DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Plane on January 18, 2013, 10:35:27 PM
-
The reason that the second amendment is a human right enumerated in the bill of rights is that the writers of the constitution thought it important that the government not grow tyrannical , and that the people should own enough military power that it dare not.
It was within their knowledge that many governments have grown military power for the purpose of oppression, using up the resources of the people to the peoples own enslavement.
So the second amendment recognises the importance of Militia training and thereby the responsibility of gun ownership, the organisation and discipline that makes the guns better than dangerous toys. Then it makes clear that the people have the right to the power that this represents, and that this is a personal right not to be infringed.
As a nation we have been slack in maintaining the militia, it is a missing element that in part justifies the complaints of those who want guns to be controlled. Guns should be controlled , they should not be controlled by the central government . The idea is not that guns should be everywhere and everywhen with no discipline applied, this doesn't seem like a good idea and isn't the point of the second amendment. The idea is also not that the Federal government should regulate guns into rarity and limit their access to those friendly to the government , this is the situation that free people should find anathema.
The point of the second amendment is a two pronged fork, Responsibility and availability need to be paired. The people do need to possess enough military prowess that the government should be held in check against despotism. This more than implies that the people ought be organised in ways that promotes discipline with this responsibility, the despot is not resisted by individuals when he attacks the people with an army , the despot is resisted by an army of the people , a militia.
Gun controller nuts have a legitimate gripe if they note a lack of gun discipline , but infringing on the peoples right to keep and bear arms is a backwards solution, the second amendment should be activated and enforced in the spirit in which it was written.
Gun owners need to be called into militia, trained and disciplined militarily, and who should be left out?
http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/12/14/justice-breyer-the-second-amendment-and-federalist-46/ (http://the-american-catholic.com/2010/12/14/justice-breyer-the-second-amendment-and-federalist-46/)
Madison’s views were commonplace at the time. Justice Story, appointed by James Madison to the US Supreme Court wrote in 1833 in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States:
“The next amendment is: ‘A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.’ “
“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons, who have duly reflected upon the subject. The militia is the natural defence of a free country against sudden foreign invasions, domestic insurrections, and domestic usurpations of power by rulers. It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people. The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.(1) And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid.”
-
This:
It is against sound policy for a free people to keep up large military establishments and standing armies in time of peace, both from the enormous expenses, with which they are attended, and the facile means, which they afford to ambitious and unprincipled rulers, to subvert the government, or trample upon the rights of the people.
And That:
And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burdens, to be rid.”
-
Yes , exactly.
http://www.usconcealedcarry.net/your-state/?id=google&sid=googlestatelandingpage&gclid=CKXFuMC587QCFQU5nAodd1MAww (http://www.usconcealedcarry.net/your-state/?id=google&sid=googlestatelandingpage&gclid=CKXFuMC587QCFQU5nAodd1MAww)
What is the modern militia like?
Can we get information and training via internet?
To what purpose is a militia organised?
Neighborhood watch?
Survivalist co-operative?
-
There are no actual militias in this country, only a few clubs of gun nuts and pretend soldiers fond of wearing camo clothing and playing tough guy.
The militias became a thing of the past after the Civil War.
The actual fact is that in the United States of the 1790's, most Americans lived in rural areas where there was no real law enforcement and many people needed to hunt, particularly in the winter, to survive. Neither the Federal government nor the state governments had the power to disarm citizens even if they wanted to, and they did not want to.
The militias were instrumental in winning the war wit Mexico in the 1840's, but after Mexico City was conquered and no Mexicans were available to surrender, most of the members of the militia were only bound to serve for a year and they simply came home.
Militiamen also served in the Civil War and also many came home. It did not take long for both armies to change the rules and force the militiamen to stay in the ranks.
-
Milita are not absolutely absent , but they do not amount to enough participants to fulfill their constitutional role in making the keeping and bearing of arms by the people "well regulated".
The nearest thing to it is the NRA, which is diffrent from the militia the founders knew , but is in some ways better.
The NRA allows the people to exercise political clout without resorting to violence, it is always nice to have a nonviolent option to try ahead of the violent option in preference, the militia of the founders was a local thing that would muster to practice or to exercise violence, as far as I know they didn't correspond over long distances and didn't influence political campaigns.
-
I think modern day militias center around shooting ranges and hunting clubs. That is where the knowledge of safely handling arms is sharpened and passed down.
-
The militias were instrumental in winning the war wit Mexico in the 1840's, but after Mexico City was conquered and no Mexicans were available to surrender, most of the members of the militia were only bound to serve for a year and they simply came home.
This brings to my mind the resistance of the cadets at a military school near Mexico City.
Santa Anna was in no way an incompetent general , nor was he unintelligent as a national leader, but he was highly centralised and too little talent was available at lower levels.
Generals do lead and it is generals who get interviewed by the papers later, but it is a swarm of NCOs and privates that has to know how to shoot.
