Skip to main content

Does the 2nd amendment allow people to have machines built for nothing but the killing of people?  Does the 2nd Amendment allow people to have fully automatic suppresed rifles?

This seems to be the question that has been debated for some time.  How does one read the second amendment?  Generally, whenever you discuss this topic you are going to anger some people if your views don't line up exactly with theirs.  I generally believe that education and logic trump raw emotion and outrage, and so I think the best way to approach it is through study.  Many people, pro gun and pro gun control are educated on the topic of the second amendment to the level of about a second grader.  The last time most of them have opened a book shelved in non-fiction was probably back in school.  This is directed at everyone by the way, so that statement is not inflamatory to one side or the other.  Both sides react with raw emotion, but no education.  I will no doubt be called a right wing nut job for delivering some facts.  Many who say it will not even read the whole article, their emotions will kick in right about HERE and they will go straight to the comments.  The same people who have roughly 0 books on their book shelf regarding American history and the founding fathers will dispute what I lay out here.  This is American history 101.  So how do we read the 2nd amendment.  To begin to read and fully understand anything in our constitution, we must first adopt the proper spirit.  For this I always invoke Thomas Jeffersons words of wisdom.  

"On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
 - Thomas Jefferson

When our founding fathers framed the constitution, to include the bill of rights, they did not just slap some words on paper.  There was a great deal of debate and disscussion.  We can be happy for this, because it leaves us with a huge amount of information regarding what the true intent was of what they wrote, and not just from one of them, but from many of them.  

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government."
 - George Washington

"Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people."
-Tench Coxe

That is a powerfull one and people are going to deny it was ever said, so I am going to nip that one in the butt real fast and source it.  Source is: The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Washington and Coxe were very specific regarding what the people should have access to.  The colonials just finished fighting a war against an oppresive government.  Remember, the colonists were British rebels/terrorists/traitors before they were American.  The founding fathers feared more than anything that a government could one day overstep its limits again, and they wanted to be sure that the American people had the ability to fight again.  "But Jack, the founding fathers could not have foreseen weapons of such destruction when they wrote that".  Maybe, maybe not.  Luckily their writings do not address the types of weapons, they address the nature of the people in regards to their government.  "Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier" and "Sufficient arms and ammunition" are very general.  It is addressing an idea.  One that says the people should be on equal ground with their government.

So what is a militia?  There seems to be a great deal of confusion when we read the second amendment on who the militia is.

"I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few politicians."
 - George Mason (father of the Bill of Rights and The Virginia Declaration of Rights)

"The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops."
 - Noah Webster

"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty .... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."
 - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts

The last issue to address is the concern of safety.  I have my own feelings on this debate, but here we are discussing strictly historical evidence, so I will refrain from sharing them.  "Jack, there must be restrictions, we must look after our safety".   Like pyschics who could see into the future, this topic was also addressed.  

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
 - Benjamin Franklin

"I prefer dangerous freedom over peaceful slavery."
 - Thomas Jefferson

"Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves."
 - William Pitt

It is true that our founding fathers could see into the future.  Study up on Thomas Jefferson.  JFK once said of Thomas Jefferson ""the White House hasn't seen this concentration of sheer human genius since Thomas Jefferson dined here...alone."  

Our founding fathers were historians.  What they have given us in the constitution and bill of rights does not address the issues of the day, rather it addresses the issues of human nature.  The bill of rights looks at history, and what a government must do to oppress its people.  The constitution and bill of rights is in place to protect its people.  It is a shield, a barrier, a line that government can not cross.

So does the second amendment allow for that fully automatic suppressed rifle?  I do no have a need for one, nor do I own one.  I would argue however that it does indeed allow for it.  "Jack, I don't like that, you nut job.  Your crazy and deplorable for saying that... blah blah blah, enter insults".  Hey, before everyone gets started, their words, not mine.  If you want to trash something because you disagree you can go deface Mt. Rushmore.  Jeffersons face is there.  You can go deface some momnuments, plenty of our founders have monuments.  These are not my thoughts, these are the thoughts of our founders, I just happen to agree with them.  

