A friend of mine points to these papers to argue against an individual's right to bear arms, that these Papers reinforce the idea that the 2A was only meant to exist in the form of a "militia".
Ive read both the Papers and while they do refer to militias, I dont really see where they exclude an inherent right to self protection.
But I'm not exactly sure how to counter his argument. :(
Neither paper discusses the right to bear arms at all.
If it was me, I would counter to your friend that 29 explicitly says that standing armies are dangerous to liberty,
that the founders intended for there not to be a standing army (which is clear in 46),
that militias as the founders intended haven't existed for well over a century,
and therefore:
If he presumes that the 2A doesn't protect individual rights,
and he is not arguing for reinstatement of the militia as intended,
and he wishes to abolish standing armies,
then the country is left completely undefended.
Then again, if he's a leftist retard (all signs point to yes) then I wouldn't waste my time.
Well, you get into the right to Life there. And the pursuit of Happiness, I suppose. To that extent, you have to define the common good or general welfare from the traditional American philosophy of governance. Which is the sum of all Individuals acting voluntarily in their full and separate enjoyment of their equal rights. Defense of these rights could be acted alone or cooperatively based on the traditional philosophy. This is just the cliff notes version.Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown
Oh, and coercion is excluded from that because the enjoyment of the rights to Life and the pursuit of Happiness is not involuntary. There's no such thing as forced brotherly love. If not voluntary, there exists no relationship to the moral and spiritual values underlying the principle of Man's concern for the well-being of his fellow man.
One thing about the "militia" in the 2nd Amendment that is not understood today, is that militias were local- they were NOT federal. Men 14 and up were to be armed and to protect the locals from war and tyranny from outside dangers as well as a dangerous government.Quote:
Originally Posted by unknown
The statement of "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" meant exactly that.
The militia is every adult male...
Natural, I appreciate your input.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
I can only assume that because youre on the Ron Paul forums and (hopefully) a supporter of Ron Paul, that youre a liberty minded individual.
But your shit is so high level, I have a hard time understanding what youre talking about.
I created another thread about states' rights vs federal authority. Half way thru your comment, my brain melted.
You gotta dumb it down for simpletons like me who want to expand their knowledge of freedom and liberty as it relates to our law ie the Constitution.
At some point, when I grow my balls back, I'm gonna head back into that thread.
And as Ender pointed out above, the age of an "adult" male is relative.Quote:
Originally Posted by RonPaulGeorge&Ringo
Sure. Read 1-12 here. - http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...can-PrinciplesQuote:
Originally Posted by unknown
They're all very short. 28 and 46 are specifically referenced throughout. Actually, most Federalist Papers are placed into proper dialogue.
It's much easier and you'll benefit greatly by going that route instead of me fragmenting things.
You could start with principle 6. Decentralized govt. both 28 and 46 are mentioned there. Also, principle 5 those two are discussed.
But for a better grasp, I'd start from principle 1 and move down to 12.
Read that and you'll conquer any debate on such matters. And you'll be a great teacher, too.
I think honestly, countering the "militia anti-2a" argument requires not just an education on what "militia" means, but also an education on what "regulated" means.
As noted, "militia" means every able-bodied male over a certain age who is able to bear arms in defense. This includes virtually all post-pubescent males. The only logical argument for gun control that can be made from the statement "guns are meant for the militia only", is the argument that women should not be able to have guns. So the first question for leftists is, is that really what you meant?
But the word "regulated" is used as well - to mean we need to pass restrictions on guns. But that is not what was meant at all when referring to "a well regulated militia". At the time, "regulated" did not mean "restricted". (It still doesn't.) The purpose of regulation was to make something regular. That is, to make it more efficient, interchangeable, standardized. You know, like what the meaning of the word "regular" actually means.
These papers actually talk about that a good deal. The purpose of regulating the militia is to bring it within a national standard. From the papers' perspective, that means knowing a certain number of drills, or generally how to operate as a unit. In other words, how to be "regular" between New Hampshire and Georgia.
In modern terms, that would include type of arms, manufacture of ammunition, other kit like uniform, MREs, and tons of other stuff that goes into modern warfare.
So the only logical way "regulated" can mean "take away firearms" is if your intent to regulate the militia is to disarm them.
Of course, none of this would work. Leftism is a disease which damages the brain and makes logical discourse impossible. There's a reason we got where we are: generally we respond to truth arguments and recognize classic logic as the way to achieve objective truth. I haven't seen leftists do this. Their brains operate differently from ours. Any effort to attack this logically with a leftist will just frustrate us.
Really, I think you'd need to provide a fundamental lesson about what the rights to Life and Liberty mean. If the 2A isn't understood, then fundamentals are missing. This is a case where he's talking to someone who truly doesn't not understand what Individual Liberty means.Quote:
Originally Posted by fisharmor
And, of course, this is really the only role of the government. To defend liberty.
We have some anti-federalists around here. HB, AF...several, actually. Pretty sure they're not really trustees in the founders and these documents. Don't know what their thoughts are on the actual papers (and essentially government) but I assume they adhere to the fundamental logic in terms of the rights to Life n Liberty.
End of the day, the principal support for Life and Liberty is one's right to his property. And, of course, people are free to make rules for themselves so long as others aren't forced to do the same as them. Freedom of choice for Individuals as well as groups of Individuals...
And, of course, we disagree on that, too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
Well, you're certainly free to disagree. But I maintain that our government has but one legitimate role. To protect liberty.Quote:
Originally Posted by fisharmor
What other roles are you of the view that our government legitimately possesses?
'splain me, please.
Didn't intend to hijack... but I look at historical precedent, and can't help but notice that it doesn't do that job, like, at all.Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural Citizen
I maintain the view that its job is the exact opposite of protecting liberty.
IOW, there is no legitimate role. But we've been down that road. ;)
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're right, it doesn't do that job. It's expanded the general welfare clause and many other things.Quote:
Originally Posted by fisharmor
I'm reminded of an old quote that's likely familiar to many here. "Every normal man must be tempted, at times, to spit on his hands, hoist the black flag, and begin slitting throats."
Only worthy men can be truly free men. Is what it is.
The line in 46 - each must rush tumultuously to arms without system, without discipline certainly implies that individuals are armed and the militia system has failed to defend liberty.
The 2A has to be understood in the context of the debate, in that the anti - federalists pointed out that the power of Congress to arm, organize, and discipline the militia could result in a select militia like today's National Guard which would be tethered to the will of Congress and not the people. The 2A was the assurance that the militia was a universal institution and the people could organize themselves if circumstances required them to do so.