Does lax gun-control endanger "the security of a free state"?

Well some others got off topic, with amendment 1 references, and the Declaration of Independence, so I thought I'd talk about the mockery of our Constitution recently, by Conservatives, and their ALT Right Oligarch's heavy financial support to this mockery.

 

Maybe then, you should start another thread based on that 'new' topic?

 

Your argument deserves credit for creativity, but I believe it begins with a false premise.

You argue the “security of a free state” mentioned in the 2nd Amendment’s militia preamble as though it is the only purpose of the Amendment, rendering the RKBA subordinate to that sole purpose—and then you argue it works against the purpose you claim it was designed for. Reading it together in this fashion reads the Amendment in conflict with itself—which by itself is enough to refute it.

But a review of history shows the “security of a free state” language has nothing to do with privately owned firearms. Rather, it refers to the reliance on a militia rather than a standing professional army for defense of the nation. This was a universally held principle.

Patrick Henry, for example, referred to the “hired soldiery” of a professional army as the “engines of despotism.” (Speech of June 5, 1788, before the Virginia Convention).

John Dewitt aptly summarized the argument this way:

"It has been asserted by the most respectable writers upon government, that a well-regulated militia, composed of the yeomanry of the country, have ever been considered as the bulwark of a free people. Tyrants have never placed any confidence on a militia composed of freemen." John DeWitt, The Anti-Federalist Papers, p. 75 (M. Borden ed. 1965)

Nor was this sentiment limited to anti-federalist thought. See, for example, the very first Constitution drafted in America (drafted before the Declaration of Independence):

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." CONSTITUTION OF VIRGINIA (June 6, 1776)

In fact, every other state Constitution—all drafted before the federal constitution—contained this warning that a standing army is dangerous to liberty. And the continuation of this thought in 2nd Amendment’s militia preamble “A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” has never had anything to do with to do with private firearms. It is merely a restatement of the principle listed in all the state Constitutions—that a state remains free when it relies on a militia because the militia is immune from corruption by any would be tyrant. That is all it says, and all it means.

Its only connection to the RKBA is that the practice of the time was to rely upon the individual RKBA as the source of militia arms. But, as I have argued before, Congress was given power over what arms could be used in the militia, which allowed it to divorce the militia from the use of private firearms. The 2nd Amendment does two things: 1. It restates the preference for the militia—a necessary statement when Congress has been given the power to choose between a militia and a standing army; and 2. It recognizes the individual RKBA, a necessary statement to show that the new power of Congress to divorce the militia from its original source of arms was not also a power to destroy that source—the pre-existing individual RKBA.

At least that is my thought….

 

He could have just been showing Chicago pride by paraphrasing Sean Connery's character Malone from "The Untouchables".

 

Only one problem with that quote, he left the safety of his home, and followed the Guy with a knife, into the line of fire of a Thompson SMG.
He was killed.
There is a valuable lesson there.

 

Please provide evidence for your ramblings.

 

The same military currently engaging in wars you may find disagreeable?

 

Not so considering that their are at least 100,000 cases per year of people doing exactly that.

 

And we have the right to refute your opinion and post our own.

 

Do you really believe that, are you joking ?
Or are you really that _ _ _ p_d ?

What has 1776 to do with todays Military ?
What does todays Military have to do with
a Liquor store robbery, a home invasion or a person that hates Gay Men or Lesbians ?

The common thread ?
Liberals want to ban Guns.
All Guns at any cost.

Why ?

You can't have a Hitler, Communism or kill off Gays, Minorities etc....

Until you get rid of ALL Guns.

 

Your meaningless opinion aside -- until repealed, it remains, and in force.
It will not be repealed.

 

This is where my disdain and loathing for gun control advocates spring from. The Constitution says what it says, and the Founders made clear, iron-clad commentary as to why it says what it says; but antigunners try to weasel their way around the Constitution, rationalize their way under the Constitution, or even flatly state the Constitution should be ignored because it's "outdated." Well, the Founders understood that changing times might mean the Constitution would need to be changed to adapt to those changing times; which is why they included the AMENDMENT PROCESS. If a sufficient supermajority of the people found an issue pressing enough then they could vote to amend the Constitution to address those new issues.... but it's hard to get that large a percentage of the population to agree on ANYTHING. When over half the people in the nation believe the 2nd Amendment is a valuable, relevant right, the antis know they're behind the 8 ball, and the only way they can push their agenda is to lie, rationalize, and twist facts to work their way around it. Tragically, they've gotten farther than they ever should have pursuing that corrupt tactic.

 

This is why they go through the courts -- they know they cannot amend the constitution so they look for a judge to say it means what they want it to mean.