. Hell, many NG units are seamlessly integrated with their Active duty counterparts.

The founding fathers of this nation made it pretty clear that we have the right, ability and obligation to defeat tyranny on our soil in any form. It was those who followed in their footsteps who kinda decided to retract that decision. Power begets corruption.

 

[Owen Sparks]

Notice how the gun control efforts of the last few decades are aimed at millitary styled "assault rifles" and their high capacity magazines? This is not because this type of weapon is often used in crime, they are not. It is because they pose a threat to the state. Criminals usually prefer hand guns because they are easy to conceal. Military style semi-autos are just too big to be practical for mugging, armed robbery or knocking over a liquor store.

 

[GambJoe]

Didn't know about Federally funded railroads. But you know that during every war we had we ran a deficiet. Look at a few things this country did that was good, the Erie canal, ended slavery, established a place where most emigrates come to from around the world, defeated fascism, communism, and soon radical Islam, fights hunger and desease around the world, put a man on the moon, built the interstate highway system, probable the most liberal gun laws in the free world, created the first atom bomb, polution standards, potable water systems and sewage treatment systems, to name a few.

My fear that to many people get this revolutionay mode and they become like Mcvie. Who do you attack, the cops, shoot elected officals and judges, blow up buildings with childen in them. That would be a nightmare. I don't see us becoming more free because of it. Remember why they put restrictions on assualt rifles in CA?

Even when I lived in NYC I could own a long gun without any real difficulties. I don't like the laws there and believe they go to far. I much prefer them where I live now in Texas.

 

[JVaughn]

In short: the laws and regulations as they currently exist are a clear infringement on my rights under the Constitution. It seems odd to me that, after the Supreme Court has affirmed the 2a to be an individual right, that it doesn't jump right out and bite everyone that if that is the case, that virtually all gun laws are now considered infringements.

YES!!
Merlinfire got it right, thats what it means!

shall not does not mean should not, or may not, it means under no circumstances.

+1

 

[JVaughn]

Brilliant Owen Sparks.

There is no “right to keep and bear arms” anymore, only a very limited privilege that varies from place to place. Suppose the First Amendment guarantee of freedom of religion was subject to the same “reasonable restrictions” as firearms?

You would have to pass a background test before being allowed to worship freely. After all, we can’t have just anyone exposed to such dangerous ideas.

You would be limited to only certain traditional denominations as approved by the government.

Your Bible would have to be serial numbered and registered.

In some places it would be a crime to poses a Bible outside your home unless you were on the way to or from church. Illinois would require a BOID card (Bible Owners IDentification Card)

Some people would still support all this because they don’t question authority, after all it is THE LAW.

I've never seen it put in this context before; but you are exactly right. A chilling look at gun laws and infringement.

 

[Neverwinter]

The right to keep and bear arms would not be improved if this country were to be run as an amoral business.

 

[captain awesome]

Which part? Look at our deficit. Look at our taxes. Over 20% of our income goes to income tax and social security alone. We pay out billions of dollars to rebuild countries like Haiti, three times in the last hundred years. All for nothing. Starting with Lincoln's internal improvements, government funded railroads, we throw away money like it's free. All of the government funded railroads were bankrupt before they even opened. Only the private funded railroads actually turned a profit. It's snowballed from there. Our government is corrupt and basically run by special interest groups. Legislation is bought and sold to the highest bidder. It is completely out of control, it has never been run like a business and we let it happen. Now there are those who think we only have the rights the Supreme Court says we do and others who think the government should be in control of healthcare. It's completely out of control and the problem is too big and too deep to fix. "We the people..." let it happen and have only ourselves to blame. Future generations will realize that they are enslaved to the nanny state and good men will again have to die to regain the liberty that We so foolishly gave away.

"We the people..." are slowly boiling frogs.

well said craig, while a lot of the stuff that comes out of your mouth is abrupt to say the least, most of it I agree with, and you are right on the money with this one, as sad as it may be, it is completely true.

My fear that to many people get this revolutionay mode and they become like Mcvie. Who do you attack, the cops, shoot elected officals and judges, blow up buildings with childen in them. That would be a nightmare. I don't see us becoming more free because of it. Remember why they put restrictions on assualt rifles in CA?

How do you go about it? Read Unintended Consequences.

 

[1911Tuner]

Here's my take on the individual vs the collective RKBA argument...and a little food for thought.

Given that the normal language useage and syntax of the day was different than it is now, and well-understood by the people of the time, but not so clearly worded by today's standards.

The founders didn't want a standing army in the new nation because they understood the dangers presented by a professional military under the control of a central government that, over the course of natural progression...becomes a little too arrogant in the lust for power. Historically, that's the way it had always happened...and they saw no reason to believe that it wouldn't happen again.

