Aren't there people here who hate not only the ACLU but the Red Cross as well. I think some folks here hate it merely because liberals are for the most part supportive of them
I'm waiting to see how banning handguns altogether would prevent those deaths. 154 justifiable homicides seems like 154 crimes that were prevented and an innocent's life saved. It also doesn't state (at least didn't when I skimmed it) how the children in question got their weapons or the circumstances in which they died.
And of course, they don't answer the question of why responsible firearm owners should have their rights restricted because some people can't be trusted to teach their children the proper respect and safe usage of firearms.
DashRiprock
Member
- Aug 31, 2001
- 166
- 0
- 76
Exactly. And then there's the 10th Amendment, which everyone seems to have forgotten:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.
It means the federal government's powers are specifically limited to those enumerated under the Constitution; all other powers belong to the states or the people. Both parties seem to forget that these days.
How many of you have actually taken the time to read the ACLU's position on the 2nd admendment? Having read the actual 1930's supreme court decision that allowed the federal government to ban sawed-off shotguns it was quite clear the court interpreted the second amendment to mean the fed's couldn't restrict the indvidual states from having armed militias and was in no way intended to apply to indvidual citizens. The court was fairly clear on this and the court's refusal to hear any new cases on this matter since that time indicates that the decision as laid out in that document is the interpretation of the constitution that will be maintained.
Even neglecting that the court was clear in it's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, given the existence of the NRA the ACLU's funds are better spent protecting other individual liberties. After all the NRA exists to protect the 2nd amendment interpretation most gun owners favor, there is little need to waste other funds fighting a war the courts won't even hear.
Personally I appreciate the ACLU quite a bit, they actively campaign against the use of public funds or property for religions activities, they are at the forefront of trying to get the Patriot act provisions overturned and they defend invidiual liberties and privacy when others won't.
For example, one of the recent "urge your congresscritter" drives was about the no-fly list. A list that has no oversight and if you are added to it you have no way of getting off (Hell it took senator Kennedy 3 days and a dozen phone calls to Tom Ridge to get off).
Even neglecting that the court was clear in it's interpretation of the 2nd amendment, given the existence of the NRA the ACLU's funds are better spent protecting other individual liberties. After all the NRA exists to protect the 2nd amendment interpretation most gun owners favor, there is little need to waste other funds fighting a war the courts won't even hear.
Personally I appreciate the ACLU quite a bit, they actively campaign against the use of public funds or property for religions activities, they are at the forefront of trying to get the Patriot act provisions overturned and they defend invidiual liberties and privacy when others won't.
For example, one of the recent "urge your congresscritter" drives was about the no-fly list. A list that has no oversight and if you are added to it you have no way of getting off (Hell it took senator Kennedy 3 days and a dozen phone calls to Tom Ridge to get off).
I wonder how many times per day a person posts here assuming that "democracy" and "pure democracy" are synonymous. My mistake if that wasn't the case above.
Anyway, I have lost a lot of respect for the ACLU. They don't choose their battles whatsoever. I'm of the opinion that they should try to focus on a few things and not every single possible problem that anyone might have whether it's related to CL or not. It seems like any time a black coach is fired or hired in pro sports, the ACLU sticks its nose in.
On the other hand, I actually admire them when they take on unpopular but important cases...
Anyway, I have lost a lot of respect for the ACLU. They don't choose their battles whatsoever. I'm of the opinion that they should try to focus on a few things and not every single possible problem that anyone might have whether it's related to CL or not. It seems like any time a black coach is fired or hired in pro sports, the ACLU sticks its nose in.
On the other hand, I actually admire them when they take on unpopular but important cases...
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,418
- 19,826
- 146
WRONG
U.S. v. Miller (1939)
Frank Layton and Jack Miller were charged with violating the 1934 National Firearms Act, which regulated and taxed the transfer of certain types of firearms, and required the registration of such arms. The Miller court held the following:
1) The National Firearms Act was not an unconstitutional usurpation of police power reserved to the states.
2) "In the absence of evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length,' which is the subject of regulation and taxation by the National Firearms Act of June 26, 1934, has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, it cannot be said the the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument, or that the statute violates such constitutional provision."
3) "It is not within judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense."
4) "The Second Amendment must be interpreted and applied with a view to its purpose of rendering effective the Militia."
As noted in the Summary section, Miller has often been mis-cited. Note that in the entire text of Miller, neither the words "state militia" nor "National Guard" are to be found.
Regarding item 4) above, the Miller court defined the Militia as the following:
The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.
