RE: Well regulated? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 4:15:40 PM)

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
       --- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Folks, the original question regarded the regulation language.

Why is the statement even there? What role can/should/must the government play in such regulation?




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 4:17:34 PM)

So it's a cost saving measure?




UncleNasty -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 4:24:18 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: hizgeorgiapeach

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.




Nice points GP.

I see the second amendment with a different, or another, emphasis than the word "free." I think your choice and mine work well together.

I look at the language they labored over and selected with specificity and the word that grabs my attention is "necessary."

It wasn't a suggestion. Not just something to give a try. Not merely a good idea. No, they considered it necessary.

To my knowledge there are only two places in the Constitution in which they tell us why something is being done, or why it is being done (or not done for that matter). 1) The Second Amendment - A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to kepp and bear arms shall not be infringed.
2) The preamble, which I believe was added after ratification - We the people, in Order to form a more perfect Union.......

It is a pity that "militias" these days are considered to be populated primarily by nuts. That seems to be the mainstream view.

Constitutional attorney and scholar Ed Vieirra has written rather extensively about modern militias and makes a compelling case for a modern militia of citizens being formed.

Uncle Nasty




xBullx -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 4:31:11 PM)

Thanks Tim...........




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 4:34:06 PM)

~FR~

Folks, here's another way of looking at this....

What happens if the militia is NOT "well regulated"?




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 4:47:44 PM)

Hi Tim,

I suppose at the time it may have been but it was there for 2 reasons, and Thomas Jefferson outlined them in a document he wrote concerning the Virginia Constitution:

1) Protection - There was no standing army

2) As a means to protect against a standing army that may be used to impose tyranny.

Since that time many say that this provision is not needed as much, and I say the opposite is true. Yes I believe that a citizen in good standing (no felonies and above the age of 18) should be able to own any small arms weaponry.

As far as the seeds of rebellion you mentioned before, the answer to that is sort of. The government should always be worried that the populace may rebel if they are not represented in a fashion consistant with the Constitution.

I am sure you have read some of the same documents as I, but if you need direct quotes and references just let me know.

take care,
Orion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

So it's a cost saving measure?




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 4:49:09 PM)

You have what you have now, which is many "fringe" groups trying to maintain their own militias. I feel that the government should assist in providing training and organizational support.



quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Folks, here's another way of looking at this....

What happens if the militia is NOT "well regulated"?




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 5:04:50 PM)

~FR~

A few other quotes that may help:

"Shays' Rebellion — a sometimes-violent uprising of farmers angry over conditions in Massachusetts in 1786 — prompted Thomas Jefferson to express the view that "a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America. Unlike other leaders of The Republic, Jefferson felt that the people had a right to express their grievances against the government, even if those grievances might take the form of violent action. '

This site has a copy of a letter Jefferson wrote concerning the violent action of citizens against the government http://www.earlyamerica.com/review/summer/letter.html

"What country can preserve its liberties if its rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them." --Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787. ME 6:373, Papers 12:356

"The commotions that have taken place in America, as far as they are yet known to me, offer nothing threatening. They are a proof that the people have liberty enough, and I could not wish them less than they have. If the happiness of the mass of the people can be secured at the expense of a little tempest now and then, or even of a little blood, it will be a precious purchase. 'Malo libertatem periculosam quam quietem servitutem.' Let common sense and common honesty have fair play, and they will soon set things to rights." --Thomas Jefferson to Ezra Stiles, 1786. ME 6:25

It was actually Shay's rebellion that scared many of the founders into moving towards a stronger centralized government, and standing army. This happened only a few years after Franklin warned that those that would sacrifice liberty for security, deserved neither.




popeye1250 -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:12:48 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Folks, here's another way of looking at this....

What happens if the militia is NOT "well regulated"?


That could be caused by buearocrats infiltrating it.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:16:25 PM)

~FR~
I forgot to add that the old definition of regulated, when refering to soldiers, was well trained and disciplined.




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:17:19 PM)

quote:

"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America.


Including if that rebellion intends to overthrow America?

Seems capricious at best, my friend.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:20:23 PM)

Depends on what you consider America to be. The framers believed that the absolute sovereignty belonged with the people, and not the government. So if the government of the US were to impose a tyranny that the people felt they needed to rebel and destroy, then that would not destroy America but fulfill it's ideals.


