Topic: Gun Control
Militia or Hunting: What Does the Second Amendment Mean? Does the second amendment exist for the sole purpose of hunting or for protection from enemies foreign or domestic?by Bishop on Air dot com
(Libertarian)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
There is much talk in the United States as to what the Second Amendment truly means. Is this an amendment for families of hunter and gathering traditions? Or how about the ideas of self defense of nation and home? Or is it for the lunatic fringe wanting to keep the deceitful government in check by bearing arms? The Second Amendment, as stated; "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." Is this amendment being toyed with, being manipulated, being trashed?
Cases are currently pending in the Supreme Court as to what kind of 'arms' a citizen can own. Is it a handgun ban, an automatic rifle ban, a bullet ban? What does infringe mean? To transgress or exceed the limits of or to violate is to infringe. The District of Columbia currently has a case where the issue of handgun ownership has been brought up. The claim is that the Second Amendment does not grant citizens the right to bear arms, only militias. The District of Columbia is currently embroiled in a case of gun ownership rights. The case has been taken to the District Courts where the laws in place for Washington D.C. are deemed unconstitutional. The Supreme Court could uphold this ruling or overturn the District Courts ruling.
This case is a little more complex than just the issue of a collective right or an individual right. With the handgun ban that has been on the books in the District of Columbia for over 30 years, city Officials are claiming it does not keep individuals from owning guns, just not handguns. Officials say citizens can own rifles and shotguns, but they have to be dissembled (what good is a gun if it is in pieces?). The same officials tout handguns have no purpose in an urban setting.
The questions still remains, what is a militia? From the landmark 1939 case of US v Miller - Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations, Book V. Ch. 1, contains an extended account of the Militia. It is there said: 'Men of republican principles have been jealous of a standing army as dangerous to liberty.' 'In a militia, the character of the labourer, artificer, or tradesman, predominates over that of the soldier: in a standing army, that of the soldier predominates over every other character; and in this distinction seems to consist the essential difference between those two different species of military force.
A Washington Times editorial from November of 2007 states, "the court did not hold that only militia members have Second Amendment rights, as some gun-control advocates have contended … [r]ather, it ruled that those rights only cover militia-related weapons, and the standard handguns that D.C. prohibits obviously meet that criteria."
From my understanding, a militia is a citizen army, not a federally controlled military, or even a state controlled reserve unit. The militia can be considered any well bodied citizen that, at the drop of a flag can bear arms and defend their home and nation from any form of invasion, be it foreign or domestic. This type of citizen action is essential for the safety and security of a free state, so therefore the rights of the people to own and bear arms shall not be infringed. Plain and simple.
Gun Grabbing - The Blackwater effect.
On Saturday, October 27, Springfield Illinois organized a GunBuyback Program, promising 100 dollars for any firearm turned in with no questions asked. Understandably, some of these guns, more than likely, could have been stolen or even used in a violent crime, probably. The State Journal-Register of Springfield Illinois reported on the highly successful buyback program that harvested 526 guns in exchange for a gift card worth 100 dollars. Some bringing in their firearms received the gift card drawing from drug forfeiture money. Many others received "IOU's" because the drug forfeiture money totaled only 15,000 dollars. All together, the city of Springfield owes more than 52,000 dollars for guns that were turned in at bargain prices.
These programs are not unique to any given region of the country. The Boston Globe reported in April 2006 about Boston's buyback programs between 1993 and 1996 bringing in over 2,000 guns, paying 50 dollars for each firearm. The article sites criminologists who say the firearms are old and more than likely not used in violent crimes. In another heavy crime region of the country, Washington D.C., the Washington Post reports in September 2006 that police plan on using a quarter of a million dollars of taxpayer's money to buyback guns off the streets. The same Washing Post article touts "[a]uthorities will test the weapons later to determine whether they were used in any crime, before destroying them".
Buying back guns is not the only thing government can do with firearms. Even though Australia is not within the United States, and does not necessarily adhere to the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights, we can still look at a report from the Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) from February of 2007 as a model of just what is possible with government and gun buyback programs. The SMH reports that a network of gun dealers had rorted (intentional fraud) "the $600 million national guns buyback scheme, and weapons supposedly destroyed years ago have resurfaced in criminal hands".