Attempting to interpret the above paragraph, a law journal article writes,
while far from clear, this passage is not inhospitable to the view that it is a private individual right to keep and bear arms which is protected. For only if there existed such a "body of citizens" in possession of "arms supplied by themselves," could they, should the need arise, be "enrolled for military discipline" to act "in concert for the common defense." (Barnett R., and Kates D., Under Fire: The New Consensus on the Second Amendment, Emory Law Journal [1996].)
Commenting on the significance of the phrase "enrolled for military discipline," law professor Nelson Lund, in another law journal article explains:
This phrase does not conflict with the preceding sentence in the passage from Miller, for "enrollment" in the militia does not imply or depend on actual military service or training. Under the first Militia Act, for example, those subject to militia duty were enrolled by the local commanding officer, and then notified of that enrollment by a non-commissioned officer. § 1, 1 Stat. 271, 271 (1792). Whether the members carried out their duties or not, they were still "enrolled." Under the statute in effect at the time Miller was decided (as in the statute in force today), enrollment was accomplished by the operation of law alone, and most members of the militia were probably not even aware that they belonged to such a body. National Defense Act, ch. 134, § 57, 39 Stat. 166, 197 (1916); 10 U.S.C. § 311(a) (1994). Thus, neither the Miller opinion nor any of the various militia statutes can be used to shore up the insupportable notion that the Second Amendment protects only a right to serve in the National Guard. (Lund, Nelson, The Past and Future of the Individual's Right to Arms, [Footnote 54], Georgia Law Review [1996].)
The Supreme Court reversed and remanded the case back to the district court, giving the defendants a chance to provide evidence that a short-barrelled shotgun could contribute to "the efficiency of a well-regulated militia." (The Court was apparently unaware of the use of short-barreled shotguns in trench warfare during World War I. [http://nraila.org/FactSheets.a...mMode=Detail&ID=17] )
Note, Miller only required evidence that the weapon contribute to the efficiency of a well-regulated militia. The Court never said the defendants had to belong to a well-regulated militia. In other words the Miller case interpreted the Second Amendment to mean one has the right to own militia type weapons.
The defendants had not appeared for their Supreme Court hearing and they had no legal representation as well! Miller was murdered in April of 1939 (one month before the Court's decision). After the decision, Layton pleaded guilty to transporting a sawed-off shotgun, and received five year's probation. [http://rkba.org/research/miller/Miller.html] ) And so even though the case had been remanded, it was never tried in the lower courts.
In its brief the U.S. government argued the "collective rights" theory.
More importantly please read how the Miller case has been mis-cited by some federal courts and how some rulings are simply based on judges own feelings, desires, and values rather than the rule of law and valid evidence.
Though some circuit courts have adopted a "collective rights" theory of Miller (see the link in the previous paragraph), the first circuit court to analyze Miller held a weapon centric view of the case. However, it did not feel "that the Supreme Court in this case was attempting to formulate a general rule applicable to all cases" because it would "in effect hold that the limitation of the Second Amendment is absolute." (Cases v. U.S., 131 F.2d 916 (1st Cir. 1942), cert. denied, 319 U.S. 770 (1943).)
Many years later, Justice Hugo Black (one of the judges who decided Miller), commenting on the Second Amendment said,
Although the Supreme Court has held this Amendment to include only arms necessary to a well-regulated militia, as so construed, its prohibition is absolute. (Black, Hugo, The Bill of Rights, New York University Law Review, Vol. 35, April 1960.)
Read the full case here:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/...;vol=307&invol=174
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,418
- 19,826
- 146
Finally, the Bill of Rights is about INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS. That was the basis for our country in the first place. To argue that one of the Amendments is about "collective rights" is absurd. Especially when in EVERY OTHER USAGE, the term "the people" refers to individuals. If the states are mentioned, they are mentioned as "the states" and totally seperate from "the people."
The ACLU is dead wrong on this issue and their argument is laughably weak.
The ACLU is dead wrong on this issue and their argument is laughably weak.
The answer is that they defend acts which offend the sensibilities of some people.
The constitution grants certain freedoms, however one of them is not freedom from being offended. You can be offended by how people choose to use their right to free speech, but they still have that right.
The ACLU has represented both the far left and far right wing, from the Black Panthers to the KKK.
The constitution grants certain freedoms, however one of them is not freedom from being offended. You can be offended by how people choose to use their right to free speech, but they still have that right.
The ACLU has represented both the far left and far right wing, from the Black Panthers to the KKK.
March 4, 2002
Gun Control
"Why doesn't the ACLU support an individual's
unlimited right to keep and bear arms?"
