This is one of the best description of the second amendment and where our rights come from that I have ever read. It's a bit long but you will learn a tremendous amount about an important subject.
~Brogie
We don't need no
steenking 2nd Amendment
By John Silveira
http://www.backwoodshome.com/articles/silveira58.html
I usually get up to the magazine from southern California in plenty of time for the bimonthly deadline. Not this issue. I was late and way behind. But getting up here late doesn't lessen my workload; it just stretches out the number of hours I have to work each day. There's less time to relax, visit, or spend with friends. That said, three of us, Dave Duffy, O.E. MacDougal, and I went shooting anyway and depreciated a huge amount of ammunition on a hillside up behind Duffy's house. Duffy, of course, is the fellow who publishes this magazine. Mac is Dave's poker-playing friend from the old days.
After a hard day of knocking down cans and collecting brass, we got back to the office and discovered that Dave's old college buddy, Bill, had stopped by. Dave and Bill began talking about old times, but the phone rang and took Dave out of the conversation.
I, in the meantime, had disassembled my rifle and there were pieces in my lap and some on my desk. Mac was off in the corner reading a copy of the last issue of BHM.
"What are you doing with that?" Bill asked.
I looked up. He was talking to me. I looked down in my lap at the gun parts I had there. "I'm cleaning it," I said.
"What do you need it for?" he asked.
"I don't usually clean them but..."
"No, not why do you need to clean it, why do you need a gun?"
"Why do I need it?"
"Yes."
"I want it," I said.
"But why do you need one?" he persisted.
"Need one?" I asked again, not understanding his question. "I don't follow you."
"How many guns do you have?"
"You mean 'own' or how many did I bring up with me?"
My question seemed to put him off.
"How many do you own?" he asked in a voice that was tinged with exasperation. "How many guns do you have here, there, and everywhere?" I thought a minute. "About a dozen."
He screwed up his face. "What do you need 12 guns for? If you need a gun, one should be enough."
"Enough for what?"
"What do you need a gun for?"
The meaning of the 2nd Amendment
He was back to that. "I don't know where this is going. I don't even understand your question," I said. "I don't have to need a gun to own one any more than I need a CD player or a couch to own one of those. The 2nd Amendment says I can have them. It doesn't say I have to show a need and it doesn't limit the number I can own."
Bill shook his head. "So, you're one of those."
Dave finished his call and turned to us as he hung up and said, "Bill, what do you mean by needing a gun?"
"The 2nd Amendment isn't about you guys owning guns," Bill said. "It's about the state having guns. It says you're only allowed guns if you're part of the militia and I don't see any of you guys with uniforms. The 2nd Amendment is about the National Guard."
"I don't think that's what it means," Dave said.
"It says it right in the amendment. It's for the militia. You can even ask Mac," he said and pumped his thumb back to the corner where Mac was quietly reading. "I'll bet even he agrees with me."
I think Bill was baiting Mac. He and Mac had had a lively discussion about our rights the last time Bill was here about two years ago (Issue No. 44 March/April 1997). But Mac didn't look up. He just kept reading.
Dave got out of his seat and pulled down the almanac from the bookcase and flipped through the pages.
Then he began to read, "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."
"See," Bill said. "It's about having a well regulated militia. Militia--that's military. It's not about you."
"Well, a whole bunch of people think it's about individual gun ownership", Dave said.
"But it's not. Read the amendment again. It's about the militia. It's only you gun nuts who think it's about you."
I shrugged. The wording of the 2nd Amendment has always bothered me.
But Dave looked off into the corner to where Mac was still reading. "What do you think?" he asked.
Mac just looked at us and smiled, then went back to his magazine.
"See," Bill said. "Even he knows it's about the National Guard, not you guys."
"The National Guard didn't exist when the 2nd Amendment was written. It came into existence over a century later," Mac said without looking up and he continued to read.
"What?" Dave asked.
"I said the 2nd Amendment isn't about the National Guard. The Bill of Rights was adopted in 1791. The act that created the National Guard wasn't enacted until 1903."
"Well, you know what I mean," Bill said. "It's to allow the states to have state police and things like that."
Mac continued to read.
"Is that true?" I asked.
Mac looked up when he realized I was talking to him.
"You mean was it for the state police and such?" he asked me.
"Yes," I replied.
"No."
Bill smiled. "Mac, it says right there in black and white--Dave just read it to us--that it's to ensure we have a well regulated militia."
I looked expectantly to Mac who seemed to be getting impatient because he really was trying to read.
"Could you give us a little input into this?" I asked him.
"I can tell you that when the Founding Fathers used the word militia, it meant something different to them than what it means to us now," and he continued reading.
"Is that all you've got to say?" I asked.
He looked at me, then back at his magazine. He knew we weren't going to let him stay out of this and he reluctantly closed it.
What is the militia?
Now that I had him I asked, "What's this about how the guys who founded this country used the word militia?"
"You've got to understand what the militia is," he said. "In May of 1792, five months after the adoption of the 2nd Amendment, the Militia Act was passed. That act distinguished between the enrolled militia and the organized militia. Before the passing- of that act, there was only the enrolled militia, which was the body of all able-bodied men between the ages of 17 and 44, inclusively, and it is that militia to which the 2nd Amendment refers. It couldn't refer to the organized militia because it didn't exist yet. The 2nd Amendment was to ensure that this body of citizens is armed and that's why the Founding Fathers thought to place it in the Bill of Rights. Legally, both militias still exist."