Another recent story out of Boston tells of Police going door-to-door asking permission to search children's rooms in hopes of finding firearms. Parents have the right to refuse permission on the basis or illegal search and seizure and also the Second Amendment, but what does this say about the current state of our Second Amendment right to keep and bare arms.
Special interest groups with twisted ideals, private security outfits commissioned to confiscate guns from law abiding citizens during a natural disaster, and a global government taking over piece by piece, has the Second Amendment been taken off life support and allowed to die? When faced with an automatic machine gun carried by a Blackwater contractor in the flood waters of Katrina, many citizens willfully gave up their rifles and handguns they possessed for protection from criminal looters. This was not only carried out by private contractors, but also by the National Guard; Americans forcefully confiscating guns from Americans. These same citizens wishing for protection felt they had absolutely no rights left in this country. What can a person do to protect themselves from supposed law enforcement? Do they have the right to protect themselves from a menace being contracted by the Defense Department? These questions lead to alarming and disturbing answers. Just how is a citizen supposed to defend their right to bare arms, should violence be an option? Ruby Ridge, Waco and the Branch Davidians, both are monstrosities under the guise of public safety. How many more events will occur in the future?
PTSD, Mentally ill and psychotropic drugs
Violence in schools may be considered a new phenomenon by some, but going back to the college shootings at the University of Texas in Austin August 1, 1966 onto the latest one in Virginia Tech, it is a dilemma dating back to the founding of our country. There are even stories dating back to 1764 with the Enoch Brown School Massacre. What causes this type of activity and should we get rid of all guns to keep these disturbing events from happening? Shortly after the Virginia Tech shootings there were growing concern of guns in the hands of the mentally ill placated on the mainstream media. The voices shouting, "get rid of the gun-free-zones and this type of thing will be squashed before it gets out of hand" seems to have been silenced in the mainstream.
Veterans, that have sacrificed years of their lives to defending the freedom in this country, may come home to their rights to defend their home thrown under the bus. A good friend of mine, who served overseas for a year in the Air Force and is still currently active in the Air Force, applied for a Firearm Owner Identification Card (FOID) several weeks ago and received a letter from the state telling him he could not be granted a FOID card because of a conviction he had as a minor. We can serve our country in the Global War on Terror, but when it comes time to register as a firearm owner, it can be denied for a decade old offense.
Legislation is being pushed through that will not allow veterans suffering from Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) to own firearms. This same legislation will restrict individuals that have taken any kind of anti-depressant or psychotropic drug from possessing firearms. All in the name of public safety. The concept of school shootings also brings up the issue of gun free zones. Just think how many lives could have been saved at Virginia Tech if a teacher or a student had a concealed carry permit and stopped further violence with the pulling of a trigger.
Criminals will do what criminals want to do. This does not mean we should not have laws, but it means not matter what law you have, a criminal will do what a criminal wants.
Celebrities and candidates speak out about the 2nd amendment
Presidential candidates, congressmen, senators, governors, mayors, rock stars and actors have much to say about the Second Amendment, both for and against. Republican candidates vying for votes from National Rifle Association (NRA) card holders speak at conferences. The problem is, members of the NRA don't understand the damage to the second amendment the NRA is doing. An example is NRA involvement in Firearm Owners Protection Act, which is an amendment to the 1968 Gun Control Act. Many NRA members felt betrayed that the Association did not work to repeal the Gun Control Act entirely.
What is the 2nd amendment for? Hunting or Protection? "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." This statement known as the 2nd amendment does not even allude to hunting in any way. Our founders had the concept of protection in mind. They strongly believed in a defensive position against tyranny and one way to ensure that would happen is to allow citizens the right to bear arms. As Ted Nugent puts it, "the Second Amendment is my concealed carry permit". I would have to agree with him. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To bear something is to have it on ones person, to hold, to carry.