BACKGROUND
The ACLU has often been criticized for "ignoring the Second Amendment" and refusing to fight for the individual's right to own a gun or other weapons. This issue, however, has not been ignored by the ACLU. The national board has in fact debated and discussed the civil liberties aspects of the Second Amendment many times.
We believe that the constitutional right to bear arms is primarily a collective one, intended mainly to protect the right of the states to maintain militias to assure their own freedom and security against the central government. In today's world, that idea is somewhat anachronistic and in any case would require weapons much more powerful than handguns or hunting rifles. The ACLU therefore believes that the Second Amendment does not confer an unlimited right upon individuals to own guns or other weapons nor does it prohibit reasonable regulation of gun ownership, such as licensing and registration.
IN BRIEF
The national ACLU is neutral on the issue of gun control. We believe that the Constitution contains no barriers to reasonable regulations of gun ownership. If we can license and register cars, we can license and register guns.
Most opponents of gun control concede that the Second Amendment certainly does not guarantee an individual's right to own bazookas, missiles or nuclear warheads. Yet these, like rifles, pistols and even submachine guns, are arms.
The question therefore is not whether to restrict arms ownership, but how much to restrict it. If that is a question left open by the Constitution, then it is a question for Congress to decide.
ACLU POLICY
"The ACLU agrees with the Supreme Court's long-standing interpretation of the Second Amendment [as set forth in the 1939 case, U.S. v. Miller] that the individual's right to bear arms applies only to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia. Except for lawful police and military purposes, the possession of weapons by individuals is not constitutionally protected. Therefore, there is no constitutional impediment to the regulation of firearms." --Policy #47
ARGUMENTS, FACTS, QUOTES
"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 Second Amendment to the Constitution
"Since the Second Amendment. . . applies only to the right of the State to
maintain a militia and not to the individual's right to bear arms, there
can be no serious claim to any express constitutional right to possess a firearm."
U.S. v. Warin (6th Circuit, 1976)
Unless the Constitution protects the individual's right to own all kinds of arms, there is no principled way to oppose reasonable restrictions on handguns, Uzis or semi-automatic rifles.
If indeed the Second Amendment provides an absolute, constitutional protection for the right to bear arms in order to preserve the power of the people to resist government tyranny, then it must allow individuals to possess bazookas, torpedoes, SCUD missiles and even nuclear warheads, for they, like handguns, rifles and M-16s, are arms. Moreover, it is hard to imagine any serious resistance to the military without such arms. Yet few, if any, would argue that the Second Amendment gives individuals the unlimited right to own any weapons they please. But as soon as we allow governmental regulation of any weapons, we have broken the dam of Constitutional protection. Once that dam is broken, we are not talking about whether the government can constitutionally restrict arms, but rather what constitutes a reasonable restriction.
The 1939 case U.S. v. Miller is the only modern case in which the Supreme Court has addressed this issue. A unanimous Court ruled that the Second Amendment must be interpreted as intending to guarantee the states' rights to maintain and train a militia. "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a shotgun having a barrel of less than 18 inches in length at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument," the Court said.
In subsequent years, the Court has refused to address the issue. It routinely denies cert. to almost all Second Amendment cases. In 1983, for example, it let stand a 7th Circuit decision upholding an ordinance in Morton Grove, Illinois, which banned possession of handguns within its borders. The case, Quilici v. Morton Grove 695 F.2d 261 (7th Cir. 1982), cert. denied 464 U.S. 863 (1983), is considered by many to be the most important modern gun control case.
A Link to the actual court decision to read instead of some lawyers interpretation (that amused linked):
http://www.fedworld.gov/cgi-bi...mp;waisaction=retrieve
And the lovely naughty bit from the actual decision.
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
So on the one hand, I can't have a sawed-off shotgun because it's not a military weapon; on the other hand, I can't have an M-16 because it is a military weapon.
Their "nuclear warhead" argument is ridiculous. It's "keep and bear arms", not "keep and bear ordnance".
Their "nuclear warhead" argument is ridiculous. It's "keep and bear arms", not "keep and bear ordnance".
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,418
- 19,826
- 146
This is the entire meat of the ACLU's claim, and it is a FRAUD. The Miller court NEVER said the militia was a "state's right." It would be ABSURD to do so, since the term "the people" is used to describe the right. The "militia" refered to in the Bill of Rights AND the Miller court is the citizen militia comprised of every abled bodied man. In other words, THE PEOPLE. And that means individuals.
I gave a link to the full Miller case. Please show where it says "state militia." IT DOES NOT.
The ACLU is trying to turn an individual right into a "collective" right and that is a very dangerous thing. Don't think so? If they can make this claim about the 2nd and have it believed, how many more amendments can this be done to?
