2nd Amendment Being Taught As A "collective' Right

[AzRednek]

I had a brief conversation with my nephew today. He's here visiting for the holidays. He is currently in law school. The way he defined the 2nd Amendment is it gives states the right to form militias or as what today we call the National Guard. He then brought up the militia movement in the 90's saying they're scary but probably illegal because the 2nd Amendment says "well regulated" and if they are not regulated by the state or federal govt it is not really regulated at all.

 

Having lawyers in the family I know it is absolutely useless to try and argue with one. I have one cousin in particular that I consider a limousine liberal that will let political discussions at family gatherings get out of hand. Anybody that argues politics with him are automatically branded a red neck. I'm going to try and drag my nephew to the shooting range before he returns and see if I can't convince him gun owners are not morons and his college profs are full of bull manure.

[Doble Troble]

Ask him why the right to keep and bear arms is "collective" and why the right to free speech is "individual".

 

Ask him why its written "being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms..." and not ""being necessary to the security of a free people, the right of the State to keep and bear Arms..."

 

Ask him what the difference between "state" and "the people" are.

 

You're right, Az. This is professorial BS.

 

I think our problems over the last half century or so with the second amendment is really a problem with personal responsibility - Americans are losing it!

 

We're being encouraged by our government to not expect each other to be responsible citizens. It seems that we're promoting a new right: the right to be irresponsible.

 

This causes all sorts of problems in a free society. If we're free to be irresponsible we can't trust each other. When we don't trust our fellow citizens it becomes reasonable to try to disarm them. When we're all disarmed we only have the government left to protect us.

 

The real problem with all of this is that the government cannot protect us. Our founders clearly feared that government itself was something that we citizens needed protection from.

 

Now we're back to the real rationale behind the second ammendment.

 

We still need it, especially today.

 

And we need to be able to trust our fellow citizens. Those who cannot be trusted need to be identified and ostracized - and encouraged not to exercise their right to keep and bear arms.

 

Lying, cheating and irresponsible behavior are very serious offenses against a free society - take a look at the mainstream media, TV, movies. Aren't these behaviors glorified? It's got to stop, or we're sunk.

[AzRednek]

Took my nephew to the shooting range today and he really enjoyed himself. He conversed with other shooters asking allot of questions regarding their guns. I currently posses a S&W Model 10 in 38 special he inherited from my mother. I've been hanging on to it as he is not allowed to have a firearm in his law school's dorm or the previous university he attended. The city he calls home has mandatory handgun registration. He really surprised me when he said he would look into his law school's regulations and exactly what he has to do to transfer it. Previously he had no interest in it as I've had it for apx 6 years now. When we arrived back at my house he showed allot of interest in my collection, especially the military bolt actions. He even boasted about a rocket launcher he shot while in the army.

 

Outside of the 3 years he spent in the Army he has never shot a gun recreationally and has never hunted. He was raised by my deceased brother's ex-wife in a hard core pro Democrat home that was very anti-gun. I tried brainwashing him on the evils of gun control on the way home from the range and I get the feeling he might be starting to see the light on guns anyway. Going to be a difficult job however to persuade him over to our side. To sum it up he likes John Edwards. Apparently he is a victim of liberal college professors.

 

 

 

 

 

[Dr.Hess]

Az, I'm really not surprised at your nephew's outlook. I grew up in SoCal, and I distinctly remember being taught from the 4th grade on how fortunate we were to have a 2nd Ammendment because it gave the States the right to have a National Guard. You BS enough people with that from birth on and they believe it. It really wasn't until I was in my 20's and reading an interview with Arnold Schwarzenegger, of all people, in which he stated that the U.S. was a great country because the 2nd Ammendment gave the people the right to keep and bear arms that I started really thinking about it. Interesting how his views have changed over the decades, now that he's a Kennedy.

 

[FC]

The Founding Fathers made it crystal clear what they meant by the Second Ammendment in their writings.

[karlunity]

Not in my classrooms.

The kids are taught that the 2nd protects the "PEOPLE'S" God given right to keep and carry arms both for self-protection and as a final check on the power of government.

(I have the good luck not to work in a public school, the pay is a lot less but I am free to teach true history not "social science".)

 

 

Karl

[roscoedoh]

He'll change his tune when his house is broken into, car is jacked, or spouse assaulted. Reality tends to shock liberals worse than any else. It really is a cold, cruel world out there - one which doesn't give a rat's butt about compromising or understanding. He'll learn. And then he'll want all the guns he can afford.

 

Let's just hope his ilk haven't outlawed legal private firearms ownership before then.