What would I do to enhance the Second Amendment? Going back to massacres that take place on schools, one can only think about the Kent State Massacre of 1970 where members of the Ohio National Guard opened fire, killing four students and injuring nine others. I would make further provisions to control the arms that police can have. In the current time, we need a clear definition of not only what citizens are allowed to posses, but also what law enforcement should posses. I strongly believe that law enforcement should be restricted to carry only what citizens can carry or visa versa. This should be in the form of riot gear, pepper spray, high voltage tazer guns, batons, ect. I feel the right to protect myself and defend myself from threats both foreign and domestic shall not be compromised in any way.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 47 thumbs so far
2007 Bishop on Air dot com, all rights reserved.
Published: Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Last modified: Wednesday, December 12, 2007
The views expressed in this
article are those of Bishop on Air dot com only and do not represent
the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Bishop on Air dot com is
solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an
employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
VT Pres. Steger had the time (2+ hours) and technology to notify the campus of unsolved murders and a killer-at-large. Had he not been fretting over the party for the VT $1 Billion fund-raiser, he may have been able to circumvent the next 57 victims being trapped and gunned down 2.5 hours later. I nominate Steger for anti-hero of the year.
Forget packing heat. A modicum of concern for student safety is all you need.
Posted By: Paul M. Green
Date: 2007-12-12 22:51:37
The Second Amendment is there so we can protect ourselves from our own government. Kinda keeps them in check. Thats why if they had thier way about things, they take guns away from us all. It is also interesting to note that while automatic weapons are illegal for us citizens, police forces are allowed to have them, along with all kinds of other handy things that are restricted to military and police.
"Or is it for the lunatic fringe wanting to keep the deceitful government in check by bearing arms?" Apparently, the lunatic fringe includes at least one early Supreme Court justice. Joseph Story was an early U.S. Supreme Court Justice -- early enough to have met and spoken with some of the people who participated in the writing and ratification of the Constitution. In 1833 he wrote _Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States_. About the Second Amendment he wrote:
"...the importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpation of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and ear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of the republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them."
Also in the lunatic fringe was Democratic Senator Hubert Humphrey (who ran for President against Richard Nixon in 1968): "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be very carefully used, and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of citizens to bear arms is just one more guarantee against arbitrary government, and one more safeguard against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
The Second Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. I have no idea where this idea came from but somehow a great number of people seem to think that "the security of a free state" means the right to go out in the woods and shoot an animal. The second amendment means just what it says. The security of a free state is guaranteed by a well-armed citizenry. It is the ultimate and final check against tyranny and the power of The State, something far weightier than hunting. (not that I have anything against hunting)
The Second Amendment and Bill of Rights are part of a political document laying out the roles of government and citizens. It descends from much law and philosophy using the words "arms", keep" and "bear" which greatly predate the broad use of firearms and the founding of this country.
Hunting is not an issue addressed by the Constitution by name. It certainly played a central role in life at the time, perhaps so that it didn't need addressing in light of more important issues and lessons learned from the Revolutionary War and founding of our country. While 2A affects hunting, it is not aimed at preserving it, and politicians talking about the "2A rights of hunters" either don't understand 2A or are looking for cover to hide their antipathy to its true meaning.
2A is not about guns but about the inalienable human and indvidual right of effective self-defense. The majority opinion in Parker v. DC gets into this, but additional readings of the Founders' thinking and intent makes it clear that it is an individual right, that the militia is a group of individuals allied to meet a threat which a single individual cannot deal with, and finally that the militia is the means by which citizens, in extreme circumstances, might restrain or replace a central government run amok.
In simple terms, if you cannot defend yourself, then you have no rights other than those stronger than you will allow. This is not the Founders' vision of a free society.
Then as now, a firearm is the most efficient means of individual self-defense. However, "arms" refers to any weapon, and when firearms are obsoleted, 2A's animating concept will be no less vital than today.
People like John Edward's, who will force you into hospitals, don't like the idea of a citizen who can resist force.
It is also much easier to be anti-gun than anti-self defense, which is why the Brady Campaign focuses on "guns" instead of what 2A means.
In any case, the lack of effective self-defense is widespread in the world, and absent strong cultural influences against violence, lead invariably to higher violent rates and oppression of the most vulnerable, exemplified in the UK and Darfur, respectively.
It is sad we have violence in our midst, but disarming the law-abiding has no positive effect. Proven over and over again, some people cannot learn or desire to achieve this goal, for various reasons.
Having personally experienced the limits of police protection, I know for sure I am the first line of defense when evil comes knocking. When seconds count, the police are just minutes away. Michael Bloomberg has an armed security detail 24/7 and millions to pay for all the armed security he could ever want. I don't, and his desire to take away the means of my self-defense is at it's very best, misguided. At its worst, hypocritically elitist.