If we want gun control or restrictions, we need to repeal the 2nd amendment.  Until that day, any laws put into effect will never be seen as valid laws by a majority of the conservatives in this country.  This has already been displayed by 14 states who refuse to enforce any federal laws that further restrict weapons.  Many have already discussed this topic and how "we can force them to obey".  Again, as a student of history, bad things happen when you try to force a state, especially 14 states to do anything.  Again, we can have an emotional response, or we can accept that historical study can lead us to that conclusion.  

I hope that what I have written here today challenges you.  I would never ask anyone to agree with my views, but then again, this is less about my views and more a bit of history regarding our bill of rights.  God bless everyone here, and God Bless America.  

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  the answer is easy : no (7+ / 0-)


    it is settled law, and settled in the majority opinion by Nino Scalia.

    "Kossacks are held to a higher standard. Like Hebrew National hot dogs." - blueaardvark

    by louisev on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:41:49 AM PST

  •  This is baloney (6+ / 0-)

    From your conclusion:

    any laws put into effect will never be seen as valid laws by a majority of the conservatives in this country.
    Fact is, most people in this country, conservatives included, support some level of gun control.

    And the reason people call you a nut job,

    "Jack, I don't like that, you nut job.  Your crazy and deplorable for saying that... blah blah blah, enter insults".
    is because you write things about defacing Mt. Rushmore if we don't like what you're saying.  Also because you like to quote and link to over the top right wing nutjob websites.

    So if the shoe fits...

    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

    by coquiero on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:56:35 AM PST

  •  yes and no to your first two questions, (0+ / 0-)

    respectively.

  •  Licensing, registration and full criminal back- (5+ / 0-)

    ground checks do not violate anything in the Second Amendment.

    Other than attacking me for proposing these sensible national regulations, no one that is against them has told me a single reason why they violate the 2A.  They may be inconvenient, but inconvenience is not the same as infringement.

    Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

    by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:17:57 AM PST

    •  What if we applied the same to the 1st amendment? (9+ / 0-)

      Licensing and registration of computers.  Mandatory class on libel and the limits of political speech.  A discussion of inflammatory cartoons.  Should I be forced to take a class before attending a peaceful protest in a free speech zone?  

      But in all seriousness, we already do that for the most dangerous small arms.  The problem with gun control proponents, is most of their proposals are that its punitive and intended to restrict the right beyond what is needed to assure public safety.

      If if was about violence and not about guns, we would be having a very different conversation.  What do you say?  

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:40:15 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Disingenuous (4+ / 0-)

        The 2nd doesn't involve people dying on a regular basis as a condition of its application.

        I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

        by coquiero on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:51:33 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Correct. (9+ / 0-)
          The 2nd doesn't involve people dying on a regular basis as a condition of its application.
          Surprised to see you acknowledge this, but you are right: the right to keep and bear arms doesn't give ou the right to kill anyone you want.

          "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

          by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:54:29 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Crap, I meant the 1st. (4+ / 0-)

            Sorry to surprise you, back to our respective corners...

            :)

            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

            by coquiero on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:57:11 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  At over 83 deaths per day I would say it does (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Sharon Wraight, a2nite

            involve people dying on a regular basis.

            Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

            by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:04:24 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I mean, maybe 83 deaths every days (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

              by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:05:19 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Try again - I mean 83 deaths per day may (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Sharon Wraight

              not be regular to you, but it sure sounds regular to me (over 3.5 per hour is regular in my book).

              But if that is not regular enough for you, how about the fact that 11-12 people get shot every hour?

              Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

              by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:08:44 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  In no sense am I interested (4+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                124NewYork, FrankRose, fuzzyguy, Hangpilot

                in the viewpoints of someone whose screen name is, "DefendOurConstitution" and spends the bulk of their time on this blog attacking a vital part of it.

