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.
robert108 - 03:11pm on 11/27/2007
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.
pparets - 03:11pm on 11/27/2007
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.
robert108 - 04:11pm on 11/27/2007
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 - 04:11pm on 11/27/2007
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 - 05:11pm on 11/27/2007
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.
Neiman - 06:11pm on 11/27/2007
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.
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.
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.
Already answered.
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
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.
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.
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.