Again, the ACLUs arguement is nonsense and weak
So the START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) is just a figment of your imagination? For the purposes of this argument you cannot call a Nuclear Armarment Arms! Is a Bazooka an armament? Can you own one? What about a SAM, armament? Can you own one? How about a TOW missle? Own one? Or are they all not arms?
The fact of the matter is that the Supreme court has refused to hear every second amendment challenge since 1939, including the 1983 judgement listed, Brady challenges and many others.
Yes, because when you don't like the definition of the word refuse to acknowledge it, and if that fails mention "common sense".
Main Entry: arm
Function: noun
Usage: often attributive
Etymology: Middle English armes (plural) weapons, from Old French, from Latin arma
1 a : a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : FIREARM b : a combat branch (as of an army) c : an organized branch of national defense (as the navy)
2 plural a : the hereditary heraldic devices of a family b : heraldic devices adopted by a government
3 plural a : active hostilities : WARFARE b : military service
- up in arms : aroused and ready to undertake hostilities
One question amused did you read the actual judgement I linked? Did you notice the court extensively studied what a millitia was and it actually listed the laws from about 6 states?
[edit]
[/edit]
Bulk Beef
Diamond Member
- Aug 14, 2001
- 5,466
- 0
- 76
peo·ple
n. pl. people
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: ?those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes? (Thomas Jefferson).
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people.
8. Family, relatives, or ancestors.
9. Informal. Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods.
n. pl. people
1. Humans considered as a group or in indefinite numbers: People were dancing in the street. I met all sorts of people.
2. A body of persons living in the same country under one national government; a nationality.
3. pl. peo·ples A body of persons sharing a common religion, culture, language, or inherited condition of life.
4. Persons with regard to their residence, class, profession, or group: city people.
5. The mass of ordinary persons; the populace. Used with the: ?those who fear and distrust the people, and wish to draw all powers from them into the hands of the higher classes? (Thomas Jefferson).
6. The citizens of a political unit, such as a nation or state; the electorate. Used with the.
7. Persons subordinate to or loyal to a ruler, superior, or employer: The queen showed great compassion for her people.
8. Family, relatives, or ancestors.
9. Informal. Animals or other beings distinct from humans: Rabbits and squirrels are the furry little people of the woods.
At the time the constitution was written, "arms" were firearms, including pistols, rifles, etc. "Ordnance" included cannons and such. The argument that howitzers, tanks and nuclear weapons are "arms" fits into the general definition, but not the useage in the constitution.
That's like saying that soldiers can be quartered in an apartment because it isn't a "house."
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,418
- 19,826
- 146
You would do good to actually read my post. I linked to Miller first.
And it says this:
THIS is their accepted definition of the term "militia." Learn to comprehend what you read.
It then goes on to see what state constitutions may say. But it NEVER uses the term "state militia." Nor does it come to the conclusion that the 2nd is some absurd "collective right."
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,418
- 19,826
- 146
Nice. Use modern definitions to explain a 220+ year old document. Historians ALL agree that in Colonial times "arms" meant weapons that could be carried. This included knives, swords, rifles and pistols. Dictionaries of the time had a separate definition for "ordinance" (as it was spelled then) meaning cannon. Any hand held, non-ordnance type weapons, are theoretically constitutionally protected. Obviously nuclear weapons, tanks, rockets, fighter planes, and submarines are not.
Amused
Elite Member
- Apr 14, 2001
- 57,418
- 19,826
- 146
Meanwhile, why quibble over a court finding some 160 years after the fact?
My challenge:
Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
The ACLU is flatly wrong.
My challenge:
Provide an authentic, verifiable quote from one of the Founding Fathers, or a 19th century Supreme Court decision indicating that the Second Amendment was meant to apply solely to a well-regulated militia.
The clear intent of our Founding Fathers:
"The Constitution preserves the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."
--James Madison; The Federalist, No. 46
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
---George Mason
"That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, composed of the Body of the People, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe Defence of a free state."
-- Within Mason's declaration of "the essential and unalienable Rights of the People
"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
--Alexander Hamilton The Federalist, No. 29
"The said Constitution [shall] be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."
--Samuel Adams; Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention, 1788
"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."
--Thomas Paine Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775
"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms... disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
--- Thomas Jefferson's "Commonplace Book," 1774
"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
--Richard Henry Lee; Additional Letters From The Federal Farmer, 1788
"The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them." -- An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . . The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe; The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
-- Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power."
--Noah Webster; An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
The ACLU is flatly wrong.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter