Hi-Point Firearms Forums banner
1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I'm not sure if you guys have seen the actual transcript of the case, but there is a lot there that just blows the modern interpretations of the 2nd Ammendment out of the water. First check this site out [url]http://www.constitution.org/ [/url]

Next, here is the text of the case: http://www.constitution.org/cs_defen.htm So, scan down the page to "RKBA - Right to Keep and Bear Arms" and click on the link to item 4.

I was amazed at how involved the Supreme Court got into the language and the history of the whole idea of "militia" vs. the individual right to keep and bear arms.

While you are on the site, check out the other documents. It's pretty intersting and definitely a relief in the midst of all the junk we see coming down the pipe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
I'm new here and am am sure it has been said before...

The 2nd amendment was put in place as one of the many checks and balances in the system. The people are a check against the government becoming oppressive and tyrannical. The spirit of that is captured in the Declaration of Independence. One person raising up against the govt is a madman... a group is a bunch of radical maniacs... but if 70% of the population ever rose up in arms... well then the govt is doing something very wrong.

The government of the US has always been "relatively" good and honest.... The elections are "relatively" honest... the will of the people mostly comes through... but there is no telling what is to come 100, 200 or 500 years from now. Rome was a perfectly good republic for 500 yeas and then within 100 years all that changed.

It may not seem clear today to many how the second amendment serves as a check and balance... but that is the reason it was put there and why it must be maintained.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
I'm new here and am am sure it has been said before...

The 2nd amendment was put in place as one of the many checks and balances in the system. The people are a check against the government becoming oppressive and tyrannical. The spirit of that is captured in the Declaration of Independence. One person raising up against the govt is a madman... a group is a bunch of radical maniacs... but if 70% of the population ever rose up in arms... well then the govt is doing something very wrong.

The government of the US has always been "relatively" good and honest.... The elections are "relatively" honest... the will of the people mostly comes through... but there is no telling what is to come 100, 200 or 500 years from now. Rome was a perfectly good republic for 500 yeas and then within 100 years all that changed.

It may not seem clear today to many how the second amendment serves as a check and balance... but that is the reason it was put there and why it must be maintained.
You should really spend some time on the afore mentioned web site. For instance, many on these gun forums think the reference to "Militia" means the National Guard. Well, in the context of the time, "Militia" meant every able bodied male up to about the age of 45. Some of the colonies actually used to fine men for not carrying their weapons. And, if you were too poor, the government would purchase one for you to carry.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
401 Posts
The militia act is still active and enforceable, it has never been repealed and it applies to all able bodied men between the ages of 17-45, there have been opinions by courts that in the context of time and current society that it also applies to women of the same ages.

Many people quote and rave about the 2nd, but it has to be taken in context with the other laws that were enacted to ensure it was never infringed upon..the militia has nothing to do with the national guard, the guard is actually a arm of the organized military, the militia is a civilian group(s) the militia is not a standing military, it is basically an on-call civilian military that can be called in the event of invasion, by foreign or domestic groups..

When taken as a whole, there is far more than just the 2nd when it comes down to the right to keep and bear arms, in fact it is a requirement of the militia act to keep and bear arms to protect your home, your community and your country...this is often glossed over and not even mentioned when the debate about bearing arms comes up....

Dp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Hmm, I didn't know there was an official "Militia Act". I assumed that individuals had the right to defend themselves before the constitution was written, so an official Act or Decree or Referendum from Congress would either agree with that right or be in contest with it. Nevertheless, the Framers believed it was the right of all free men to keep and bear arms for self defense as well as defense of the State. As soon as a law would be passed to the contrary or in any way stifle that right, Congress would be in breach and would need to be told and forced to recant.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
401 Posts
Jeff,

Here is a link to the Militia act of 1792

http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Here is the link to the Militia act of 1862

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1862

The Militia act of 1903 was one that incorporated the national guard, although this one has been in dispute as the Militia is a civilian law and the 1903 militia act incorporated the standing military, which based on laws is not legal..the militia is not a standing military unit..

We learned a great deal about the militia acts when I attended West Point way back when...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
32 Posts
The Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania states in Article l section 21 The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves or the state shall not be question.

To me this is also implying that if called to we shall defend the state as a militia would.

knighted4
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
224 Posts
I'm new here and am am sure it has been said before...

The 2nd amendment was put in place as one of the many checks and balances in the system. The people are a check against the government becoming oppressive and tyrannical. The spirit of that is captured in the Declaration of Independence. One person raising up against the govt is a madman... a group is a bunch of radical maniacs... but if 70% of the population ever rose up in arms... well then the govt is doing something very wrong.

The government of the US has always been "relatively" good and honest.... The elections are "relatively" honest... the will of the people mostly comes through... but there is no telling what is to come 100, 200 or 500 years from now. Rome was a perfectly good republic for 500 yeas and then within 100 years all that changed.

It may not seem clear today to many how the second amendment serves as a check and balance... but that is the reason it was put there and why it must be maintained.
You should really spend some time on the afore mentioned web site. For instance, many on these gun forums think the reference to "Militia" means the National Guard. Well, in the context of the time, "Militia" meant every able bodied male up to about the age of 45. Some of the colonies actually used to fine men for not carrying their weapons. And, if you were too poor, the government would purchase one for you to carry.
I don't disagree with what you said with regard with what "militia" is. I just wanted to bring out the point that the founding fathers while recognizing the need for a strong central government were also afraid of it. The did not put the 2nd amendment in there to so we can protect ourselves from each other... they put it in there so we can protect ourselves from the government. To this end the people are the final check and balance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #10 ·
I'm not really sure if the Founders were designing a "strong central government" (SCG) as much as they were designing a representative style of government. The logic of a SCG in light of emperialistic British would actually be no logic at all. British had a SCG with a Monarch on the throne. No, they did not want a SCG. They wanted regular people to represent there neighbors back home. The people as a whole could not all go to Pennsylvania or Washington City. That would have been totally nuts. That's why they established reps so the majority of the populace could remain at home farming, running businesses, and raising their families.

Our nation was never intended to have a SCG. It was always intended to be governed by the people.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top