TexasCHLforum.com

This was written by the nephew of a friend. The author is a young marine, and he has a very interesting concept on the 2nd Amendment. The friend (his aunt) is a classic Boston liberal). You can image some of the "discussions" we have had on this very topic. Interesting read. Let me know what you think about his ideas.

http://ireport.cnn.com/docs/DOC-819622" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

skimmed/speedread the article, not bad but he should go back further in time if he weants to be accurate.

He proposes a supposed reason that the 2A was passed, and supports his premise with/he cites things post/AFTER 2A was already ratified,

Militia Act of 1792,

1903, the Militia Act

and he should instead look into what State Speeches were made in order to get 2A ratified by the States and pre-ratification propaganda/literature which prompted the ratification.


Such as

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In Pennsylvania, a delegate argued "Congress may give us a select militia which will, in fact, be a standing army — or Congress, afraid of a general militia, may say there will be no militia at all. When a select militia is formed, the people in general may be disarmed." 34 Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia.

So, Amendment 2 was written. If a general militia/standing army is a necessary evil, (comma) the right of the People shall not be infringed ...
(Also, The People/property owners needed protection from Quartering armed Soldiers, hence, Amendment 3 was written about 45 minutes after Amendment 2, with Amendment 2 providing the ways and means to ensure Amendment 3 without day ... not waiting for a Court Decision on whether the soldiers/general militia were correct in eating all your food and taking your home ... and later write an apology card or get one from a HallMark Card Shop)


viewtopic.php?f=94&t=55447" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

His intentions are good, his history research stopped short.... he needs to research back further in time for accuracy's sake.

Rex B wrote:The friend (his aunt) is a classic Boston liberal Jew).

Is that different than the classic Boston Liberal Christian/Muslim/Buddhist/Atheist/Agnostic/etc?

I only mention that because she wears her racial identity with her liberalness on her sleeve.
She thinks it has a bearing on everything that goes on around her.

I have other friends of Jewish ancestry that are very conservative.

The lack of understanding due to insufficient research is apparent in the first paragraph's faulty Premise statement

the underlying purpose of the right to bear arms... i.e. the well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state.

Actually, It was written about 45 minutes prior to the third amendment, with the same thought in mind.
So,
the underlying purpose of the right to bear arms...
is the right to protect ourselves from harm or disarmament or unjust forcible divestment of property by the militia ... which is what the speeches and literature printed prior to the ratification suggested, therefore it was ratified.


He says

The Militia Act of 1792, passed into law less than a year after the Bill of Rights

Obviously it was not ratified "because of" the LATER written Militia Act of 1792 which is what he seems to try to suggest.

He had an idea, he researched only enough to justify his argument but his initial premise as stated is faulty and his research into history upon which his premise is founded is lacking, else he'd notice that..
He needs to research...

Interesting that CNN and the MSM write all sorts of articles containing opinions generated by various schoolmarms, opinionated professors, and politicians who recently arrived in the country, yet rarely ask descendants of the authors of the documents, or even ask the Sons/Daughters of the American Revolution groups to comment etc. The printed pamphlets the speeches are mostly available, but it's easier to ask an opinionated professor why ... one that'll give an answer that says what you want.

Hey Gents,

My Aunt's friend Rex directed me towards this forum. I'd like to clear a couple things up, if I may. I've studied the speeches, literature, propaganda, debates and proposals that were given by the several states when they were ratifying their state-wide rights to bear arms. I've also studied the same for the proposals surrounding the Federal Bill of Rights. In writing my article, I didn't feel that a mention of those "extras" was necessary to get my point across. I also believe 110%, just as you gentlemen do, that the purpose of the drafting and ratification of each and every right to bear arms at every level was in order to protect the rights of individual citizens to take up arms in defense of tyranny, and for all other lawful purposes. However, as my story was geared towards an American population largely unaware of the detailed history of our founding as a a nation, I felt it best to keep it short and sweet, including brief references to how the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and also giving the political motivations behind the preferatory clause of the amendment, which, as we all know, was included as a check on the power of the federal government. In developing this proposal, I had to come up with something that was not only constitutional and historically accurate, but also that both sides could agree on. Washington is in a stalemate, and our full Second Amendment rights aren't going to be restored through conventional means anytime soon. We have to get creative and think about ways of restoring liberty "outside the box" so-to-speak. This means a degree of compromise, yes. But it also means that we would soon have the right to carry battlefield weapons on our physical persons every day, everywhere we go, without fear of harassment, arrest, jail time or other penalties. I merely used the historical and still currently legal status of the Unorganized Militia as a vehicle to get us there, while letting moderates and gun control advocates take comfort and victory in the fact that all those carrying such weapons will be of a stable mental status, and free of VIOLENT felony convictions, as well as thoroughly trained in the use of their arms. As the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Bill would all be repealed under this Militia Act, there would be no more prohibited purchasers of basic arms, nor background checks, so even those with history of mental illness and violent felonies would be able to have a means of defending themselves, though an admittedly less effective means than the rest of the population. ONLY those found to be criminally insane and/or having a history of VIOLENT felony convictions would be prohibited from militia service, and prohibited from possession of battlefield weaponry. In other words, Michael Vick and Martha Stewart could go buy their machine guns. In my opinion, this is a pretty good deal... But then again I wrote the proposal

