Second Amendment , guns are they for the masses or militia?
A discussion of gun rights, what do the constitutions really mean? What do the courts have to say? by Stephen Aiken
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
The second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution says " A well regulated Militia , being necessary to security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". Some people read the phrase " A well regulated Militia" and assume that it means that you must belong to an official Militia, and some people read the phrase " the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed",and assume that it refers to all the people in the U.S., but what people does the phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear arms' shall not be infringed" refer to? Is it referring only to the people in an organized militia or is it referring to all the people in the U.S.?
Does it really matter what the federal Constitution says about the right to bear arms? Each states has it own Constitution. The Florida State Constitution says in Article 1 Section 8 " Right to bear arms" (a) " The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law". It does not mention the word militia so obviously the people that it refers to are the people of Florida. Now if that isn't enough for you there is Article X Section 2 of the Florida State Constitution "Militia" (a) "The militia shall be composed of all ablebodied inhabitants of the state who are or who have declared their intention to become citizens of the United States ; and no person because of religious creed or opinion shall be exempted from military duty except conditions provided by law." So since we are all in a militia it doesn't matter how the Federal Constitution is interpreted.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Stephen Aiken only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Stephen Aiken 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.
Posted By: w_cruice
Date: September 1, 2011 09:35:58 AM
In your brief analysis, you omitted a KEY detail:
Since the Civil War, the Federal Constitution is the only one that really matters: Federal law supercedes State laws, including constitutions.
Therefore, regardless of how States might define a militia, the Feds have the final say. This means that "the people" (who are defined as the vast unwashed who have no idea how to live our lives or handle ourselves or affairs without a bureaucrat in DC telling us each step of the way what to do, how, using what, when) are in fact NOT the militia - "because we [bureacrats/ruling elite] say so".
Of course, the converse is true, too - we'll be conscripted without justification or reason should it be needed, because then "the militia" will mean (once again) "Every able bodied man". (Side note - it STILL won't apply to women. Tell me again who is the oppressor class? but that's a rant for another time.)
The question must be fully settled at the Federal level, and it MUST BE ENFORCED by "We, The People".
Going to State constitutions is meaningless, because the federal Constitution is the "supreme law of the land" (* Until we see the umbras and penumbras of vapid idiologues on the SCOTUS or as POTUS).
We are on the razor's edge already, but idiologues do not realize or believe this - the gravy train is still running, even if it's off the tracks...
OTOH, contemporary definitions of "militia" put the amendment in context, and historical notes (Japanese suppression of Samurai; British suppression of both Irish and Scottish; Roman suppression of others, such as the Jews (Nazarenes, perhaps); Okinawan occupations & sword hunts; etc, etc, etc.) all lead us to think in basic terms: Force of arms is ultimately the only force available to us. All other "force" or "influence" stems from this one way or another. Ballot box? Must be back by guns. Influencing a Senator on a vote? Force of votes -> force at the ballot box -> force of arms. Ultimately, it's all down to force, and the civil facade we wear is easily torn away (Q.V. London Riots).
And as long as "the government" is the only one allowed weapons, and force? We are SLAVES, de facto if not de jure. Freedom is not deciding which brand of jeans you'll wear.
Just remember, this must be defined (again) at the Federal level, and that will likely take force at this point...