Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Well regulated?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Well regulated? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 6:50:46 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		The second amendment: 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.

Just out of curiosity...

What do you folks see as "well regulated"? What regulation does this call for or imply?
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:28:17 AM   
wulfgarw


Posts: 752
Joined: 3/18/2008
Status: offline 		To me, the intent of those words call for rules for only the militia, such as a established chain of command and military organization as well as basic rules like following the orders of superior officers or NCO's, appointment of said officers and NCO's, not committing treason, and preventing war atrocities.

Just my $0.02


_____________________________

"Alone I Walk
Broken I Stand
Betrayed I Fight
Forgotten I Fall"

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:36:36 AM   
SimplyMichael


Posts: 7229
Joined: 1/7/2007
Status: offline 		Those are some very sharp looking soldiers Sir.  How well do they march?

(in reply to wulfgarw)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:45:51 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		Keep in mind that the "militia" is , according to federal law every able bodied man from 18 to 50. At the time of the Bill of Rights it was concidered to be everyone capable of carrying a weapon.  They were expected to drill as a local unit under local authority.  The mission was not just to fight national wars but to protect the community against all threats, forgien invasion, indians, and brigands.  If someone tried to break into your neighbors house and you came to the rescue you were well regulated.  If you shot the intruder you were well trained, and if you killed them you were well armed.  What it does not mean is regulation by the central government as the militia was considered a protection against the central government getting to strong.

(in reply to SimplyMichael)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:47:36 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		Oh yes I forgot to appologize for my inablility to type

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 7:54:38 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

Keep in mind that the "militia" is , according to federal law every able bodied man from 18 to 50. At the time of the Bill of Rights it was concidered to be everyone capable of carrying a weapon.  They were expected to drill as a local unit under local authority.  The mission was not just to fight national wars but to protect the community against all threats, forgien invasion, indians, and brigands.  If someone tried to break into your neighbors house and you came to the rescue you were well regulated.  If you shot the intruder you were well trained, and if you killed them you were well armed.  What it does not mean is regulation by the central government as the militia was considered a protection against the central government getting to strong.


This brings out two unconnected points as if connected:

*the mission is to protect the community etc.
*the mllitia was considered a protection against the central government getting too strong

Government springs from the community--they aren't in opposition.

And if that was the intent, how do we explain George Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, when he used the militia to squash a tax revolt, thus strengthening the central government?

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 11/14/2008 7:55:36 AM >

(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:09:17 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The second amendment: 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.

Just out of curiosity...

What do you folks see as "well regulated"? What regulation does this call for or imply?

No regulation in the modern legal sense is suggested, mandated, or implied by the 2nd Amendment.

"Well regulated," in the usage of the times (as evidenced by ample writings of the time), meant equipped, and in good order.

Further, militias are and remain private citizens, not professional militaries.  It should be noted that even during the American Revolution, George Washington and other officers had a fairly low opinion of militias, relative to the combat quality of regular trained troops.  However, such civilian forces are the best means for rapid response to an immediate crisis; FEMA, National Guard, and the Marines notwithstanding, communities where people are willing to step out of their comfortable homes and stand together are healthy communities--leaving the job to others sickens and kills communities.

Finally, it should be noted that the right to keep and bear arms is expressed as being of the people.  The Constitution makes clear delineation between "the states" and "the people" in several places.

What is a "well regulated militia"?  An armed citizenry ready (and hopefully willing) to act in defense of the common good.


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:12:31 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Government springs from the community--they aren't in opposition.

They should not be.  That is not the same as saying they never are.

If government were never in opposition to the community, how do you explain such minor upsets such as the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s?


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:23:32 AM   
hizgeorgiapeach


Posts: 1672
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: MusicMystery
This brings out two unconnected points as if connected:

*the mission is to protect the community etc.
*the mllitia was considered a protection against the central government getting too strong

Government springs from the community--they aren't in opposition.

And if that was the intent, how do we explain George Washington's response to the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794, when he used the militia to squash a tax revolt, thus strengthening the central government?


It's a bit contradictory on the face of it.  However, we can't go under the assumption that a strong central government was wanted.  They (the colonists, founding fathers, whateverthehell ya wanna call 'em) had just fought a lengthy war with Brittian - a strong central government - and had specifically set checks in place to keep the central government of the US from growing to strong.  For evidence of this, look at the 2nd again, the emphasis is of course my own:

quote:

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.