CTMarine87 wrote:Hey Gents,

My Aunt's friend Rex directed me towards this forum. I'd like to clear a couple things up, if I may. I've studied the speeches, literature, propaganda, debates and proposals that were given by the several states when they were ratifying their state-wide rights to bear arms. I've also studied the same for the proposals surrounding the Federal Bill of Rights. In writing my article, I didn't feel that a mention of those "extras" was necessary to get my point across. I also believe 110%, just as you gentlemen do, that the purpose of the drafting and ratification of each and every right to bear arms at every level was in order to protect the rights of individual citizens to take up arms in defense of tyranny, and for all other lawful purposes. However, as my story was geared towards an American population largely unaware of the detailed history of our founding as a a nation, I felt it best to keep it short and sweet, including brief references to how the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and also giving the political motivations behind the preferatory clause of the amendment, which, as we all know, was included as a check on the power of the federal government. In developing this proposal, I had to come up with something that was not only constitutional and historically accurate, but also that both sides could agree on. Washington is in a stalemate, and our full Second Amendment rights aren't going to be restored through conventional means anytime soon. We have to get creative and think about ways of restoring liberty "outside the box" so-to-speak. This means a degree of compromise, yes. But it also means that we would soon have the right to carry battlefield weapons on our physical persons every day, everywhere we go, without fear of harassment, arrest, jail time or other penalties. I merely used the historical and still currently legal status of the Unorganized Militia as a vehicle to get us there, while letting moderates and gun control advocates take comfort and victory in the fact that all those carrying such weapons will be of a stable mental status, and free of VIOLENT felony convictions, as well as thoroughly trained in the use of their arms. As the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the Brady Bill would all be repealed under this Militia Act, there would be no more prohibited purchasers of basic arms, nor background checks, so even those with history of mental illness and violent felonies would be able to have a means of defending themselves, though an admittedly less effective means than the rest of the population. ONLY those found to be criminally insane and/or having a history of VIOLENT felony convictions would be prohibited from militia service, and prohibited from possession of battlefield weaponry. In other words, Michael Vick and Martha Stewart could go buy their machine guns. In my opinion, this is a pretty good deal... But then again I wrote the proposal

First off, thank you for your service. While I understand the intent of what you are doing, the thing that worries me is the thing that worries me with any law: amendments to bills. This is the FEDERAL government we are talking about, right? And Congress, that is full of people like Chucky Schumer, Carolyn McCarthy, Dianne Feinstein, Frank Lautenberg, and the rest of the rogues' gallery of anti-Second Amendment, anti-firearms, and anti-self-defense Senators and Representatives. As soon as I read what you had written, I pictured amendments being "offered" to the bill (for NATIONAL SECURITY and the other old standby SAFETY, of course) to ensure that these militia folks could ___________________________ (fill in the blank with things like doing 100 pushups, running two miles, trained in first aid, attend firearms qualification classes every six months, etc while building a new Federal bureaucracy to ensure all of it). Do not get me wrong; I LOATHE the NFA of 1934, the GCA of 1968 and all the rest of that mess. And I applaud you trying to come up with a good solution. But once again, this is the Feds, and the DEMOCRAT PARTY you are up against...even if you talked the Republicans into it, you'd NEVER get the bulk of the Democrats on-board, or if you did, it would be with so many "strings" attached as to make the original bill useless or even dangerous to our rights. I don't think there can be a blanket panacea for our firearms rights being infringed, just a long, slow grind back to where we started, so to speak. Thank you again for your service and I hope you have a good day.

"In light of the passage of the Militia Act, the State of New York has declared that the state has sufficient numbers of police and national guard units for any contingency. New York will not grant additional IDs to non-police or non-National Guard individuals for any reason. Ownership of any weapons, other than specific single-shot rifles and shotguns outlined in the regulations below, is a felony punishable by no less than 20 years in prison."