                "Everything I do is blown out of proportion. It really hurts my feelings." - Paris Hilton

                by kestrel9000 on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:35:56 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Of course I have never attacked any part of it, (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  alain2112, Sharon Wraight

                  not even including the Second Amendment.  I have yet to be told by anyone hoe the regulations I propose violate anything in the 2A and have never heard a single explanation (I mean other than: "you're trying to take away my rights and destroy the Constitution!").

                  So if it makes you feel good to attack my screen name, go ahead and attack it.

                  Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

                  by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 10:11:08 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  That's fair. (3+ / 0-)

                    And to be fair in return, your proposals may not violate 2A.  We don't know, because they haven't all been enacted and challenged to their ultimate conclusion yet.  I suspect even under intermediate scrutiny that the Constitution would permit licensing, registration, and background check scheme (provided unimpeachable shall-issue criteria).  Their job isn't to foresee the potential threat to liberty as a consequence, only to determine if the state has a public interest at stake and that the restriction is "substantially related" to achieving it.  Under strict scrutiny, however, they would fail given evidence of less intrusive measures that accomplish the same goal (the state under the burden to select the least invasive option).

                    So here's my question, would you consider narrower, yet equally effective alternatives to your particular scheme?  

                    •  Sure, what alternatives are there? n/t (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Sharon Wraight

                      Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

                      by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 07:23:58 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Here's the idea. (2+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        43north, DefendOurConstitution

                        Everyone in the legitimate chain of custody for a firearm agrees to maintain records of transfers.  That includes the buyer and the seller.  The record of transfer is maintained securely by a private third party recognized by all parties--including the state--as a guarantor of provenance (i.e., a lawyer, a bank, a medical institution, whatever).  By securely, I mean that the record is sealed, encrypted, and can only be opened by issue of a warrant upon finding probable cause at first transfer (from FFL to legitimate gun owner).  If the gun is for some reason difficult to trace (i.e., the serial's been filed off), the warrant can cover all sales within a reasonable scope established by a crime lab (which is how it works today.  

                        If at some point the chain of custody is broken, there is a presumption that at that point the firearm entered into the illegal aftermarket.  Gun owners are used to accepting a higher degree of liability; it's why we can be prosecuted for criminal negligence and/or found liable for civil damages today.  This presumption isn't an unreasonable burden, because the same system that permits us to preserve a chain of custody also allows us to establish the bona fides of potential buyers.  Moreover, even if we are not the proximate point of entry into the illegal aftermarket, law enforcement could uncover patterns in sales would be evident for prosecutors to make the case for straw purchases.

                        I'll go into more detail on how to implement this system in my first diary, but essentially I propose a distributed system of recording firearms transfers that provides lawful owners with Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment protections against confiscation and fishing expeditions.

                        •  That sounds like it may b OK, but it only addresse (2+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          124NewYork, Sharon Wraight

                          s registration.  Licensing and full criminal background checks on every sale/transfer must still be added to that in order to make sure all gun owners have had a basic training on safety/storage and to make sure firearms are not transferred to people that shouldn't have them.

                          As far as a higher degree of liability, we all agree that someone that chooses to purchase/own a firearm should be responsible and be held liable for any damage/injury done with it, and it seems to me that with the loosey/goosey systems we have now, there is no accountability ("it was stolen," or "I had no idea he was a minor/criminal when I sold it to him," or so many other excuses available now).

                          In the end it is about safety and accountability.

                          Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

                          by DefendOurConstitution on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:18:39 AM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That's the beauty of the system. (0+ / 0-)

                            Every time you perform a transfer, buyer and seller must present each other with full and present qualifications.  Technology would permit us to do this securely, anonymously and with a degree of non-repudiation not even the present instant check can provide.  Imagine, for example, you and your buyer plugging a USB key into your laptop and visiting a government web site.  You authenticate, you update your records, and you receive a digital signature authorizing transfer to commence within...let's call it one hour.  That record is preserved in your personal keychain and, if you desire additional protection from criminal and civil liability, can be stored with a widely recognized custodial institution of your choice (a lawyer, a doctor, a bank or credit union, etc).