[tinkerfive]

I had a brief conversation with my nephew today. He's here visiting for the holidays. He is currently in law school. The way he defined the 2nd Amendment is it gives states the right to form militias or as what today we call the National Guard. He then brought up the militia movement in the 90's saying they're scary but probably illegal because the 2nd Amendment says "well regulated" and if they are not regulated by the state or federal govt it is not really regulated at all.

 

I am no linguistic expert so I'll just repeat what I've heard.

 

In 18th century English 'well regulated' means 'straight shooting / good shot / accurate' today.

 

'Well regulated' had nothing to do with what we in the 21st century think of as 'regulations'.

 

Tinker

[Doble Troble]

I think that "well regulated" means what we would say today as "appropriately equipped".

 

We need the appropriate military equipment if we need to have an effective militia (and according to our forefathers they recognized that an effective militia is necessary for the survival of our freedom).

 

This is why I believe that we should have the right to keep and bear arms that are general issue to our infantry. This to me means right now 3 shot burst capable M16s and hi cap semi auto handguns.

 

I'd draw the line before SAWs, RPGs and grenades, but I think there should be some provision for training in these.

 

Clearly our government should not only allow, but ENCOURAGE citizens to obtain these general issue weapons and to become proficient in their use.

 

But we've got to reestablish the expectation of personal responsibility before this will happen.

 

If we do get back to the point where most Americans are well-armed and responsible, our greatness as a nation will be reestablished.

[AzRednek]

I can't argue the points with you guys, I totally agree with just about everything you say. My problem is trying to convince my nephew his left leaning politics are garbage. We had a brief discussion last night. I drove him and my son to a night club for a New Years meat market. Geez, wish I could have joined them, those young girls gathering outside the joint were hot, to say the least. Anyhow I think my son really hit the nail on the head when he said "you'll think differently when you see your first paycheck stub from a law firm". My nephew went immediately into the Army out of high school, then went into college and now law school. Once he realizes he is footing the bill for these left wing politicians he might see the light.

 

I was a renegade at his age, being a long-haired hippy. Didn't take me long after knocking up my first wife with twins and I tried to support a family in 1970. I got a hair cut, changed my voter registration to Republican after the first April 15th I had to write IRS and the state a check. Many of the people that were in the same apt complex as me, didn't work. They lived off of the govt, spending their day in bed, getting high and having what we then called love-ins at night untill early morning hours. It really got to me once I realized I was footing the bill for their drunken, pot laced orgies while I was working a 6 day a week job daytime and pumping gas or twisting wrenches Sundays and at night just to pay the bills and taxes.

 

My nephew told me he interviewed for a Los Angeles law firm that starting salary is 170 g's. One he sees the govt's portion out of that paycheck I think he will have a rude awakening.

[FC]

He'll need that kind of money to live in that smog-laden, nasty traffic city.

 

 

[Jimro]

"Well Regulated" is be best understood as "effective".

 

An effective militia being necessary to the security of a free state...

 

During the time you had "regulars" and "irregular" troops, and "well regulated" means that the troops would be an effective fighting force, composed of both "regular" and "irregular" troops. The various "militia acts" passed by congress between 1791 and 1905 clearly show that ordinary citizens are the militia, a legal precedent we still have to this day in US code.

 

I think that a law student should know this.

 

Jimro

[Dr.Hess]

Jimro,

I don't believe such radical concepts as you discuss are taught in Law Schools anymore. However, they are all over the constitutional right to butt bang your buddy.

 

[Jimro]

When I went through OCS one of our textbooks was "For the Common Defense", a history of the US military from the pre-revolutionary militia's all the way to Desert Storm.

 

While one history book does not make me an expert, it gave me a very neat overview of the relationship between professional soldiers and the militia prior to 1905, and the reason for the formation of the Reserve and National Guard as an "organized militia" separate from the common militia.

 

No amount of revisionist history can take away the role of the common man as part of our militia. Pass this little bit of law around to your lawyer friends.

 

TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

 

§ 311. Militia: composition and classes

 

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

( The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

Which is why it irks me terribly that National Guardsmen obeyed the unlawful order to confiscate firearms after Katrina. FEMA does not replace the constitution.

 

Jimro

[karlunity]

Which is why it irks me terribly that National Guardsmen obeyed the unlawful order to confiscate firearms after Katrina. FEMA does not replace the constitution.

 

Jimro

 

Many of those NG's probably had never studied the Constitution or been correctly instructed about it in school.

As to the brass, well, many folks, even those who should know better "go along to get along".

Many have years invested it their "careers" and don't want to make waves. "I have a kid in school and a mortgage. I don't need the hassle" mind set.

 

Since FDR, the "FEDS" have been seen as the final arbiter in legal matters.

 

(Heck, after years of watching "The FBI" on TV, I was stunned to learn at the "OJ" trial that the "CRIME LAB" was not omniscient. ..we are all conditioned to a large degree by the tube.)

 

Karl