Say Anything Blog

As Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox pointed out last week, a careful, rational, and honest reading of the Second Amendment shows that “a well-armed militia” is contingent on the right of the citizens to “keep and bear arms”.  Not the other way around.

There is no constitutional basis for the idea of so-called “collective rights.” Our rights are “endowed” by our “Creator” not by the federal government.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Bat One,

Amen.

The first phrase of the Second Amendment is the reasoning behind the guarantee of the Right.  As such, I don’t believe there should be legal way to ban the ownership of any weapon commonly issued to the Armed Forces.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

As Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox pointed out...

I voted for that guy. Him winning took some of the sting out of socialist Jennifer Granholm’s win over Dick Posthumus in 2002.

Him winning took some of the sting out of socialist Jennifer Granholm’s win over Dick Posthumus in 2002.

Not for Granholm it didn’t!  Cox has been a persistent thorn in the right side of her posterior ever since.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

Well, screw Granholm. I briefly toyed around with the idea of moving back to MI earlier this year. Then they raised taxes, yet again. That wasn’t the welcoming mat I was looking for. Screw that state. Many of my old friends have fled the state in the past few years. They’re leaving a sinking ship. It’s only too bad that so many of them are the rats that helped cause that ship to start sinking in the first place. They’re only moving their insanity to other states, where they’ll no doubt repeat the same damn mistakes. Higher taxes, more union protectionism, and higher taxes. They never learn, bless their hearts.

"A well-regulated militia...” What exactly does “well regulated” mean?  Regulated how?  By whom?  And note the use of “militia” as opposed to “citizenry”, “public”, “populus” or “people”. The Framers left us with one of the Constitution’s most ambiguous statements and, in so doing, opened the door to the anti-gun crowd. I am a strong believer in a strict-interpretation of the Constitution, but a strict interpretation is difficult here.

A prefatory explanation of motivation in no way impugns nor limits the Right of the People thus explained and stated.

Out Here
Rodney G. Graves

Ceterum censeo Parthia esse delendam
Latin: “Furthermore, Parthia (Persia aka modern day Iran) should be destroyed.”

pparets” Please allow me remove the abiguity for you:

Did virtually every man and most women in this country own and use personal firearms when the Second Amendment to the Bill of Rights was enacted? They did!

Were they all actively involved by membership and required to be uniformed and be in a militia? No!

Therefore, the people that ratified the Second Amendment were aware that virtually every citizen owned a firearm and these firearms were not licensed nor subjected to registration when they wrote about the right to keep and bear arms. Having this knowledge, had they any idea that only a uniformed, regulated militia should possess and use firearms, wouldn’t they have included these restrictions in the 2nd Amendment?

The only abiguity is in the minds of those that want to overturn the 2nd Amendment absent the Constitutional process for their own malevolent motives.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

pparets, unfortunately the brevity of the language in the constitution allows for different interpretations and the writers often put several unique and seperate items into the same paragraph.  One of the best examples of that in the first amendment which contains unique references to religion, speech, assemble and petition.  Similarly, I believe the references to militia and the right for the people to bear arms can be treated as separate items, but however one reads it, the ‘shall not be infringed’ surely implies that there be no restrictions on the ‘peoples’ use of firearms.

You don’t have to be a moron to be a liberal Democrat but it sure helps.

pparets,

I don’t see that this needs to be all that confusing.  As Cox points out the phrase “keep and bear arms” consists of two separate and distinct verbs, with two two different meanings.  To “bear” arms meant to serve in the militia, and to “bear arms”, one must first own, or “keep” those arms.  Serving in the militia, the “bear"-ing arms part, was contingent on having those arms in the first place.  There is no indication or historical support for the idea that this, or any of the other Rights listed in those first ten Amendments was meant to be a “collective right.”

Read Cox’ entire Op/Ed.

“Poverty of goods is easily cured; poverty of the mind is irreparable.”

