Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
A well regulated militia: I *think* this means an organized militia, possible state or even nationwide, with the task of defending the country from any threats forign and domestic, without any ties to the military.
|
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." -George Mason- 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426.
The 'militia' is all of us, organized and unorganized, apart from the standing military which is just a branch of the government.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
The problem is that a regulated militia can't beat the US military.
|
Another topic for another day.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed: Here's where we run into a problem. Does this mean that the militia has the right to oppose the state, or does it mean that the individual has the right to heep a 9 mm in his house? The bottom line is that we don't know. The supreme court has stayed away from this like Thomas Jefferson stayed away from white girls.
|
This is not exactly correct. The Supreme Court has never decided a case that directly concerned the second amendment, but there are 35 cases where the supreme court has discussed the second amendment.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
I personally think that the second amendment gives us the right to oppose an oppressive regeim in power, not unlike the 13 colonies opposing and going to war with the UK. Can I prove it? No. Can I make a case for it? Sure, but it would be no more or less of a case than dksuddeth makes for the inaliable right to carry guns.
It's a stale mate.
|
The founders of the Bill of Rights, both federalist and anti-federalist, refer to the right to bear arms as an individual right for both self defense as well as state defense. I would like to believe that even the circuit courts could read and understand plain english, but apparently thats not the case. I have to wonder which constitution it is that they are reading. For those of you who choose not to acknowledge the 1982 senate report on the second amendment and would rather wait on the supreme court, I remind you that this is the same supreme court that ruled on Kelo v. new london in violation of the 5th amendment and has ruled consistently against the 4th amendment in regards to the patriot act. While those who are anti-gun are perfectly willing to wait for that decision, can we as a free people afford it?