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

"a little rebellion now and then is a good thing" for America.


Including if that rebellion intends to overthrow America?

Seems capricious at best, my friend.




kdsub -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:20:34 PM)

I'm sure this has been posted earlier but just in case. Our forefathers distrusted standing armies...they felt an army could be a threat to the republic. They wanted the states to have militias for defense not only from enemies of the republic but the republic itself if needed. To assure a militia could be raised when needed they did not want laws that would disarm the citizenry.

Butch




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:23:16 PM)

This is absolutely correct, but it was things such as Shay's Rebellion and similar situation that caused a more centralized government and that fear moved many to create a standing army. None of that really remains, and the government is even more centralized than ever. Maybe it is time for America (as intended by the founders) to die and recreate a new nation that has more power to impose what is good for the populace.


quote:

ORIGINAL: kdsub

I'm sure this has been posted earlier but just in case. Our forefathers distrusted standing armies...they felt an army could be a threat to the republic. They wanted the states to have militias for defense not only from enemies of the republic but the republic itself if needed. To assure a militia could be raised when needed they did not want laws they would disarm the citizenry.

Butch




toledotpeslave -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:30:36 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

~FR~

Folks, here's another way of looking at this....

What happens if the militia is NOT "well regulated"?


The you wind up with armed citizen not using the same rifle caliber. [8D]




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:31:33 PM)

quote:

Depends on what you consider America to be. The framers believed that the absolute sovereignty belonged with the people, and not the government. So if the government of the US were to impose a tyranny that the people felt they needed to rebel and destroy, then that would not destroy America but fulfill it's ideals.


Hi Orion,

Really, please rethink this.

Ideally, the people are the government. If there's a power struggle, it's between the states and the Federal government. And anyone who thinks they have the right to try to overthrow the government based on the Constitution should try to take that case to even this extremely Conservative Supreme Court.

And I believe even the States issue came up under Lincoln.

I'm still asking about the language of the 2nd Amendment. People are still fantasizing about being Rambo, despite the reality that any true conflict between Joe Q. Citizen and His Militia Neighbors and the U.S. Military would be over before it started.

Even weakened under the last eight years, the U.S. military is just damn fucking good at what it does. If we ever had a military coup, we'd all know it the day after. Rambo would never get a chance or a target.

And again, what does "regulated" mean? Who decides what's in order? The people or the government?

For example, explain to the Secret Service that you're just practicing your Second Amendment rights. Tell me how it goes.

Live well, friend.

Tim

P.S. Incidentally, Shay's Rebellion helped STRENGTH the resolve for a strong Federal government:

(1786–87)
After the Revolutionary War, soldiers of the Continental army were demobilized with little or no pay; whatever “Continental notes” they received could be exchanged only at an enormous discount, and the very states that had approved their issue did not accept them as payment of taxes. Officers eventually received compensation, including land in the Ohio Territory, but by 1786 the plight of the former soldiery was dire, especially in rural Massachusetts, where veterans and farmers suffered most from both the postwar depression and the radical deficit reduction plan of the conservative new governor, James Bowdoin. That year, in western Massachusetts, where many believed they had lost significant political representation under the state constitution of 1780, scores of rural towns petitioned for relief but received none.

In September 1786, a movement called “the Regulation” began across western Massachusetts: whenever the circuit courts were scheduled to meet, between 500 and 2,000 men gathered and marched in a military manner on each court, with the stated aim of postponing the seizure of properties until after the next gubernatorial election. Over the next five months, under an indeterminate, changing leadership, the “Regulators,” armed with clubs and muskets, converged upon Northampton, Springfield, Worcester, and other towns where the courts were scheduled to sit, surrounding the courthouses to keep them closed. Until the last of these protests, there were no casualties.