If there had not been local militias, the Revolutionary War couldn’t have been fought in the first place.  To have local militias, an armed citizenry is necessary.  Our first victory, the Battle of Bunker Hill(actually fought on Breed’s Hill) was fought by militias against the British Army.  An armed citizenry is integral to the existence of our country.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

Robert Graves:  Actually, a whole body of constitutional law and decisions by Federal Courts at every level have hinged on prefatory phrases. Lets not forget the most potent prefatory phrase of them all: “We, the people..”
Neiman: “Were they required to be in a militia? No.”
If it were all that simple, the Framers would have never contemplated or included the phrase “A well regulated militia.” Why did they include it? What did they mean by it? How would the militias be regulated and by whom” My great fear is that judicial activists on the court will sieze on this puzzling, even ambiguous phrase. Unfortuntaely, your passionate explanation does not clear up that ambiguity. I think it would also be historically more accurate to recognize that very few women in 18th Century America owned or used guns along with whole sub-groups of the population like the Quakers.

If it were all that simple, the Framers would have never contemplated or included the phrase “A well regulated militia.” Why did they include it?

Already answered.

Media uncovers more Palin stories in one weekend than Obama stories in two years. Still no bias detected

Obama: more experienced than Bristol Palin

SACRED CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT OF THE AMERICAN PEOPLE TO BEAR ARMS

Not primarily for collecting; not primarily for hunting; but primarily for a standing militia in every state - ready, when faced with intolerable governmental tyranny, for explosive bloody revolt.

Every American child should grow up knowing exactly how to safely use an automobile-privilege, for transportation; every America child should grow up knowing exactly how to safely use a gun-right, for bloody revolt.

Every sensible educated person knows that the American Constitutional Right to Bear Arms is a sacred integral part of the American system of government, by the People and for the People, far superior to that of the powers of their executive, legislative, or judicial branches of government.

Every sensible governmental official has a very healthy respect for the inherent revolutionary powers of the American People over their own government.

Jeugenen: “Sacred Constitutional Right...” Wow! Passionate, personal, provocative and pretty much useless when it comes to understanding the constitution and the possible interpretations of it by the Supreme Court, which is what the original article of this post was all about. The best defense for the right to own guns is at the ballot box and membership in the NRA because, tragically, few in congress - and fewer in the bureaucracy - understand the history and tradition of fire-arms in our Republic. Unfortunately, rants about ‘sacred’ rights are about as potent as those of the Confederacy’s claim that ‘slavery’ was a ‘sacred’ right. It wasn’t.

pparets

I think it would also be historically more accurate to recognize that very few women in 18th Century America owned or used guns along with whole sub-groups of the population like the Quakers.

Unless I am terribly decieved, America was mostly rural and agricultural during the 18th century, they werte expanding our territory and they had to fight Indians, the British and be ready to kill wild animals and kill for food food, all of this required that nearly everyone in the family had firearms and knew how to use them. When necessary for the common defense they went to the closest fort or village and acted as a militia until the crisis passed and then went home with their guns. By the way, one of my ancestors fought in the American Revolution and manufactured long guns.

Neiman: “Were they required to be in a militia? No.” If it were all that simple, the Framers would have never contemplated or included the phrase “A well regulated militia.”

I am less interested in what they put in than what they omitted and that omission was any restrictions on private ownership of firearms.

The Supremes are capable of anything, including banning private ownersip of guns or something so twisted in legalese that they will settle nothing. All I am suggesting is that what was a reality regarding gun possesion during the time of the drafting of the Bill of Rights and the Founding Father’s were very intelligent men and had they intended any limitations, they were perfectly capapable of saying so in a clear, unambiguous manner.

Remember, the Constiutution and the Bill of Rights are not so much laws restricting the behavior of citizens as they were limitations upon the government to restrict our rights in any manner not clearly defined therein.

No matter the age or state of health, for a military man it is always glorious to tilt at windmills, rescue a fair Dulcinea and be a gallant knight in armor in a glorious cause.

Actually… I like what Jeugenen had to say “Sacred Constitutional Right” and I do not think these sentiments are at all going to be useless. Although I would certainly not allow these well justified passions to cloud my judgments of what this Supreme Court might very well do, I will most certainly hold these personal beliefs close, upon my own ordnance, as it is my intention to fight for what is my right of property no matter what these King’s of their own justice have to say.
The Supreme Court once passionately attempted to maintain man as property, now they just want our property. If we do not defend what is our, they will take it, and they will call it a Law.

Well regulated can very well mean, well functioning or well trained, and it can also mean a Populus that can effectively use, sell, or maintain arms. All citizens capable of bearing arms can constitute the reserved militia of a State. Therefore my inalienable right to protect myself and my loved ones dose not conflict with my right to defend my own State, if necessary. 
Those who claim, I have no freedom, except for what is so granted, can go to Blazes, with me, or without me.