Originally posted by BlueSky:
It says "the" militia, i.e. only one for each state, not "a" militia as if there could be many and any Joe Minuteman could organize one. It just seems clear that they believed the states should be prepared in case the new federal government ran amok and tried to rule the way the British monarchy had.
The reason I say we don't know what they meant is because we don't know if they wrote it that way because the document only addresses the powers of government, which wouldn't cover a private militia, or because they only intended for the state militia to exist.
Frankly, I think you have a tough time viewing things objectively.
Is that always the standard liberal argument.... anyone who disagrees with you is not "objective"?
If that is the case then you are accusing at least two Circuit Court panels of judges of not being "objective". Possibly also the current Supreme Court.
Your attempt to link the militia clause in the constitution as an argument for the collectivist view of the Second Amendment is a bogus argument. Walter Dellinger representing the District of Columbia made a similar attempt the other day in his oral argument and was shot down by some of the Supreme Court justices.
The Bill of Rights was added to limit the power of the federal government and enumerate rights of individuals. The Anti-Federalists felt that without it, a strong centralized government can become tyrannical.
Almost all of the founders felt people had the right to own their own weapons. They have written about it and many felt it was necessary to protect them from a potential tyrannical government. I already posted one such quote from George Mason who was influential in the Bill of Rights.
There is the concept of the "universal militia" that goes back hundreds of years. It is the entire body of all able bodied free citizens bearing their own arms. All of the founders were well aware of that concept. They were also well aware of the common law right to self defense.
In modern times it is the gun control advocates who argue that the Second Amendment means a collective right, not an individual right. These are the people who wish to disarm the populace. A good argument can be made that these are the tyrannical types many of the founders feared in some of their writings.
The correct interpretation most likely lies in that the Second Amendment grants both collective and individual rights to keep and bear arms. The fact that the founders put the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights which enumerates rights of individuals cannot be ignored.
United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stated in 2001....
there are numerous instances of the phrase "bear arms" being used to describe a civilian's carrying of arms. Early constitutional provisions or declarations of rights in at least some ten different states speak of the right of the "people" [or "citizen" or "citizens"] "to bear arms in defense of themselves [or "himself"] and the state", or equivalent words, thus indisputably reflecting that under common usage "bear arms" was in no sense restricted to bearing arms in military service.
The Supreme Court is going to agree with the individual right. They will find that reasonable restrictions can be implemented, but the individual right is going to prevail.
Previous Topic
Index