                            You don't get to say you didn't know he was a criminal/minor/crazy.  If you transferred it to him without adhering to this process, or if you claim theft outside of a reasonable period of time, you're at fault.  Period.  You've been given every tool to ensure that you could establish the buyer's bona fides, and gun owners should bear a measure of responsibility for tracking their own inventory.

                            Now actual theft is another issue entirely, and is in fact the largest problem when dealing with transfers from the legitimate to illegitimate after market.  However, your scheme doesn't address that either, so I've confined myself to crafting a compromise that addresses those concerns first.  I'll deal with secure storage later, and there our argument is largely technical rather than one of principle.

                          •  Regarding licensing. (0+ / 0-)

                            My system already accounts for this.  The government, local, state and federal, is custodian to all disqualifying information based on whatever the law is in some jurisdiction.  The most up to date information is encoded into your key prior to transfer.  In fact, the only thing the seller needs to know is that you're a-okay as far as the state is concerned, so there's an additional layer of privacy if you want it.

              •  Study by the university of Florida (0+ / 0-)

                Published study from 2010 indicates that a weapon is pulled in self defense every 13 seconds.  If we want to weigh stats, I would say the good far outweighs the bad.  But back to the article, it is about the constitution, now our feelings.  If we don't like it, repeal it.  

        •  Can you imagine if 5,000 people were injured every (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          coquiero, Sharon Wraight, S F Hippie

          year because of a new phrase that cause injury?  We would certainly regulate that phrase.  Now imagine over 100,000 people getting injured by guns every year - oops, I don't have to imagine, we are already there and nothing is being done to make sure the safety (welfare) of the people is addressed.

          Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

          by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:03:02 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The great Ben Masel great defender of the First (5+ / 0-)

        Amendment, once noted, there are plenty of regulations/restrictions to the First Amendment (context was an argument about whether any regulation of firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment).

        LINK

        We have a lot of restrictions on the 1A and the facile argument that any restriction on the 1A/2A violates it is false.  It may play well in the gun cult meetings, but not with people that are not part of it.

        RIP Ben Masel.

        Then they came for me - and by that time there was nobody left to speak up.

        by DefendOurConstitution on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:15:17 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

      •  The 1st Amendment... (0+ / 0-)

        also makes no mention of regulation, while the 2nd most certainly does. In case you've forgotten, it begins with the words "A well regulated militia...". While it is true that in the Founders own time that included most (but not all) male citizens, it was also framed within a system of militia laws in the states (and their predecessor colonies) that placed a great many requirements on the individual possession and use of firearms, including regular training and inspection of the same by authorities designated for the task.

        Simply put, there has never been an absolute right to keep and bear arms in this country; it has always been conditional and subject to regulation. The question has been and still is, what regulation is reasonable to achieve the end of a "well regulated militia" and how do we implement it? To contend anything else is to ignore the bulk of our legal and constitutional history in favor of a few carefully cherry-picked quotes.

        Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory, tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat. Sun Tzu The Art of War

        by Stwriley on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 03:31:02 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Collectivism vacates "shall not be infringed" (0+ / 0-)

          The People, is the body of the militia, rendering service well-regulated to the State.  Right?

          Therefore no individual right to own ANY gun, despite Scalia's musings.

          Follow that to the First Amendment.

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
          The People, as a collective, have the right to assemble, peaceably.  Possibly for a church picnic, with the anti-churched assembled peaceably at their own table.  Free exercise thereof.

          More likely for Town Meeting, and collection of taxes.

          The People, again, in-service to or through your State, may petition the Government for redress of grievances.

          You however, don't have that individual right.  Not to assemble peaceably, nor to petition your Congresscritter.
          That's reserved to the collective.  The First Amendment reads People, not person.

          Ask #OWS for the fine details.