"Are you saying I'm in some militia?" Bill asked derisively.
"By law, you were. I would guess that, by now, you're over that age."
"So, you're also saying only people between 17 and 44 are allowed guns, right?"
"No," Mac replied. "That's just the ages of the body of men constituting the militia. The amendment says the people can both keep and bear arms.
It's usually been construed to mean all the people."
"I don't believe you."
Mac shrugged, reopened his magazine and resumed reading.
"What don't you believe?" I asked.
"Anything. First, I don't believe that I'm part of any militia or ever was. Second, I don't believe that the 2nd Amendment refers to the people at large and not the army or some other state or federal organization."
"I still don't get this thing about the organized and the enrolled militia?" Dave said.
Mac put the magazine down again. He shook his head and muttered something about fishing in Alaska from now on. He got up out of his chair and walked out the door. Through the window we could see him in the parking lot fishing around in the trunk of his car until he finally pulled something out. It was a tattered black briefcase. He carried it back into the office and put it on the desk next to his magazine. He opened the briefcase and took out a sheaf of papers and fanned through them. "I was looking up some stuff on the 2nd Amendment for a lawyer friend I play poker with down south," he said, meaning southern California, "and I still have some of the papers."
He stopped fanning them.
"Here are copies of the Militia Act," he said and held them out to Bill. "They explain what the militia meant to the Founding Fathers. They also show that the 2nd Amendment came before Federal law created the organized militia and provide evidence that what they referred to as the enrolled militia--the body of citizens--were allowed to arm themselves."
Bill waved them away. "All that happened 200 years ago," Bill said. "Militia means something else today. It means the military."
"No, the law hasn't changed," Mac said. "But even if we decide the word means something new to us, you can't use the new definition to change the intent of the Amendment."
"That's your opinion and you're entitled to it. But times have changed and we need new interpretations of the words and of the Constitution."
"It's not just my opinion," Mac said. "The Supreme Court has ruled that the words in the Constitution mean what the Founding Fathers said they meant, and we can't go changing or amending the Constitution by giving new meanings or new shades of meaning to the words. And, if you think about it, it makes sense; otherwise, our rights really mean nothing. Congress or any other governing body can deny you the right to free speech, freedom of religion, a trial by jury, or whatever else it wanted just by claiming the words now have a new meaning. An oppressive government could change the Constitution without ever having to go through the bothersome ritual of submitting it to us, the people, for our approval. And, in the end, the Constitution and, in particular, the Bill of Rights are there for our protection, not for the benefit of the government or those who run it."
"Well, I don't buy into these definitions you have of militia and such," Bill said. "I don't believe the 2nd Amendment gives John or anyone else the right to privately own guns. I think your interpretation is just a well-presented opinion and that the 2nd Amendment really refers to the powers given to the states."
Why we Don't Need the 2nd Amendment
Mac shrugged. "That's okay. Even if you're right and the 2nd Amendment refers only to the National Guard, the state police, or some other uniformed military or police organization we'd still have the right to keep and bear arms. We don't need the 2nd Amendment."
"What?" Bill yipped. "If the 2nd Amendment is about the states, and not the individual, you don't have the right to own guns."
"Yes we do," Mac said.
"Wait a minute," Dave said, "How do you figure we'd still have the right to have guns? Without the 2nd Amendment we're lost."
Bill was laughing, "Yeah, how do you come up with that?"
"Because the Founding Fathers believed we had that right. They spoke about it and wrote about it. And that's enough."
Bill laughed harder. "That'll look good in court: 'I can carry a gun because some guy who's been dead for 200 years said I can. Here, let me show you the note he gave me. It's in the form of a permission slip. Can I get a hall pass, too?'"
Dave laughed at what Bill said, but Mac didn't seem in the least perturbed. "I think Dave and Bill are right," I said. "The whole question of gun rights hinges on what the 2nd Amendment means. If it means the right to bear arms belongs to the states, then it means you and I don't have any right to individual gun ownership."
"Well, let's start with this," Mac said. "Can you find anything in the 2nd Amendment, or any other part of the Constitution, that says the individual can't have arms?"
"What's that got to do with it?" Bill asked.
"That's not an answer. Just keep in mind my question is not whether you think the Constitution allows individuals to carry guns but whether or not there's anything in it that says they can't?
"Anyone can answer it, but the question is really directed at Bill."
There was a long pause while we all thought about that. I don't know where Mac was taking this, but it smelled suspiciously like a trap and I'm sure Bill felt that way, too.
Mac waited patiently.
"I don't think so," Dave finally said.
I agreed, too, but Bill still didn't say anything.
Natural Rights
"And do you also understand that the Bill of Rights is not the source of our rights. It's not even a complete list of our rights."
"What are you talking about?" I asked.
"Mac's losing it," Bill said and threw his arms up.
"I'm asking you if you understand that we do not get our rights from the Bill of Rights."
"Of course we do," Bill said. "That's why they wrote the Bill of Rights."