Anytime somebody proposes a new law, I fantasize what that law will look like after it passes through congress. Most times it looks a lot like hay, after it has passed through a horse.

CTMarine87 wrote:Hey Gents,

Welcome to the forum Marine.

OldCannon wrote:"In light of the passage of the Militia Act, the State of New York has declared that the state has sufficient numbers of police and national guard units for any contingency. New York will not grant additional IDs to non-police or non-National Guard individuals for any reason. Ownership of any weapons, other than specific single-shot rifles and shotguns outlined in the regulations below, is a felony punishable by no less than 20 years in prison."


Anytime somebody proposes a new law, I fantasize what that law will look like after it passes through congress. Most times it looks a lot like hay, after it has passed through a horse.

I know it could be possible, but couldn't it also be possible to prevent that from happening within a bill? I don't have the answer, but I do see conservatives paralyzed by fear of the possibility of what the liberals might try. The problem is that we, conservatives, are truly concerned what others think, while liberals don't care.

C-dub wrote:

OldCannon wrote:"In light of the passage of the Militia Act, the State of New York has declared that the state has sufficient numbers of police and national guard units for any contingency. New York will not grant additional IDs to non-police or non-National Guard individuals for any reason. Ownership of any weapons, other than specific single-shot rifles and shotguns outlined in the regulations below, is a felony punishable by no less than 20 years in prison."


Anytime somebody proposes a new law, I fantasize what that law will look like after it passes through congress. Most times it looks a lot like hay, after it has passed through a horse.

I know it could be possible, but couldn't it also be possible to prevent that from happening within a bill? I don't have the answer, but I do see conservatives paralyzed by fear of the possibility of what the liberals might try. The problem is that we, conservatives, are truly concerned what others think, while liberals don't care.

You're thinking at the Texas level too much. Federal level, no way. CA and NY wield WAY too much power over bills.

CTMarine87 welcome to the forum
I admire you writing to try to help secure rights.

CTMarine87 wrote: I'd like to clear a couple things up, if I may. I've studied the speeches, literature, propaganda, debates and proposals that were given by the several states when they were ratifying their state-wide rights to bear arms. I've also studied the same for the proposals surrounding the Federal Bill of Rights. In writing my article, I didn't feel that a mention of those "extras" was necessary to get my point across. I also believe 110%, just as you gentlemen do, that the purpose of the drafting and ratification of each and every right to bear arms at every level was in order to protect the rights of individual citizens to take up arms in defense of tyranny, and for all other lawful purposes. However, as my story was geared towards an American population largely unaware of the detailed history of our founding as a a nation, I felt it best to keep it short and sweet, including brief references to how the 2nd Amendment is an individual right, and also giving the political motivations behind the preferatory clause of the amendment, which, as we all know, was included as a check on the power of the federal government.

Ok, I understand your rationale for doing it so "it would be accepted" by more ... and in the interest of brevity so people wouldn't stop reading too quickly etc etc etc ...so if you know the history/did do the research, but presented the article in that way due to limited space/ so it could get printed/published rather than rejected etc.

But realize my point that... it does make the original purpose less clear ... which is something my family has had to deal with the former Governing body in Virginia before there was a United States.. when some came wanting to take the guns (and property) away.

OldCannon wrote:"In light of the passage of the Militia Act, the State of New York has declared that the state has sufficient numbers of police and national guard units for any contingency. New York will not grant additional IDs to non-police or non-National Guard individuals for any reason. Ownership of any weapons, other than specific single-shot rifles and shotguns outlined in the regulations below, is a felony punishable by no less than 20 years in prison."


Anytime somebody proposes a new law, I fantasize what that law will look like after it passes through congress. Most times it looks a lot like hay, after it has passed through a horse.

Exactly and THAT is
the original underlying purpose of the right to bear arms...
is the PEOPLE's right to protect ourselves from harm or disarmament or unjust forcible divestment of property by the militia must never be forgotten

[Remember how everyone went "huh?" when Dr. Suzanna Gratia Hupp said "It has nothing to do with hunting, it's to protect US from YOU (the legislators/government) guys.]