    •  I will agree in part, and disagree in part (0+ / 0-)

      Criminal background checks would seem not to infringe upon the second amendment.  The main concern of what I had written is geared more toward the ban of certain weapons and limits on magazine capacity.  However, I do take some issue with licensing and registration.  Those infringe more on privacy in my opinion.  In addition, the general thought coming out is that the government should make the licensing and registration process cost prohibative.  I do not feel that excercising a constitutional right should require payment.  Take for example your constitutional right to a fair trial.  Those who can not afford an attorney get a public defender.  Even those who can not afford the legal process are guaranteed a lawyer.  There is no fee for free speech, or any other constitutional right for that matter.  Here in Chicago you do need to pay and get a permit to assemble in protest, if the city does not like where you plan to protest they can refuse that permit.  I probably do not need to get too deep into that one, but most people can see why that is terrible.  

  •  I can't quite make out your profile photo (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    43north

    any way to enlarge?

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:22:51 AM PST

  •  One quick comment on the GW quote: (0+ / 0-)

    It's widely acknowledged that the quote has some of the same wording that appeared in Washington's first state of the union:

    A free people ought not only to be armed but disciplined; to which end, a uniform and well digested plan is requisite: and their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent on others for essential, particularly for military supplies.

    "Democracy is a life; and involves continual struggle." ---'Fighting Bob' LaFollette

    by leftreborn on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:44:45 AM PST

  •  Some questions (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Sharon Wraight, S F Hippie, kaminpdx

    I have some questions for you:

    1) Does the 2nd Amendment, including as it does the wording about "arms", gaurantee me the right to own and bear nukes and shoulder-fired missles?  Because I'm feeling a little unsafe.

    2) Given that America has had a standing armby since the 1860's, is the American government "the bane of liberty"?  

    3) Was it unconstitutional for Lincoln to prosecute the civil war using a standing army?

    3) Given your statements against standing armies, does that mean you do not support the troops?

    "The fool doth think he is wise: the wise man knows himself to be a fool" - W. Shakespeare

    by Hugh Jim Bissell on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 08:45:56 AM PST

    •  From the top... (0+ / 0-)

      1.  As it is written and described by our founding fathers, the purpose of the second amendment seems ultimatly for the people to protect themselves against a government that becomes oppresive.  So from what I have read of our founding fathers, it would seem that yes, it does allow for shoulder fired missles and anything else that the government has access to.  In the revolution privateers who owned ships could outfit them with cannon and use them to bombard british coastal towns.  In its day, the battle ship was the equivelant of a nuke.  Certainly the colonials had access to cannon, which was artillery.  

      2.  Yes, according to our founding fathers it was.  Historically when a nation had a nationalized army it was able to force its will on the people through the use of force.  This principle holds true today.  Egypt, Libya, Saudi, Bahrain, and even a genration ago we can see Russia, Germany, China.  When you are dealing with a disarmed populace, the standing army is indeed their bane.  Just because we haven't seen it in America in some time does not mean that human nature is changed.  Ultimately an armed society keeps its government from becoming oppresive.  The militia is the people, and no it is not the national guard.  Notice the term "national", they fall under the authority of the DOD which is a federal entity and deployed at the direction of the federal government and therefore can not be the militia.  Some states have sanctioned a civil defense force which in my estimation would constitute as militia.  They answer to the governor of the state, they are equipped much like the national guard with tanks and rockets, and the federal government is unable to issue any orders to them.  This would be known as the organized militia.  The unorganized militia according to Illinois is all able bodied persons residing in the state of Illinois between the ages of 18-70.  As a general courtesy, each organized militia typically notifies the sherrif of the county they are training in and also notifies the governor of the state they reside.  Sheriffs are usually very good about responding, in Illinois, our sherrifs have come out and attended training events.  Governors typically shred the letter and ignore it.  The letter is to notify the governor of the state that your team is at his call.  Our southern members have actually been called up to assist with mississippi river search and rescue.  