If they weren't specifically concerned with the maintainence of freedom from overenthusiastic rule, why did they specifiy "free" state.  Not "orderly" or "well maintained" or even "law abiding" - but "Free."
 
One of the critical steps in forming a functional despotic or totalitarian government (functional insomuch as it's in place, and it functions to keep the politicians where they are) is to see to it that those whom you govern can't fight back.  Wanna make sure you stay in power - disarm all those who might eventually oppose you, since you're systematically fucking them for your own good.  Better yet, convince them to disarm themselves "for their own good" as a first step - then stigmatize those who resist that first step to the rest of society - then once they're stigmatized, quietly and without fanfare eliminate them altogether.  After all, once the majority think it's for their own good, and the minority has been sufficiently stigmatized, no one that "matters" is going to care what happens to that minority.
 
History has shown that it is human nature to demand that those in our community adhere to the same standards as ourselves.  Comply or be ousted from our society.  Even in the 21st century, there's plenty of it to be seen - smokers and gun owners are to the 21st century what gays and blacks were to the 50s, 60s, and 70s.



_____________________________

Rhi
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Essential Scentsations

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:29:07 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Government springs from the community--they aren't in opposition.

They should not be. That is not the same as saying they never are.

If government were never in opposition to the community, how do you explain such minor upsets such as the Civil War and the Civil Rights movement of the 1960s?



Since we're discussing the language of the 2nd Amendment, we can fairly go with what's supposed to happen, with the intent of the authors and legislators.

Clearly they sometimes are. But the poster claimed the 2nd Amendment provided for community opposition to government without establishing the point.

CL, your point is also interesting, perhaps a good topic for a new thread?

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 11/14/2008 8:30:12 AM >

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:31:21 AM   
BamaD


Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline 		A:  I did not attempt to make a conection between protecting the community and protection against a overly (tyranical) powerfull central govenment.
B:  A tyranical government is in opposition to everyone.
C:  The people who wrote and those who demanded gave protection against the central government as a reason for the 2nd
D : Self and community protection was a given 

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:35:18 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

They (the colonists, founding fathers, whateverthehell ya wanna call 'em) had just fought a lengthy war with Brittian - a strong central government - and had specifically set checks in place to keep the central government of the US from growing to strong.


gp,

That's not the role of checks and balances----they are to prevent any one BRANCH of government from dominanting.

quote:


smokers and gun owners are to the 21st century what gays and blacks were to the 50s, 60s, and 70s.


Please don't trivialize this discussion. Smokers and gun owners aren't beaten to death or hung.

I started a respectful, honest, calm discussion. Please keep it that way.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 11/14/2008 8:36:33 AM >

(in reply to hizgeorgiapeach)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:46:53 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

Since we're discussing the language of the 2nd Amendment, we can fairly go with what's supposed to happen, with the intent of the authors and legislators.

I'm not so certain we can, in all honesty.

Remember, more than a few of those same legislators and authors signed on to another bit of legal prose:

quote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them....



_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:49:32 AM   
hizgeorgiapeach


Posts: 1672
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:


smokers and gun owners are to the 21st century what gays and blacks were to the 50s, 60s, and 70s.


Please don't trivialize this discussion. Smokers and gun owners aren't beaten to death or hung.

I started a respectful, honest, calm discussion. Please keep it that way.


You misunderstood the intent of my making such a comparison, MM.  While such are not beaten or hung (I would hope as a species we've generally outgrown such displays when dealing with those who aren't mainstream) - they are marginalized, and a stigma within the greater context of society attached to them with the consent (and frequently Approval) of the government.  This in no way implies that the same Methods are being employed - or covertly condoned.  The government condoning a stigma being attached, and marginalizing them as insignificant, is where the comparison lies.  The use of that conparison was by no means an intent to trivialize things - it was to make a point concerning peoples' willingness to turn on those whom they are given reason (by the government) to see as different than themselves.
 
As for the "checks and Balances" thing - if you look carefully, I didn't say checks and balances, I said checks on government growing to strong.  There are several examples of that within the constitution, from deliniation of those rights held exclusively by the states rather than the central government, to those rights held specifically by the population at large rather than Any form of government.  It is, and has long been, my belief that such create their Own form of "balance" in the long run - so long as people are mindful that those rights which are theirs' Can be stolen from them if they allow it to happen.