"I've got to agree with Bill," I said.
Dave said nothing. He seemed to be thinking.
"I'm saying this because the Founding Fathers did not believe we got our rights from the Bill of Rights. Nor did they believe they came about as a result of being American, Christian, of European decent, or white. They believed everyone had these rights even if they lived in Europe, China, or the moon. They called them Natural Rights. Where these rights were not allowed, they believed they still existed but were denied."
"You should be writing fiction," Bill said.
"Well, it's a question as to whether or not our rights exist apart from government," Mac said. "Let me ask you this," he said to Bill. "In a country where children have no civil rights, do they still have a right not to be molested? Do women in countries where they have a second-citizen status have the right not to be abused by their husbands, even if the government won't protect them?"
Bill didn't answer.
"Then is it too much of a stretch for you to understand that the Founding Fathers believed everyone has the right to free speech, freedom of religion, the right to fair trials...?" His voice trailed off.
Bill still wouldn't answer.
"In other words," Dave said, "it's a question as to whether the rights of the citizens in China are at the pleasure of the government or if they have them but are being denied, or if the Jews had basic human rights in Germany even if Hitler didn't let them exercise them?"
"Yes. All I want to know is if that's hard for you to see." He looked at Bill who was still silent.
"Then I see what you're saying," Dave said, "But I'm not sure how it relates to the 2nd Amendment."
Bill still said nothing--but neither did I.
"Take it a step further. If the government passed a law tomorrow that said we didn't have the right to free speech, or the right to free worship, or freedom of the press, would those rights no longer exist, or would they be simply denied? If the Constitution is amended depriving us of our rights, do those rights cease to exist?"
"What's the answer?" Dave asked Mac.
"The answer, according to the guys who set up this country, is yes, we would still have those rights. We're just being denied them. Because of that, it's the way we have to look at the Constitution."
Bill rubbed his nose.
Dave said, "Okay, I never thought of it that way, but I'll buy into it for a moment."
"It may be," Mac said, "that in reality, rights are a figment of our imagination. But the Founding Fathers believed they existed and that's how this country was set up. Rights are something that come with being human. The Founders never believed we got them from the government. If and when the United States goes away, the rights will still be there."
Why a Bill of Rights?
"Then why have a Bill of Rights?" Bill asked. The question was posed as a challenge.
"You're not the first person to ask that. Men like Alexander Hamilton asked it. He and many others thought having a Bill of rights was dangerous." "Dangerous," Bill laughed. "How could it be dangerous?"
"They were afraid that the existence of a Bill of Rights as a part of our Constitution implied that the government not only had the right to change them, but that any rights not listed there were fair game for the government to deny. And, as a matter of fact, that's exactly what has happened. The government seems to have set itself up to be an interpreter of our rights; it acts as if it is also the source of our rights, and whatever rights weren't mentioned in the Bill of Rights, the government has seen fit to declare exist only at its discretion."
"Then how do we know what our rights are in court?" Bill asked.
"Have you ever read the Bill of Rights?" Mac asked. I think he was tired; there was no humor in his voice. "Specifically, have you ever read the 9th and 10th Amendments?"
Bill smiled and shook his head. "I never thought it was important to memorize them."
"It's important to understand what they say and know why they are written the way they are because they tie in with how the Founding Fathers viewed our rights and how they expected us to view them.
"They were put there to quell the fears of men like Hamilton who were afraid that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights would be usurped by the government. The 9th says:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
"This means that any rights not mentioned in the Bill of Rights are not to be denied to the people. "The 10th says:
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.
"So any powers not specifically given to the Federal government are not powers it can usurp.
"So it's enough to show the Founding Fathers thought we had a right for it to fall under the protection of the 9th or 10th Amendment. This means that the Founders didn't even have to specify we have the right to free speech, religion, jury trials, or anything else. To understand what they felt our rights were, all you had to do was show what they said our rights are. Any rights in the first eight Amendments are just redundant with what the Founding Fathers considered Natural Rights.
Bill rolled his eyes.
"Then why do we have a Bill of Rights?" I asked.
"Because even though Hamilton and others feared having one, most of the Founding Fathers were sure that without one the government would eventually take all of our rights."
"Just getting off the gun issue for the moment," Dave quickly asked, "are there actually rights not mentioned in the Constitution that you'd say we've been denied?"
"Sure. The Founding Fathers felt we had a right to unrestricted travel. So, now we have driver's licenses, automobile registrations, and passports. They also felt we had property rights, so Civil Forfeiture or Civil Seizure laws, now exercised by the Feds and the states, are actually illegal under both the 9th and 10th Amendment.
"And," he continued, "if the Congress or even the Supreme Court decides the 2nd Amendment only refers to formal military organizations, we still have the right to keep and bear arms, because the Founding Fathers considered it a natural right. And if you don't believe it, read what the Founding Fathers said in their papers, their letters, and their debates in both Congress and the state legislatures."
He pulled more papers from his briefcase and started going through them. "You know," he said, "weapons have always been important. In Greece, Rome, and even under Anglo- Saxon law, when slaves were freed, part of the ceremony included placing a weapon in the man's hand. It was symbolic of the man's new rank."
