Moderators: carlson1, Charles L. Cotton
[youtube][/youtube]Not Me wrote:I had Professor Malcolm for two different classes in law school. At least as of last year she still hadn't fired a gun. Her book on the historical origins of the right to keep and bear arms was heavily relied on by the Heller court.
Thanks!baldeagle wrote:You can watch the entire (almost) 2 hour documentary here: " onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
It is particularly interesting to note that the very argument that liberals make in opposition to the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects us from a tyrannical government is that we would not be able to withstand the force of the US military. Yet this is the very argument that Madison addressed; that the huge number of armed citizens would serve as a check against any government wanting to subjugate us. Thus the very argument that won the day for the 2nd Amendment is the one that liberals now laugh at and mock as being completely unrealistic.The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Prescient.baldeagle wrote:One portion of the documentary addresses the arguments that formulated the final version of the 2nd Amendment. James Madison was a leader of the effort to amend the Constitution to add the Bill of Rights to the newly ratified Constitution. In Federalist 46 Madison addresses the RKBA thus:
It is particularly interesting to note that the very argument that liberals make in opposition to the idea that the 2nd Amendment protects us from a tyrannical government is that we would not be able to withstand the force of the US military. Yet this is the very argument that Madison addressed; that the huge number of armed citizens would serve as a check against any government wanting to subjugate us. Thus the very argument that won the day for the 2nd Amendment is the one that liberals now laugh at and mock as being completely unrealistic.The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. The reasonings contained in these papers must have been employed to little purpose indeed, if it could be necessary now to disprove the reality of this danger. That the people and the States should, for a sufficient period of time, elect an uninterupted succession of men ready to betray both; that the traitors should, throughout this period, uniformly and systematically pursue some fixed plan for the extension of the military establishment; that the governments and the people of the States should silently and patiently behold the gathering storm, and continue to supply the materials, until it should be prepared to burst on their own heads, must appear to every one more like the incoherent dreams of a delirious jealousy, or the misjudged exaggerations of a counterfeit zeal, than like the sober apprehensions of genuine patriotism. Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it. Let us not insult the free and gallant citizens of America with the suspicion, that they would be less able to defend the rights of which they would be in actual possession, than the debased subjects of arbitrary power would be to rescue theirs from the hands of their oppressors. Let us rather no longer insult them with the supposition that they can ever reduce themselves to the necessity of making the experiment, by a blind and tame submission to the long train of insidious measures which must precede and produce it.
Knowing this would help every American understand why it is so important that we be disarmed and why we must rebel against it with the same fervor that our forefathers did, which led to the Revolution that formed our country.
C-dub wrote:I've only watched 4 of the 12 parts so far, but WOW!!! Every legislator should know this. I bet DiFi doesn't know about it and she claims to be a constitutional scholar?! Well, I was going to make the same claim about our President, but there was something mentioned in the second part about how to go about disarming the people and it is what/how they are attempting to do that now. Maybe they do know this.
TxLobo wrote:Tagged so I can remember to check it later tonight..
Why yes, yes I am. Aren't we all? Plan for the worst, but hope for the best.VMI77 wrote:C-dub wrote:I've only watched 4 of the 12 parts so far, but WOW!!! Every legislator should know this. I bet DiFi doesn't know about it and she claims to be a constitutional scholar?! Well, I was going to make the same claim about our President, but there was something mentioned in the second part about how to go about disarming the people and it is what/how they are attempting to do that now. Maybe they do know this.
You must be the eternal optimist. DiFi and her ilk aren't ignorant of the Constitution, they plain don't care what it says.