The NRA did much more than just actively promote the 1968 Gun Control Act (closely modeled after the Nazi gun control act)
They actively tried to get the current 2nd Amend Supreme Court case Heller vs DC (previously called Parker vs DC) thrown out. Why? My humble theory is because they knew that if the Supreme Court were ever to actually rule that the 2nd Amend actually means what it says, they will loose many, many members. It's the fear factor that keeps the NRA management fat and happy
The NRA called me on the phone several weeks ago and actually tried to convince me that I should sign up for 5 years because I should "fear the gun grabbers trying to take away my 10/22"...give me a frigin break...
Read what the attorneys for Parker have to say about the vicious attacks by the NRA at http://www.gurapossessky.com/news/parker/overview.html
Pass this website on to everyone who thinks the NRA is pro-gun. This says alot about who the NRA really is.
One great quote "It was not a coincidence that the NRA had failed to defend the Second Amendment rights of Washington, D.C. residents in court for over twenty-five years,"
Friends, unfortunately the NRA management are whores to the almighty dollar just to keep their big paychecks, expensive cars and houses, and they will screw every one of their members if they think they can get away with it, while they also try to appease the fascist liberals, such as Pelosi and Reid, by approving trash legislation that is being poo-pooed by 95% of the other pro-gun groups.
Why, in fact, has Ted Nugent (an NRA board member) also trashed such piss poor NRA approved legislation as HR 2640 (aka the Vets Disarmament bill) cited above. Because, unfortunately it leaves decisions as to whether Vets are "sane" open to arbitrary non-legal boards, which may eventually be interpreted by the BATFE as ...anyone.
"No man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, June 1776
"A free people ought...to be armed..." -- George Washington, 1790
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." -- Alexander Hamilton,
"To prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
The framers gave us the Second Amendment not so we could go deer or duck hunting but to give us a modicum of protection against congressional tyranny. -- Walter Williams
"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand, arms like laws discourage and keep the invader and the plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. The balance of power is the scale of peace. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside... Horrid mischief would ensue were one half the world deprived the use of them...the weak will become a prey to the strong." -- Thomas Paine
Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having our arms in our own possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? -- Patrick Henry
"To disarm the people... was the best and most effectual way to enslave them." -- George Mason
That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms... -- Samuel Adams
Posted By: Ed Bannon, Chicago
Date: 2008-01-03 03:33:27
Many of the thoughtful people here keep referring to guns as their defense against a tyrannical government. I could buy that argument when our great nation was young and pro-gun advocates like Joseph Story said a standing army was "against sound policy." (I'd say he was kind of wrong on that.) But our mature democracy has many better defenses against tyranny than guns. One big one would be your right to vote, and closely related to that, freedom of speech and the press. If you think an elected official is being tyrannical, use your free speech and right to vote to get him out of office. I know it's not as easy of violence, but, hey, who said self-governance was easy?
Another check against tyranny is the U.S. Constitution's checks and balances. Again, our great Founding Fathers thought guns were a good idea considering they had just used them to gain independence. But our standing army is a greater deterrent from foreign invasion than a few people with rilfes in their closets.
True, the founders weren't talking about hunting when they wrote the Second Amendment, but they also weren't talking about vigilantes and shooting the neighborhod drug dealer. They *were* talking about the individual right to own guns in order to protect the state, not on the off chance someone could shoot down a mass murderer in the mall. I'm not saying the citizenry should be disarmed, just well-regulated (gun registration, bullet registration, safety classes, background checks, prohibition against owning certain guns and ammunition). Furthermore, let's not overstate the case for the need for guns in today's society; let's be grateful that guns are not realistically necessary today to prevent government violence and tryanny. And let's recognize that guns will only get us so far before we have to roll up our sleeves, flex our brain muscles and find more creative solutions to societal ills.
Want to comment on this
article? Leave your comment here. Your email address is
required to track your comment. However, we will neither
publish your email address nor distribute it to other
organizations or persons. The only reason we might use
it would be if we needed to contact you regarding your
comment. All comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
2007 Bishop on Air dot com, all rights reserved.