What the Founders said
He paused as he looked through the papers. "Here's one, and I quote:
To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.
"That was said by John Adams in A Defense Of The Constitution.
"Here's another one:
The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.
"That was said by Samuel Adams, John Adams' second or third cousin, during Massachusetts' U.S. Constitution ratification convention in 1788."
"This is all bull," Bill said.
Mac looked up, then he started to put the papers back in the briefcase.
"No, I want to hear more of this," Dave said. "What else have you got there?" Dave asked, and Mac began going through the papers again.
"If you really want to hear what they had to say, here are a few by Jefferson:
No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.
"He wrote this as part of the proposed Virginia Constitution, in 1776.
Personal protection
"And here's one more. It's Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria--a Milanese criminologist whom he admired who was also his contemporary-- in On Crimes and Punishment:
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.
"I think it's pretty clear that Jefferson felt we had the right to keep and bear arms for both personal protection and as a safeguard against tyranny."
Bill went and poured himself some coffee and acted, for all the world, as if he wasn't listening anymore.
Mac shuffled through a few more papers. "Here's one by Thomas Paine that comes from his Thoughts On Defensive War written in 1775:
Arms 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.
"Do you have more?"
He went through more of his papers.
"Here's one of my favorites:
To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them.
"That was by George Mason when the Constitution was being debated."
"And who, may I ask, was George Mason?" Bill asked. "It sounds like you're bringing in the second string now."
"He's the most underrated and unsung of all the Founding Fathers. Jefferson drew on him when composing the Declaration of Independence; his doctrine of inalienable rights was not only the basis for the Virginia Bill of Rights in 1776, but other states used them as the models for their own Bill of Rights, and James Madison drew upon them freely while composing the Bill of Rights for the United States.
"Even though a Southerner, Mason recognized the evils of slavery and the fact that slaves were entitled to the same rights as the rest of humanity. He also feared the Constitution because it didn't do a better job of limiting the powers of the Federal government. He believed local government should be strong and the Federal government kept weak. He firmly believed in the power, the rights, and the integrity of the individual."
"Never heard of him," Bill said.
"I'm not surprised. But you're not alone because most people haven't."
"Why's that?" Dave asked.
"He suffered bad health and had all kinds of family problems, so he never attained any office outside of Virginia--other than his membership to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. But he was the most vocal of the Founders on individual rights, and the other Founding Fathers recognized him as a force to be reckoned with. Without him, I can guarantee you that the United States would not be as free as it is now.
"You guys should do an article on him," he said to Dave.
Dave quickly wrote something on his notepad, then glanced at me.
Defense against tyranny
Mac continued to go through his papers. "Here's a quote by Elbridge Gerry, a representative to Congress from Massachusetts during the debates over the Bill of Rights. He's also the man for whom gerrymandering is named because, as governor of Massachusetts, he tried to rig districts to favor his party. In this quote he was specifically referring to what we now call the 2nd Amendment:
What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty...Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.
"That should also give you insight as to how the Founders defined the militia and why they thought it was important."
"Okay, I've heard enough," Bill said.
"Me too," Dave added.
"There's one more," Mac said. "It's kind of a long one, but it's by James Madison, the guy who wrote the Constitution and actually put together the Bill of Rights."
"Okay, go ahead," Dave said.
The highest number to which a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one hundredth part of the souls, or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This portion 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 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. Besides the advantage of being armed, it forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. The governments of Europe are afraid to trust the people with arms. If they did, the people would surely shake off the yoke of tyranny, as America did. 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.
"I kind of like that one," Dave said.
"So do I," Mac said.
"I've got more, but I think that's enough. But I think you can see how the Founding Fathers felt about the right of individuals to have weapons. In fact, this whole debate over the right to arms is a recent one. In the last century, Americans would have been as amazed to find their right to have weapons a subject of debate as they would to have found their right to free speech or religion debated. There was no question to them, or to the Founders, that the right to keep and bear arms was one of the most fundamental-- perhaps the most fundamental-- of all civil rights."
"Are any of the Founders on record saying they don't believe individuals should have guns?" Dave asked.
"None I know of--and I've actually looked for some.
"Do you know of any, Bill?" he asked.
Bill didn't reply. Again, I thought he as acting as if he wasn't listening. The phone rang again and someone called across the office to tell Dave it was an advertiser, so he took the call.
Mac put his papers back into the briefcase and picked up his magazine and started to look for his place.
Bill had even lost interest in the conversation. And it was time for me to get back to work. As I said, I was way behind. I took a last look at the gun parts to ensure they were clean, and I began to reassemble the rifle.
But I turned back to Mac for a moment and asked, "The lawyer friend you found this information for...were you giving him legal advice, doing research for him, or what?"
"I was winning a bet," he said.
"What were the stakes?"
"A six-pack of beer."
"That seems like a paltry sum to have gone through all this research for."
"We're going to drink it in Florida," he said.
"Oh," I replied and continued to reassemble the gun.
..It is a great artical, hey look where it comes from our friends at "Backwoods Home Magazine"..
..I love them Folks..
...................................JW............................
Ah, BHM. :)
You have to love people who know and believe in freedom.
Excellent -
Thanks
I posted it on my facebook.