Was the tradition of Militia usefull or was it not?
Why is it obsolete?, specifically, is it an idea that cannot be modernised ?
(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9f/Monumentoalosni%C3%B1osheroes.jpg)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chapultepec (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Chapultepec)
-
I think modern day militias center around shooting ranges and hunting clubs. That is where the knowledge of safely handling arms is sharpened and passed down.
Yes, that is true, but is it enough and can we do better?
When a person decides whether or not to carry a gun , he is exercising a right and responsibility.
What number of persons who do not understand the gravity of the responsibility is tolerable?
None is not an accptable answer, but neither is any large number.
We have media capable of communicating ideas to the people better than ever before, can this capability be used to promote responsibility?
-
When a person decides whether or not to carry a gun , he is exercising a right and responsibility.
They are also exercising a choice that in no way negates their being willing and able to serve in the functions of the militia if called.
-
When a person decides whether or not to carry a gun , he is exercising a right and responsibility.
They are also exercising a choice that in no way negates their being willing and able to serve in the functions of the militia if called.
How much is there a right to refuse such a call?
Could a person refuse without an explanation?
Who has the right to ring that bell?
(http://www.balmoralsoftware.com/ggate/seal.jpg)
http://www.balmoralsoftware.com/ggate/ggate.htm (http://www.balmoralsoftware.com/ggate/ggate.htm)
(http://mygoldrushtales.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Military-units-of-the-Committee-of-Vigilance-1856.jpg)http://mygoldrushtales.com (http://mygoldrushtales.com)
(http://)
-
The Battle of Chapultepec had nothing to do with any Mexican militia. One cadet threw himself off the wall, the others were already dead and were wrapped in flags and flung off by their compatriots. That is what most Mexican historians say.
Every year there is a ceremony in the Alameda Park where that monument is placed. They read off the names of the cadets,and the chorus of soldiers shouts "¡Murió por la Patria!" These were teenage boys of 13 to 17. The Palace that Agustin Iturbide, who named himself Agustin I, Emperador de México was turned into a military academy. Later it was the presidential palace,and now it is a museum in Chapultepec Park. Chapultepec is the Nahuátl (Aztec) word for 'grasshopper.
When driving and a bug hits the windshield, that is what Mexicans say: "¡Murió por la Patria!" (He died for the Fatherland!)
-
When a person decides whether or not to carry a gun , he is exercising a right and responsibility.
They are also exercising a choice that in no way negates their being willing and able to serve in the functions of the militia if called.
How much is there a right to refuse such a call?
Could a person refuse without an explanation?
Who has the right to ring that bell?
(http://www.balmoralsoftware.com/ggate/seal.jpg)
http://www.balmoralsoftware.com/ggate/ggate.htm (http://www.balmoralsoftware.com/ggate/ggate.htm)
(http://mygoldrushtales.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Military-units-of-the-Committee-of-Vigilance-1856.jpg)http://mygoldrushtales.com (http://mygoldrushtales.com)
(http://)
My guess is peer pressure will have the majority respond. Who wants their neighbors thinking they are cowards, absent any valid religious objection.
-
They are also exercising a choice that in no way negates their being willing and able to serve in the functions of the militia if called.
==========================================
Get serious.
There is no militia and has been none for over a century.
There is no possible enemy, foreign or domestic, that a militia composed of NRA gun nuts, could defeat.
-
Is the taliban not a militia?
-
Loosten the definition , the NRA is a militia.
-
Is the taliban not a militia?
======================================
No, the Taliban is an assortment of religious fanatics who want to restore an Islamic culture of suppression and illiteracy that has no validity in any modern world. It is financed wherever it exists by money from Saudi Arabia and other reactionaries and could not exist without them and could not exist in any modern state.
The Taliban cannot hold territory or run a government that favors the people by providing simple things like electricity, potable water, decent schools that teach anything useful to a modern civilization. Madrassas concentrate only on the memorization of the Koran in Arabic, a foreign language in every nation where the Taliban exists and perhaps a little math. Would schools that teach the memorization of the New Testament in Aramaic be of any use to anyone in this country?
The fact that the Taliban has not been able to hold power in any country where it has attempted to do so sort of proves that militias are a thing of the past from any useful point of view.
-
The Taliban held power in Afghanistan until 9/11. Maybe they are good at fomenting civil war and revolution, but just terrible at occupying the lands they conquer.
-
If you favor militias and think that the Taliban is an ideal government, then I most vehemently disagree that militias are anything anyone needs in any modern civilization.
-
If you favor militias and think that the Taliban is an ideal government, then I most vehemently disagree that militias are anything anyone needs in any modern civilization.
That is quite a leap from what i actually said. Strawman meet match.
-
(https://sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/s480x480/66453_460702337310539_1463015530_n.jpg)
-
Why Gun Control is Bullshit (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTJVARoj7gc#)
-
"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety"......Benjamin Franklin