Subject:
|
Re: An armed society...
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 23 Jan 2002 19:01:55 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1019 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Richard Marchetti writes:
> In "Miller" the court seems to be dancing around
> questions of what kinds of arms are protected and what kinds of persons
> constitute a militia. In the end the Supreme Court can decide whatever it
> likes, as it often does, but that is not the final word on the subject.
Well, in terms of Constitutional interpretation, it *is* the supreme word
on the matter, until either congress legislates a higher law or another case
before the Supreme Court results in an overturning of Miller.
> I don't care to explain it here (unless someone really needs it explained),
> but there is all ways the matter of "jury nullification" and the ability of
> the people to retain rights recognized de facto and by historical tradition.
> Historically, I don't think there can be any dispute that individuals have
> the right and duty to keep and bear arms. This right and duty comes down to
> us from times at least as ancient as those of the Magna Carta. If my
> assertion that this is true is actually false, I should like someone to
> prove it with historical evidence of some kind.
Here's the text: http://www.cs.indiana.edu./statecraft/magna-carta.html
and I would love to see where the document addresses the concept of the
right to bear arms. As I read it, it makes no comment whatsoever on the
subject. Moreover, Article 51 calls for the banishment of individuals
"who have come with horses and arms to the kingdom's hurt," meaning that
unlawful use of arms is a justifiable cause for banishment.
Further, since we're discussing the Magna Carta as a source of enumerate
individual freedoms, we should recall that it makes no restrictions on
involuntary servitude--how about we re-activate that practice, since it's
also in line with the Great Charter's doctrine?
> We keep and bear arms in the U.S. because there is a well recognized freedom
> and duty to do so. Whether this is good or bad is really not up for grabs
> -- it would require a fundamental shift in our historical perspective in the
> U.S. to do away with the right altogether.
Here's some historical perspective from
http://www.militia-watchdog.org/faq1.htm
> The historical militia, which starting in 1792 consisted of every able-bodied
> white male aged 18-45 except for those exempted (often reaching 50% or more),
> never was completely armed. In fact, most militiamen did not have guns; this
> is very clear from the surviving militia returns. In fact, the militia in
> some areas got the nickname "Cornstalk Militia" because so many of its
> members showed up for training with cornstalks instead of guns.
In essence, the militia (which, by the way, is Constitutionally-authorized
to be well-regulated) amounted, historically, to involuntary military
service, IE: The Draft. Further, private citizens were *REQUIRED* to
furnish and care for the weapons they used as part of the militia.
> To do away with the right to keep and bear arms, esp. of the type needed for
> civil defense -- or even insurrection, is clearly and historically
> forbidden.
Where and when? States currently have the power to take away that right
and may even enact legislature to do so. Even the US Congress can restrict
the private ownership of weapons, as has been borne out several times in the
Supreme Court.
> We would have stayed under
> the thumb of George III except for a violent rebellion. Is it everyone's
> assertion that such a need will NEVER arise again?
I think the likelihood that the US will have to defend itself against an
enemy that is at best several months away and armed with flintlock weapons
is indeed remote, but not as remote as the likelihood that an armed citizen
will be able to defend himself usefully against the full power of the US
armed forces, if those forces should be aligned against him.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: An armed society...
|
| (...) Well, getting back to the main issue of this subthread... ...check out: (URL) looks like the government printing office to me, and should be reasonably authoritative. In "Miller" the court seems to be dancing around questions of what kinds of (...) (22 years ago, 23-Jan-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
179 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