I learned from this post ;D
TY for the posting --- Now I need to put BHM on my favorites O0
Two related articles. http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/10/the_democrats_final_recourse_m.html http://www.constitution.org/mil/tn/batathen.htm
With well researched, rational information like this how can there be any debate on weather the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms?
We should note that the Supreme Court's "D.C. v. Heller" decision fixed this for us.
The Supreme court has stated clearly that the 2nd amendment protects our individual right to keep and bear arms.
I'm proud to say I was in the Court the day it was argued. It was really something to hear.
Here is a "wiki" link with other links (e.g., to the written opinion for anyone who would care to read it).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
Also, I maintain we really do need this amendment, and that need is proven by the fact we have to litigate these things at all.
My .02
Quote(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
I agree that it's a good start. However, any
RIGHT that is regulated becomes a
PRIVILEGE. What scares me is the wording
REASONABLE. It is too vague and is used in laws that are meant to give greater power to the regulating body. I'm also wary of the clever word twisters who will be writing theses laws i.e. the second amendment didn't say we can't restrict the sale of ammunition... so own all the guns you want. Under the current ruling that is exactly what can happen. If we could only go back in time and ask the founding fathers to make certain things irrefutable or to give a greater understanding of their intentions (Like reading bills before voting them into law, passing laws that they themselves are not forced to obey, or just tagging a bad bill no one would pass onto a good one to ram it through). I'm just very wary of those who know what's best for others.
Quote from: brogantdb on November 11, 2010, 07:42:14 AM
I agree that it's a good start. However, any RIGHT that is regulated becomes a PRIVILEGE. What scares me is the wording REASONABLE. It is too vague and is used in laws that are meant to give greater power to the regulating body. I'm also wary of the clever word twisters who will be writing theses laws i.e. the second amendment didn't say we can't restrict the sale of ammunition... so own all the guns you want. Under the current ruling that is exactly what can happen. If we could only go back in time and ask the founding fathers to make certain things irrefutable or to give a greater understanding of their intentions (Like reading bills before voting them into law, passing laws that they themselves are not forced to obey, or just tagging a bad bill no one would pass onto a good one to ram it through). I'm just very wary of those who know what's best for others.
Well, we should be wary, and there is no way to settle these issues in a permanent way.
There are at least two causes.
First, every right is "limited." Even a citizen's right to be alive is a limited or "qualified" right (for example, the government can kill some convicts).
Second, as technology changes the nature of our "arms", there will be ways to "infringe" the "keep and bear" rights which could never have been anticipated when the Bill of Rights was drafted. The founding fathers were not aware that Boxer would invent a primer for a metallic cartridge. Years from now, the controlled component may be some component we have not seen yet.
QuoteWell, we should be wary, and there is no way to settle these issues in a permanent way.
There are at least two causes.
First, every right is "limited." Even a citizen's right to be alive is a limited or "qualified" right (for example, the government can kill some convicts).
Second, as technology changes the nature of our "arms", there will be ways to "infringe" the "keep and bear" rights which could never have been anticipated when the Bill of Rights was drafted. The founding fathers were not aware that Boxer would invent a primer for a metallic cartridge. Years from now, the controlled component may be some component we have not seen yet.
I agree on what you have said.... Mostly. The point I was trying to make was that the founding fathers held certain things to be self evident i.e. the right to bear arms included the right to the ammo also. It also would be reasonable to expect that bills be read and understood before voting them into law. So any component that is required for the intended function of said arms should be included in "The Right to Bear Arms". The next argument to go to the Supreme Court could be on what components can be regulated as to not infringe on the 2nd amendment . Too many times the spirit of, or the original intent, or interpretation of a right is held instead to the letter of what is written.
Quote from: Patent guy on November 11, 2010, 08:47:48 AM
First, every right is "limited." Even a citizen's right to be alive is a limited or "qualified" right (for example, the government can kill some convicts).
Second, as technology changes the nature of our "arms", there will be ways to "infringe" the "keep and bear" rights which could never have been anticipated when the Bill of Rights was drafted. The founding fathers were not aware that Boxer would invent a primer for a metallic cartridge. Years from now, the controlled component may be some component we have not seen yet.
It doesn't matter what the component is, the second amendment doesn't say "firearms" anywhere. It says "arms". "Arms", historically, includes knives, swords, sword canes, cudgels, and all manner of other things that have been made mostly obsolete by the personal firearm, and it would by definition likewise include anything that made the personal firearm obsolete.
Nice discussion. BWH magazine, lots of other great articles too.
This quote is at the bottom of all my emails and I've started using it at AS events too. Yes it is 'off', it should read: "...but rightful Liberty...." it's part of a longer sentence. Mea Culpa.
"But rightful Liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add "within the law" because the law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." -- Thomas Jefferson
Who'd of thought that 'we the people' should be responseable and considerate?
I've maintained for many years that the thoughts and ideas...aka Philosophy...are great, it's just when 'people' get involved that it seems to devolve as we use our brain stem to 'think' and act on.
CSHR
"With great power comes great responsibility"
~Uncle Ben Parker
Who said you can't learn something constructive from comic books!
Quote from: brogantdbWith well researched, rational information like this how can there be any debate on weather the PEOPLE have the right to bear arms?