Pretending that there's some OTHER purpose will make people forget. It's isn't hunting, it isn't 3-gun nor competitive shooting ... it (specifically the 2A, [rather than the RKBA which is not given by any government, but is a right even where there is no government]) isn't so the Indians wouldn't be divested of Property in violation of the Treaty of Middle Plantation which existed prior to anyone thinking of an American Revolution against England..

it's to protect US from YOU (the legislators/government) guys specifically the only ones to fear, being the ones with weapons-> army/navy/air force/marines/national guard/Coast Guard/Border Patrol/BATFE/FBI/CIA/NCIS and all the other"armed government standing armies with guns" a/k/a the Militia.
[youtube][/youtube]

Any diluting of the history of the true underlying purpose, by bringing up a "new" proposition" that the purpose of 2A was (whatever other reason someone makes up) like ...
....to form militias. or to make every male a militia or because a Psychic with a crystal ball said hey, some day you'll institute a draft for world wars and such so, like Israel, every person male and female becomes part of the armed forces, just muddies the waters/buries it in the mud so it gets harder to dig up later when a constitutional challenge to New York's statement above comes up and the Federal Courts examine "What they decided before" (Precedent) even though that may be "bad law" instead of the actual "Legislative History" of the Second Amendment. There was a reason things were written, and a reason they were written as they were, IMHO, the original should be preserved, else you end up with the "New Improved Revised Standard Edition per-Version" and it gets tougher to explain later.

Just for Example's sake: one version of scripture says "the man with a fan in his hand, while another version says the man with a fork (pitchfork like on a farm) in his hand. Both utilized at one time a mental picture of tossing wheat into the air and moving air/wind separating wheat from chaff, yet nowadays fewer know what a pitchfork is and the mental picture is a guy at a dinner table with a fork and spoon ... so more needs explaining when more than one version exists (I'll not comment on whether fork or fan is correct, that's beyond the scope of the point I'm making.)

First, thank you gentlemen for welcoming me to the forum so warmly, and for the wise advice and caution you have given me. I really appreciate it I am looking for ways to improve this proposal, and keep it from being turned into something that it wasn't meant to be. I was impressed by the comments of one person in particular on my article, and I'd like to post them here to receive your thoughts and opinions on it:

BoringGuy45:

"Some good points and I agree on many. I think that the country, which is pretty vulnerable to attack if early warning, coast, and boarder defenses are penetrated, would be well served by what would amount to a multimillion-strong trained citizen army. Also, countries like Israel and Switzerland, which have universal conscription, have among the lowest crime rates in the world. A regulated citizen militia here in the U.S. would also aid in natural disaster response in their respective states. On top of that, it would also create jobs and at least SOME supplemental income for just about everyone.

HOWEVER, here are a few pitfalls that I don't think you addressed with this.

First, there is the issue of states simply finding easy and numerous reasons to disqualify large numbers of people from militia service. This hypothetical act would need to be emphasized that militia service, like bearing arms, is a RIGHT as well as a duty. This right, like all others, would not be able to be taken away except for cause and through due process. If disqualification from militia service is allowed to be decided medically or administratively, it would allow states to fully deny a right based on a single person or agency's decision. Unless convicted of a felony, domestic violence, hard drug use, or adjudicated mentally defective, ALL citizens should be able to service in the militia. Standards should probably be that less than 5% of the population would be ineligible for militia service. Because, as it is, only about 2-3% of the population are criminals, severely mentally ill, or both. So just about everyone needs to have this right. No disqualification from the militia should be allowed except by cause and by court decision.

The next issue is the one of physical and mental qualifications. Now, I don't know if you said it and I didn't read it, but the standards for the militia MUST be MUCH lower than that of the regular military. Diagnosis and treatment for physical ailments, such as asthma, diabetes, etc., that are disqualifying for military service, should not bar citizens from the militia. Mental conditions, such as depression or anxiety, which is disqualifying from military service, should not disqualify anyone from service unless, once again, it can be shown that the person is an immanent threat to him/herself or others.

Another issue is the one of mandatory and severe sentencing for non-militia in possession of military weapons. I'm also very much against mandatory, zero tolerance policies as they remove discretion and common sense. Everything needs to be evaluated on a case by case basis."

CTMarine87:

"I agree with literally everything you said. Those issues have all been raised privately to me from other gun-rights advocates, as well. You have my word that if my proposal gains nationwide awareness and popularity, (and that's a HUGE "if,") I will make sure that this does not become a tool for either mass disarmament or a select militia, which the founders spoke explicitly against."

I don't want to give the wrong impression about my responses, btw. I think this approach has merit, but without it getting House and Senate sponsorship, and without an executive with a spine, this can't see the light of day.

Moreover, as I've implied before, the left states will sniff this out as an erosion of whatever control they still have, and will fight it tooth-and nail. If we take the senate and POTUS this Nov, you may only have a two year window to get it passed (just like the Dems did with Obamacare).

OldCannon wrote:Anytime somebody proposes a new law, I fantasize what that law will look like after it passes through congress. Most times it looks a lot like hay, after it has passed through a horse.

Pure gold. I'm stealing that one.