This widespread movement resembled traditional protests, but those who wanted to establish a national constitution depicted it as anarchy. Gen. Henry Knox, Massachusetts‐born secretary of war for the Continental Congress, traveled to Springfield after the first Regulation to consider the safety of the weapons stored there in the undefended Continental Arsenal. It was Knox, writing to Congress, who first declared that this “rebellion” was led by former Capt. Daniel Shays. Knox, like other nationalists, welcomed an opportunity to demonstrate the necessity of a federal government and a permanent standing army; he proclaimed to Congress and to his mentor, Gen. George Washington, that the “rebels”' goal was to share all private property as “the common property of all,” “to annihilate all debts, public and private,” and to foment a “civil war.” Since the treasuries of both Massachusetts and Congress were empty, Knox helped Bowdoin solicit wealthy Boston merchants to finance an expeditionary force of 4,400 volunteers led by Gen. Benjamin Lincoln to quell the “rebellion.” At the Springfield Arsenal on 24–25 January 1787, Lincoln's forces overwhelmed some 1,500 Regulators, led by Captains Daniel Shays, Luke Day, and Eli Parsons. With the first cannon fired, three Regulators were killed and the rest fled. In pursuit, Lincoln captured a number of Regulators for trial; later, two were hanged.

These mostly peaceable protests provoked alarm that the movement could spread across the thirteen states. This concern helped persuade the states to send delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in May 1787, and to create a central U.S. government better equipped to deal with similar economic and social problems.

--U.S. Military History Companion




celticlord2112 -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:35:31 PM)

quote:


Including if that rebellion intends to overthrow America?

Seems capricious at best, my friend.

How would you respond if our government suspended all civil liberties, curtailed free speech and free assembly, established a state religion, and basically voided the Bill of Rights?

Is there a scenario where you would consider taking up arms against the government?




kdsub -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:38:07 PM)

Maybe its just me but I feel it in my heart...few if any American soldiers would knowingly participate in a military coup.

So no worry there...different times in 1776 when a little under half the nation would.

Butch





Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:38:50 PM)

quote:

How would you respond if our government suspended all civil liberties, curtailed free speech and free assembly, established a state religion, and basically voided the Bill of Rights?

Is there a scenario where you would consider taking up arms against the government?


cl,

Why not include killing the first born of every family?

A silly hypothetical, even given the abuses of the Bush administration.

And still not the point of the OP.




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 7:46:22 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

quote:

Depends on what you consider America to be. The framers believed that the absolute sovereignty belonged with the people, and not the government. So if the government of the US were to impose a tyranny that the people felt they needed to rebel and destroy, then that would not destroy America but fulfill it's ideals.


Hi Orion,

Really, please rethink this.

Ideally, the people are the government. If there's a power struggle, it's between the states and the Federal government. And anyone who thinks they have the right to try to overthrow the government based on the Constitution should try to take that case to even this extremely Conservative Supreme Court.


Hi Tim,

Actually the people are not the government, they are the sovereign power that selects the government. Part of the bill of rights concerned individual rights and the other concerned states rights. If something went before the supreme court, then the overthrow failed and by default they are going to be wrong, for the "good of the republic". So the comment about taking it before the Supreme court, really means nothing to me as a rebellion is something that occurs because of a feeling of unjust laws.

quote:


And I believe even the States issue came up under Lincoln.


Yes indeed Lincoln went against many laws and rights to squash states rights, undo what the founders had put forth and trash the Constitution. All in the name of it being better for the people as a whole.

quote:


I'm still asking about the language of the 2nd Amendment. People are still fantasizing about being Rambo, despite the reality that any true conflict between Joe Q. Citizen and His Militia Neighbors and the U.S. Military would be over before it started.


Please elaborate. What I envision would be a force made up of private citizens, funded by private citizens, assisted in training by the government, and works with their local governments in many things. Think of National Guard without the government having control, or at the most the State government having control. State governments are really just extensions of the Federal government though. They have no representation at the Federal level and the Feds keep them in line with money.

quote:


Even weakened under the last eight years, the U.S. military is just damn fucking good at what it does. If we ever had a military coup, we'd all know it the day after. Rambo would never get a chance or a target.


And? I would like to point out that the Afghani's did pretty well against the Soviets. Do not discount an insurgency war, that was the failing of the US Military in Vietnam.

quote:


And again, what does "regulated" mean? Who decides what's in order? The people or the government?


The Supreme Court would determine that. It means what they want it to mean. What did it mean when it was written? It meant a well supplied, trained and disciplined militia.

quote:


For example, explain to the Secret Service that you're just practicing your Second Amendment rights. Tell me how it goes.

Live well, friend.

Tim


Not sure what you mean here. There were still places that firearms were not allowed, even during the 18th century.

Live well,
Orion




Page: <<   < prev  2 3 [4] 5 6   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875