All the information in the world can't MAKE them listen, or to be rational. The fight for this right, ANY right, really, is couched in objective terms, but decisions are often clinched through spiritual or emotional pitches. Appleseed is not an exception; learning how to shoot accurately is what draws people in to Appleseed, but it the realization in our hearts about the events on 4/19/1775 that clinches our continued commitment. This isn't to say that Appleseed is irrational. But once a person makes a
heartfelt decision, the logical arguments will fall into place behind it.
When I encounter antis, logical arguments never get me far. The best way to sway someone is to get them to the range.
Quote from: Patent guy on November 10, 2010, 07:34:23 PM
We should note that the Supreme Court's "D.C. v. Heller" decision fixed this for us.
Not to put too fine a point on it, but the case that really applies here is McDonald v. Chicago, which rests entirely on the case you cited. The trouble with Heller is that it didn't apply to the states, since D.C. is a federal "protectorate"(?). McDonald incorporated the 2nd amendment against the states.
Odd that no one has addressed "well regulated". Back in those days that meant you had a musket, ball, powder, bayonet, etc. and knew how to use it. Knew it's limitations. That you were proficient with it.
It DID NOT mean "well legislated".....which is what we commonly think of when we hear the word "regulated".
EEL
QuoteOdd that no one has addressed "well regulated". Back in those days that meant you had a musket, ball, powder, bayonet, etc. and knew how to use it. Knew it's limitations. That you were proficient with it.
It DID NOT mean "well legislated".....which is what we commonly think of when we hear the word "regulated".
That angle has and is used by the gun grabbers. However as pointed out in the article and Supreme Court one can not use a modified or different definition than what it was when written or every document can be twisted to mean something different. As it is that is what is being attempted...
The social contract in question was written before your birth, and instituted without your consent. Feel free to consider the whole thing null and void, though it would be a great loss to consider it of no value.
Shall you not honor the sacrifices of your mothers and fathers of many generations, but choose against committing their sins?
For if you harmed no one, and do not threaten to do harm, who would proscribe that behavior, other than a tyrant, and one that presumes to own you? Is it these that you shall support?
Who here has not been a tyrant, and when will we desist?
Who is he, that becomes skilled in the way of tyrants, thieves, liars, and murderers, to know them better, but does not cling to their ways, or use them for evil?
Shall he not be free, and be victorious in that, while others witness?
Thanks for posting the article above. When I saw the title I thought that it might have been another pamphlet that I'd read recently which used the same phrase "We don't need no stinking 2nd Amendment". When I first began to read that pamphlet some statements in the second paragraph really irritated me so much that I set it down and didn't pick it up again for several months. But the above discussion of natural rights brought it to mind. It seems these natural rights are what the Deceleration speaks of when it says "... they are endowed by thier creator with certain unalienable rights". Anyway still unsure what I think of the pamphlet, I've posted it below it'll at-least make you think and Lord knows we need lots of that. Happy New Year, Celt
FIREARMS:
Scripturally Defended
Few Americans are more strident about their constitutional rights,1 particularly the Second Amendment guarantee to keep and bear arms, than are hunters and gun enthusiasts:
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. (Amendment 2, United States Constitution)
Some of the most powerful Washington special-interest groups are the organizations (such as the National Rifle Association and Gun Owners of America) formed to protect these rights. As a gun owner and hunter myself, I am very concerned about my "right" to keep and bear arms. However, as the Christian head of my home, I am much more concerned about my God-given responsibility to keep and bear arms for the protection of my family, home, and possessions. Consequently, I am not a Second Amendment advocate. In fact, I believe Americans who tout the Second Amendment as their authority for their right to keep and bear arms may ultimately do more harm than good to their so-called right.
Because this is a "right" codified by the Constitutional Republic, and thereby brought under its jurisdiction, the Constitutional Republic can choose to divest its citizens of this right - something it has been doing incrementally for some time.
On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S., the Supreme Court decided, five to four, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to own and bear firearms. Most gun owners lauded the decision, but not this gun owner. Although I was pleased that the Supreme Court ruled as it did, this battle (which is far from over) concerning the Constitutional right to bear arms has diverted our attention from a larger and much more consequential battle.
Disconcerting as many people may find the erosion of the Second Amendment guarantee, it is even more disturbing that five people have the power to decide whether United States citizens have the right to protect themselves and their families, to what degree, and with what weapons. The Supreme Court essentially ruled that Americans have the right to bear arms, but only until they say otherwise.
Many Americans who extolled this decision overlooked the fact that it can - and likely will - be overturned by a future court, just as this decision overturned United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, rendered in 1939. If you look to the Second Amendment for your authority to bear arms, that authority is contingent upon the fickle nature of nine fallible human beings.
The right of United States citizens to bear arms is also in jeopardy by future amendment, which could overturn the Second Amendment. This was attempted on March 11, 1992, by Major Owens of New York, "Proposing an amendment to the Constitution of the United States repealing the Second Amendment to the Constitution" (H. J. Res. 438). Do not forget that the well-regulated militia provided for by the Second Amendment was, for all practical purposes, done away with long ago.2
Constitutionalists argue that that Second Amendment did not grant a new right but simply acknowledged an existing right. Although this assertion contains some truth, it does not alter jurisdictional overtones. Others maintain that the Second Amendment protects our God-given right to self-protection. This can only mean that Yahweh3 was impotent to protect Himself what He gave to us and that His Word was insufficient and required the Constitution's guarantee.
Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897) affirms that "the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principle of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors" - rather than from Yahweh.
Whereas Yahweh's law in no way prohibits a man from carrying a concealed weapon (a precaution that is sometimes warranted), Robertson v. Baldwin goes on to declare that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms [codified by] (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons...."
The framers could have acknowledged the Scriptures as the foundation for this right, which would have alleviated any possibility of edicts prohibiting concealed weapons. They could have but they did not. Instead, they left it to Congress to implement such firearms restrictions as we have today.
If the responsibility to keep and bear arms is God-given, no one except Yahweh Himself has the right to withdraw it. If you are a Christian4 (and particularly if you are the head of your home), you were given the responsibility to keep and bear arms long before the United States Constitution was framed or ratified:
Let the high praises of God be in their mouth, and a twoedged sword in their hand; to execute vengeance upon the heathen, and punishments upon the people; to bind their kings with chains, and their nobles with fetters of iron; to execute upon them the judgment written: this honour have all his saints. Praise ye YH.5 (Psalm 149:6-9)6
The Second Amendment was not added to the Constitution on behalf of hunters and gun enthusiasts, but rather to deter tyrannous government and to protect individuals from such tyranny:
The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected upon the subject.... The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered the palladium of the liberties of the 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.7
Why would Christian men need the Second Amendment to provide this entitlement when they already have Psalm 149 - unless, of course, they regard Yahweh as incompetent and His laws inept? To paraphrase Alphonso Bedoya in the movie Treasure of the Sierra Madre, "We don't need no stinkin' Second Amendment!"
State Licensing
Why do Christian men think they need the state to sanction self-defense or any other God-given responsibility? This is a question that should be asked not only by gun owners, but also by anyone seeking the state's approval to be married and by preachers licensed by the government's 501(c)(3) tax exempt incorporation status.
What Yahweh ordained and commanded does not require the state's permission or license. If Yahweh's commands need to be authorized or licensed by the state, then Yahweh becomes subservient to the state.
When the government requires a license, it does so to give legality to what otherwise, according to the same government, is illegal. Since when did marriage, preaching the gospel, and self-defense become illegal? Since the state chose to disregard Yahweh's sanction of these activities and began licensing them. Although the state is presently lenient with most who preach without government sanction, marry without a license, and own firearms without permits, it may not always overlook these "transgressions." When this occurs, it will be imperative for Christian men to recognize that their authority to keep and bear arms does not come from the Constitution but from Yahweh.
Of even greater significance is the Second Amendment's usurpation of the power to grant the right to bear arms. A deity known as WE THE PEOPLE has commandeered this power, which belongs only to Yahweh. Their decision to "legislate" and adjudicate what Yahweh has already made lawful is evidence of this usurpation. This is not something new to our modern Congress and Supreme Court; this Pandora's Box was opened in 1789.
For Christian patriots to "hang their firearms hat" on the Second Amendment of the United States Constitution - as so many of them do - is an acknowledgement that WE THE PEOPLE, and not Yahweh, is their god and that the Constitution, and not the Bible, is their supreme law, as per Article 6 of the U.S. Constitution.
Christian Americans need to recognize that the real battle for our responsibility to bear arms is not currently being fought in Congress and the Supreme Court, but was, in fact, lost in 1789 with the ratification of the United States Constitution. Until Christians realize this, we will be forced to watch the 2008 Supreme Court drama over and over again, with each and every decision determined by the prevailing "morality" of the then-standing Supreme Court's deciding majority.
Firearms: Biblically Defended
Self-Defense
Because most of today's pulpits are filled with antinomian, pacifist, anti-gun pastors, the majority of today's Christians are unaware that Yahweh has ordered His disciples to arm themselves. Consequently, Christian men have had to look to the Second Amendment for their authority to keep and bear arms. Had they been following the Apostle Paul's instructions in 2 Timothy 2:15 ("Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.") instead of relying on such pastors, they would have found their authority in the Bible and not the U.S. Constitution.
The question regarding firearms is one of self-defense. Does the Bible sanction self-defense?
If the thief is caught while breaking in, and is struck so that he dies, there will be no bloodguiltiness on his account. But if the sun has risen on him, there will be bloodguiltiness on his account. (Exodus 22:2-3, NASB)
The crime described in this passage is not theft, but burglary. Bouvier's Law Dictionary defines burglary:
The breaking and entering the house of another in the night-time, with intent to commit a felony therein, whether the felony be actually committed or not.8
Whereas theft is an Eighth Commandment ("Thou shalt not steal") violation, burglary is a Sixth Commandment ("Thou shalt not kill") and Seventh Commandment ("Thou shalt not commit adultery") violation and is, therefore, a capital crime. Stealing is a crime punishable by restitution except when a thief is caught breaking into someone's home under the concealment of darkness. Although not stated, the obvious reason for this distinction is the impossibility of determining an intruder's intentions in the dark of night. Under such conditions, you cannot quickly ascertain whether the intruder is merely an unarmed thief or someone with a more malicious intent. During a night raid, Yahweh gives the benefit of the doubt to the homeowner and allows him, regardless the intruder's intentions, to slay the intruder with immunity, just as if he were a known murderer (a Sixth Commandment violator) or rapist (a Seventh Commandment violator). In principle, the same would be true if the intruder's intentions are dubious during daylight hours.