      3.  History is written by the victor.  Civil war gets choppy.  I am strongly against the idea of slavery.  There were certainly some violations of the constitution, for example the expansion of the navy without congressional approval.  I believe in the letter of the constitution, it is our nations highest set of laws and it is there to protect you, me, and every other citizen of this nation.  Power was never meant to be centralized in a federal form.  The federal government was established for a few very basic roles.  It has certainly outgrown its original intent.  Now it regulates everything.  That was supposed to be the states jobs.  At the end of the day, the civil war was fought over state sovereignty.  In that regard, I do believe Lincoln did overstep his authority.  Governing was meant to be conducted by the states and I believe still should be.  Take our gun control issue.  With 14 state governors now saying they will not allow federal laws regarding firearms to be carried out on their states soil, it shows how deep the divide is.  I would say let states decide how to proceede on issues of governance based on what their people want.  Some folks have said if these states try that, the government should cut all funding.  Okay, fair enough, but then those states should no longer be required to pay federal tax, and trust me that would be bad.  Most of those 14 states are running a very good budget and propping up states like mine (Illinois).  

      4.  I am an Army vetran, having served in the 82nd airborne as an infantryman.  Most members of my current team are vetrans and have served in every theatre of war from the Korean war to the Aghanistan... ummmm.. policing action?  We have finished our service to our country and have moved on with our lives.  We have a doctor, a lawyer, 2 carpenters, 2 mechanical engineers, a retail employee, a house administrator and head ICU nurse at a prominent Chicago area hospital, 2 bussiness owners, and many others in our group.  The one thing we have in common is that we love our country and we took an oath to uphold the constitution against all enimies foreign and domestic.  That oath didn't end when we hung up our boots.  Most of our troops are very conservative on these issues.  Turns out that conservative minded people are drawn to military service a bit more so than liberal minded people who hate guns, despise violence in any circumstance, and generally do not like to be told what to do and how to do it.  No knock on liberal minded folks, and there are some in the military, just as a matter of fact it tends to draw alot more texans and utah(ians?) then it does new yorkers.  The standing joke in my unit was that 95% of our guys were so backwoods they had to sign their names with an X, but they could plug a ground hog with their rifle at 400 yards even if the sucker was in mid sprint.  Different kind of education, most of them relied on skills like that to feed their families and protect their homes in counties where 1 or 2 sherrifs were covering a 60 square mile area of land and emergency help was almost always a half hour away.  I am proud to say I strongly support our troops, all of them, because the troops are the people, and I'm proud to say that the vast majority of them also support constitution.  This is what gave rise to the Oath Keepers.  These are troops that refuse to follow any order that is unconstitutional.  I even support our liberal troops, they just need a bit more educating, they are still my brothers however.  If you served, thankyou for answering the call.  

  •  In Chicago (6+ / 0-)
    Trigger556's Profile

    My name is Jack. I live in the Chicago area and run what most people would call a militia. I hope my unique perspective can stir healthy discussion and debate.

    unregulated militias tend to be called gangs . . .
    •  I perfer the term private armies (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      43north, a2nite

      Filibuster is also appropriate.  

      Under capitalism man exploits man, under communism the roles are reversed.

      by DavidMS on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:20:37 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  We are disciplined and well regulated (0+ / 0-)

      Local sherrifs do come out and train with us from time to time and the local mayor attends our events as well.  The type of training we do is here

      I would say this type of training is conducted in a safe and well regulated environment with local government aware and sometimes participating.  If well regulated means federal level, we have a differing opinion of what well regulated is.

  •  ... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, Sharon Wraight
    Our founding fathers were historians.  What they have given us in the constitution and bill of rights does not address the issues of the day, rather it addresses the issues of human nature.  The bill of rights looks at history, and what a government must do to oppress its people.  The constitution and bill of rights is in place to protect its people.  It is a shield, a barrier, a line that government can not cross.
    https://www.google.com/...
    "On every occasion [of Constitutional interpretation] let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying [to force] what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, [instead let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
    https://www.google.com/...
    If we want gun control or restrictions, we need to repeal the 2nd amendment.  Until that day, any laws put into effect will never be seen as valid laws by a majority of the conservatives in this country.  This has already been displayed by 14 states who refuse to enforce any federal laws ...
    https://www.google.com/...