They also understood that a militia that could be called up in time of emergency was necessary...but a necessary evil that had the potential to be used for nefarious purpose by the same government power that called them up and pointed them at an enemy. They knew also that a large number of the militia would obey orders, even if it meant marching on their own countrymen.

Rather than intending the RKBA to be for the purpose of forming a "Well Regulated Militia"...it was put in place because of a (Government) regulated (controlled) militia.

In short...I believe that it was put in place so that we, the people could defend ourselves against the regular militia that a tyrannical entity may, at some point...sic on us for whatever reason was deemed just and pure by someone/something that doesn't have our best interests at heart.

Power...not money...is the great seducer. The lust for power eventually factors in. As long as we, the people have the check and balance provided by the 2nd Amendment...absolute power can never be achieved, and that is precisely why it's there and precisely why we should never stop being vigilant. Once disarmed...we are subjects.

 

[Water-Man]

Bottom line, for me personally, is that we have lost many freedoms that were originally intended and we continue to lose more of those freedoms as time goes on. The obvious culprit is our government and we do nothing of consequence to stop it from happening.

 

[1911Tuner]

we have lost many freedoms that were originally intended and we continue to lose more of those freedoms as time goes on

Yep. Loss of liberty rarely comes in one big gulp, but rather one nibble at a time. Death from a thousand tiny cuts.

 

[CraigC]

Yep, the problem is not what 'we' do or don't do but with the millions who simply don't care. Apathy is liberty's greatest threat.

 

[Neverwinter]

Starting with Lincoln's internal improvements, government funded railroads, we throw away money like it's free. All of the government funded railroads were bankrupt before they even opened. Only the private funded railroads actually turned a profit. ... Legislation is bought and sold to the highest bidder. It is completely out of control, it has never been run like a business and we let it happen. Now there are those who think we only have the rights the Supreme Court says we do and others who think the government should be in control of healthcare.

The preamble of the Constitution explicitly includes "promote the general Welfare" as one of the goals. Sometimes promoting the general welfare isn't profitable. If it were, we could let companies take that role. If you're going to interpret this as "promote the general Welfare, except when it isn't profitable", you're no better than the people you rail against.

In short...I believe that it was put in place so that we, the people could defend ourselves against the regular militia that a tyrannical entity may, at some point...sic on us for whatever reason was deemed just and pure by someone/something that doesn't have our best interests at heart.

An irregular militia consisting of citizens who happen to have weapons isn't going to put up much of a fight against our military unless a significant portion defects. At that point, the right to keep and bear arms doesn't serve a vital role.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The preamble of the Constitution explicitly includes "promote the general Welfare" as one of the goals. Sometimes promoting the general welfare isn't profitable. If it were, we could let companies take that role. If you're going to interpret this as "promote the general Welfare, except when it isn't profitable", you're no better than the people you rail against.

The Court has ruled that the Preamble is only descriptive, not prescriptive. There is a General Welfare clause in Article I, Section 8:

Section. 8.
Clause 1: The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the United States; but all Duties, Imposts and Excises shall be uniform throughout the United States;

But that is restricted by the 10th Amendment:

Amendment X
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

The Federal Government can act for the general welfare only in those areas where it is empowered, not across the board.

An irregular militia consisting of citizens who happen to have weapons isn't going to put up much of a fight against our military unless a significant portion defects. At that point, the right to keep and bear arms doesn't serve a vital role.

I take it you've never been in combat?

 

[Neverwinter]

The Federal Government can act for the general welfare only in those areas where it is empowered, not across the board.

Exactly. The general welfare clause doesn't prohibit itself to just what the government can make a profit from. The post I was responding to had taken the position that the government should not undertake projects which are not profitable.

I take it you've never been in combat?

I have read the historical accounting of the failure of the Whiskey Rebellion and Shay's Rebellion. I've read that IEDs are the weapon of choice instead of firearms now in places which we occupy.

If you have any further data on the plausibility of a rebellion without sufficient popular support as to result in a fracturing of the military, please post it.

 

[1911Tuner]

An irregular militia consisting of citizens who happen to have weapons isn't going to put up much of a fight against our military unless a significant portion defects.

Oh, I dunno. The Russians felt the same way when they went into Afghanistan...and they were wrong. The Viet Cong irregulars were pretty tough to deal with, too. Come to think of it, the British thought they'd end the rebellious insurrestion in two or three months...and they were pretty shocked at how deadly effective irregular troops could be against a trained army.

Sorry. History just doesn't support that statement.

At that point, the right to keep and bear arms doesn't serve a vital role.

Nevertheless...that's why it's there.

I take it you've never been in combat?

I thought the very same thing, Vern.

The Federal Government can act for the general welfare only in those areas where it is empowered, not across the board.