_____________________________

Rhi
Light travels faster than sound, which is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.
Essential Scentsations

(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:51:37 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

Since we're discussing the language of the 2nd Amendment, we can fairly go with what's supposed to happen, with the intent of the authors and legislators.

I'm not so certain we can, in all honesty.

Remember, more than a few of those same legislators and authors signed on to another bit of legal prose:

quote:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them....




But cl, your quote is from the Declaration of Independence from England.

The Bills of Rights is a deliberate adjustment to the Constitution of the United States that replaced English rule.

Again, perhaps an excellent topic for another thread--but a red herring here.

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:52:12 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

A: I did not attempt to make a conection between protecting the community and protection against a overly (tyranical) powerfull central govenment.
B: A tyranical government is in opposition to everyone.

Why not make the connection?

What about protecting against tyranny differentiates from other means of protecting the community?

Using the language of the time, what about defending against British regulars quartered in peoples' homes and at peoples' expense is different from defending against Indian raids?

Using modern examples, what about warding off an overzealous ATF raid is different from combating the looters in New Orleans post-Katrina?

You may not have intended a connection, but perhaps the connection is already there.


_____________________________



(in reply to BamaD)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:55:27 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		So in discussing the rule of law in our country, we need to throw out the law of our country?

If we're going to discuss the law of our then new Republic, going back to English law strains the argument at the very least.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 11/14/2008 8:57:49 AM >

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:57:23 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

But cl, your quote is from the Declaration of Independence from England.

The Bills of Rights is a deliberate adjustment to the Constitution of the United States that replaced English rule.

Again, perhaps an excellent topic for another thread--but a red herring here.

It is, but the point stands that the authors of the one were in large part the authors of the other.  Rebellion and the potential need to replace a putatively tyrannical government by force of arms was something with which the authors of the Constitution had direct experience.

I submit it is inaccurate to presume they were proposing a government structure wherein that need could never arise.  Rather, they proposed a government structure that would provide the ultimate accountability of government to the people by ensuring rebellion remained an option.

And so, I submit, not a red herring, but a clarification of context.


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 8:59:56 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

But cl, your quote is from the Declaration of Independence from England.

The Bills of Rights is a deliberate adjustment to the Constitution of the United States that replaced English rule.

Again, perhaps an excellent topic for another thread--but a red herring here.

It is, but the point stands that the authors of the one were in large part the authors of the other.  Rebellion and the potential need to replace a putatively tyrannical government by force of arms was something with which the authors of the Constitution had direct experience.

I submit it is inaccurate to presume they were proposing a government structure wherein that need could never arise.  Rather, they proposed a government structure that would provide the ultimate accountability of government to the people by ensuring rebellion remained an option.

And so, I submit, not a red herring, but a clarification of context.



cl,

This is just a question for clarification--

You are then claiming that the framers of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights deliberately included the seeds of rebellion to overthrow the U.S. government?

If so, that's quite a case you need to make, a case beyond speculation regarding intent.

< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 11/14/2008 9:01:40 AM >

(in reply to celticlord2112)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: Well regulated? - 11/14/2008 9:11:19 AM   
celticlord2112


Posts: 5732
Status: offline
quote:

So in discussing the rule of law in our country, we need to throw out the law of our country?

Come on.

Hardly.  Rather, let us acknowledge that a tyrannical central government by definition has discarded the law of our country, and that force of arms may be needed to restore that law to its rightful place.

Members of the military, not to mention the President of the United States, take an oath to preserve the Constitution--not the United States itself:

Presidential Oath of Office:
quote:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.


Armed forces Oath of Enlistment:
quote:

I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.


Civic service, in this country, is to the Constitution, and not to any government.  That government can and has stood in opposition to the Constitution is historical fact.  If government cannot be restrained by judicial ruling or by public referendum, then popular rebellion against the government becomes necessary in order to win back and preserve the inalienable rights the Constitution and Bill of Rights guarantees to the people.

Viewed thus, rebellion is not the negation of law but, paradoxically, its affirmation.  In a "free state" the people have the inalienable right to rebel.


_____________________________



(in reply to Musicmystery)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid >> Well regulated? Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094