    "Drop the name-calling." Meteor Blades 2/4/11

    by indycam on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 09:41:22 AM PST

  •  Nice job with the quotes, tipped for discussion. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    pistolSO, fuzzyguy

    Here's an opposing view:

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Paragraph 2:

    The actual quote comes from Washington's address to Congress on January  8th, 1790 and goes like this: "A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined; to which end a Uniform and well digested plan is requisite: And their safety and interest require that they should promote such manufactories, as tend to render them independent others, for essential, particularly for military supplies."  Note that the quote has nothing to do with gun rights and is clearly concerns properly equipping the military.  http://gwpapers.virginia.edu/....
    Now that's the factual quote, however the conclusion - that the people (obviously) means the Army, fails.

    Washington was sufficiently verbose, and experiences to be well-able to voice "Army" if that's what his intention was.
    Washington could have also said:  

    "It is folly to suggest a militia would best professional soldiers (despite Trenton), so let us employ a select military force, and equip them by our own industry."
    He didn't.  He said: "people".
    He didn't say:  "Arms of yore" either.

    Washington in-practice was better defined.  For the Battle of Trenton, each man under Washington's command carried 60 rounds of ammunition, and three days of rations.
    The Militia Act would require not less than 20 rounds accompany each Militia member upon reporting for drill or initial duty.  
    Obviously General Washington felt the battle pack needed a bit more.

    The modern equivalent would probably be 120 rounds of 5.56/.223 caliber.

    The Australians managed to do well with a similar battle pack for their L1A1s, even when vastly outnumbered in the Battle of Long Tan.

  •  Actions speak louder than words. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero, pistolSO

    A battle of quotes really doesn't get to the heart of the matter.  What does is how GW and others of the time acted.   There are two seminal events around the time that disprove the whole idea that "the people should be allowed to defend themselves against the tyrannical gov't".

    The first is the Whiskey Rebellion where whiskey distillers in western PA refused to pay a tax on whiskey sells.  They ran off revenue agents, and threatened rebellion.  GW sent an armed force to put down this "rebellion". He saw successful.

    Then there was Shays' Rebellion where people were being displaced because they could not pay off loans.  Shays gathered an arm group of men to attempt to force the MA government to change the laws that allowed foreclosure on loans.  This too was defeated.

    Both incidences were cases where the people thought a law was unjust or even unconstitutional.  Both cases, the government put them down by force.  Bothe cases, the populace at large did not giving a flying ...

    So, historically, the diary is not supported.  

    When you say it is "common sense" what you are really saying is "I don't have any evidence to back up my argument", because it is quite often neither common nor sense.

    by kaminpdx on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 10:08:10 AM PST

    •  Have to take issue with your "proof." (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      FrankRose, 43north

      It equates laying siege to lawful authority to rebelling against tyrannical force.  The Framers saw the matter of legitimacy as an objective condition, though in practice it may simply be a matter of popular perception.  Shays and Whiskey did not enjoy popular support, so they failed.  The engine of the Confederacy, likewise, could not compete against the Union, so it failed.  The enduring legitimacy of all three rebellion's failure rested upon magnanimity by the suppressing power; indicating the federal governments respect for the real need to manage with grievances in order to preserve order.  Not one of the incidents did the victor follow up by permanently dismantling local and state military power, let alone carrying out a general disarmament.  

      A somewhat similar cautiousness permeates modern gun control efforts, to its credit.  Regulated attrition is preferred to confiscation.  The goal is different--the aim is to generally disarm the public--but the recognition that it is neither practical or desirable to forcibly deprive citizens of their arms is paramount.  Nobody wants another Ruby Ridge or Waco, or the mischief that followed.

  •  I think it's cute (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    That RKBA supporters all think they're historians.

    We were not ahead of our time, we led the way to our time.

    by i understand on Sat Jan 26, 2013 at 04:04:10 PM PST

  •  You're a right wing nut job. (0+ / 0-)

    "...we can all shut-up and go back to our caves." - Leonard Bernstein

    by progdog on Mon Jan 28, 2013 at 03:22:57 AM PST

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site