Bingo. The Fed-Dot-Gov seems to have conveniently neglected that little reality in recent times.

So...What do we have to say when "they" decide that promoting the general welfare includes disarming its citizens?

"Oh, well...that's okay because it's best for us." (??)

 

[Neverwinter]

Oh, I dunno. The Russians felt the same way when they went into Afghanistan...and they were wrong. The Viet Cong irregulars were pretty tough to deal with, too. Come to think of it, the British thought they'd end the rebellious insurrestion in two or three months...and they were pretty shocked at how deadly effective irregular troops could be against a trained army.

You posted earlier in the thread about how France's support was important in the success of the American revolution. Also, their trained army doesn't match our current military in regards to tactics, strategy and logistics. A modern rebellion would also have to deal with our law enforcement departments.

Nevertheless...that's why it's there.

That may be the purpose, but we're discussing the utility of it.

So...What do we have to say when "they" decide that promoting the general welfare includes disarming its citizens?

Even if promoting the general welfare were capable of being used in such a way, a rational society would require them to provide sufficient evidence that disarming the citizens performs the stated goal of promoting the general welfare. They don't stand much of a chance of doing that.

 

[awgrizzly]

In order to keep this type of discussion on track, over and over again we must tell ourselves that the second amendment does not grant us a right to own guns. It prevents the government from restricting that right. Certainly it would be difficult for the public to take on an army, but so too would it be difficult for an army to command 300 million people against their will... especially if they are armed. The argue is moot.

We have and must retain the natural right to own property, speak our minds, do and live as we wish so long as we do not harm others in the process (which is regulated by laws according to the will of the people). Should a person wish to own a gun (whether it be for protection or because he likes the sound of the hammer cocking) it is no business of the government. That's the key... our lives are none of their business. We hire them to work for us and the Constitution is their job description. They are not our masters, they are our servants. They must constantly be reminded of this, and gun rights is but the tip of an iceberg.

 

[awgrizzly]

You posted earlier in the thread about how France's support was important in the success of the American revolution. Also, their trained army doesn't match our current military in regards to tactics, strategy and logistics. A modern rebellion would also have to deal with our law enforcement departments.

That may be the purpose, but we're discussing the utility of it.

Even if promoting the general welfare were capable of being used in such a way, a rational society would require them to provide sufficient evidence that disarming the citizens performs the stated goal of promoting the general welfare. They don't stand much of a chance of doing that.

We don't need to justify anything. Our lives are not the concern of the government. If we need their help we can ask for it, and we certainly don't need to waste our time finding ways to justify their intrusion.

 

[1911Tuner]

That may be the purpose, but we're discussing the utility of it.

I think the question was:

"What does it really mean?"

So...okay. It meant that the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and the utility is that it acts as a deterrent to those who would destroy our liberty...either by legislation or by outright invasion. The final check and balance.

Better?

Even if promoting the general welfare were capable of being used in such a way, a rational society would require them to provide sufficient evidence that disarming the citizens performs the stated goal of promoting the general welfare.

You mean the way they did with the '94 Assault Weapon Ban and the '68 Gun Control Act and the banning of weapons with certain features like bayonet lugs and pistol grips and heat shields and certain ammunition types? Is it much of a stretch to imagine banning by caliber next?

They don't stand much of a chance of doing that.

Really? Kid yourself much?

They are not our masters, they are our servants. They must constantly be reminded of this, and gun rights is but the tip of an iceberg.

Precisely.

It's been written:

"They may promise to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters...but they mean to be masters."

 

[Owen Sparks]

"What does it really mean?"

It means whatever the people in power want it to mean and right now it is not in their best interest for it to mean what it says.

 

[LibShooter]

Bottom line, for me personally, is that we have lost many freedoms that were originally intended and we continue to lose more of those freedoms as time goes on.

This sentiment is expressed here pretty often. I don't buy it.

Most of us are more free today than in 1787. We've already alluded to a giant increase in freedom for those of us who have African ancestors. And the half of us born with two X chromosomes have certainly gained freedom.

Our Second Amendment rights are getting stronger in most jurisdictions. 30 years ago in my state, concealed carry was almost always illegal and you had to wait two weeks to buy a handgun. That's gone. So is the AWB. That's not to say the battle is over, but it is going our way.

Our First Amendment rights are stronger than ever, too. This forum alone gives every one of us freedom to speak to a bigger audience than many small newspapers in the 18th Century. And we didn't have to buy a press. We routinely say things here that would have prompted a visit from Joe McCarthy's JBTs back in the '50s.

I work with two Muslims, two Wiccans, a Mormon and an atheist. In East Tennessee! A hundred years ago most of those folks would not have been employable without hiding their religious beliefs.

Except for the regrettable fits and starts, Freedom is growing, not eroding.