Yahweh's law clearly provides for self-defense as demonstrated in this statute. Because this statute is case law, it likewise vindicates a person who kills a daytime assailant.
It might surprise some people to discover that our Savior was a proponent of self-defense:
...if the head of the house had known at what time of the night the thief was coming, he would have been on the alert and would not have allowed his house to be broken into. (Matthew 24:43, NASB)
When a strong man, fully armed, guards his own homestead, his possessions are undisturbed. (Luke 11:21, NASB)
This last passage teaches that the better armed we are, the less likely someone is to steal from us or harm us and our families.
Yeshua9 (Jesus' given Hebrew name) commanded His disciples to purchase weapons:
Then said he unto them ... he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one. (Luke 22:36)
Yeshua's command agrees with Psalm 149:6-9. Note that Yeshua did not tell His disciples to register their swords with the government.
Fredrick Bastiat described self-defense as a natural right:
Each of us has a natural right - from God - to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but an extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend - even by force - his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force [as with a militia] to protect these rights constantly.10
What Bastiat depicted as a natural right, the Apostle Paul described as a God-given responsibility:
...if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel. (1 Timothy 5:8)
After first providing for your family's spiritual safety, your next priority should be providing for your family's physical protection. Providing food, clothing, and shelter is of little benefit if you are unprepared or unwilling to defend your family against thieves, rapists, and murderers. In other words, it is not unchristian to practice self-defense - it is unchristian if you do not! According to Paul, anyone who fails to provide for his family deserves serious judgment.
Defense of Others
Abraham and Moses provide biblical precedent for taking the law into one's own hands when it is necessary to protect the life of another person or to thwart a capital crime. In Genesis 14, Abraham killed in order to rescue his nephew Lot from kidnappers. In Exodus 2, Moses slew an Egyptian taskmaster who was assaulting a fellow Israelite. Thus, vigilantism is biblically justified when defending or rescuing another person from being victimized11:
If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour's wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you. (Deuteronomy 22:23-24)
The unstated implication is that if a woman cries out, any man within earshot is to come to her rescue:
If the bystander has an obligation to render aid "with all lost things" of another man [Deuteronomy 22:1-3], he has an even more pressing obligation to help rescue the man. Thus, this principle of responsibility appears in Deuteronomy 22:24. A woman assaulted in a city is presumed to have given consent if she does not raise a cry, the origin of the hue and cry common law. At her cry, every man within sound of her voice has a duty to render immediate aid....12
An eyewitness to a crime has an obligation - a debt if you will - both to the victim and to society. He is duty-bound to intervene and do whatever is necessary to stop the perpetrator. Imagine how many crimes would be averted if thieves, rapists, murderers, and potential criminals knew that every Christian man within sight or earshot stands ready to do whatever is necessary to stop a crime. How much more so, if every law-abiding, able-bodied man were also required to carry a firearm, as per Psalm 149 and Luke 22, for his own, his family's, and his neighbor's protection?
The idea of a citizen arresting a criminal probably originated from Deuteronomy 22:23-24 and Psalm 149:6-9. Armed citizens are much more likely to intervene and arrest lawbreakers than are those who are unarmed.
In itself, this would all but eliminate the need for a hired police force. It is impossible for the police to prevent a crime, unless an officer just happens to be at the right place at the right time. "When seconds count, the police are only minutes [or hours] away." Their presence in a community is more for investigative purposes than crime prevention:
General Sessions Court Judge Bob Moon said Friday [June 27, 2008] that crime in Chattanooga [Tennessee] "has become so rampant that it is no longer possible for the police department to protect our citizens." He told a woman who had been pulled from her car and beaten in the head that she or her mother needed to "purchase a weapon, obtain a gun permit and learn to protect yourself."13
In other words, "a gun in the hand is better than a cop on the phone."
In Castle Rock v. Gonzales, 545 U.S. 748 (2005), the Supreme Court ruled that the police have no obligation to protect citizens. Conversely, it has been demonstrated in cities like Kennesaw, Georgia (a suburb of Atlanta), where every household is required by law to possess a firearm, the need for police protection is all but eliminated.
Tragically, the United States federal and state governments have practically stripped their citizens of their inherent God-given responsibility for self-protection and intervention, with the exception of those who petition and jump through the government's hoops to secure a concealed weapons permit. Keep in mind that one of the definitions for a permit or license is the permission to do what the government otherwise considers illegal, which makes a criminal of anyone who desires to fulfill his biblical responsibilities without the government's permission.
By employing the term "assault weapons," the anti-gun lobby associates all gun owners with criminal intent. Yet, the vast majority of gun owners are not criminals and have no intentions of assaulting anyone. They do not own assault weapons; instead, they have armed themselves with defense weapons.
Despite the attempts of the government, the media, and even certain preachers to vilify self-defense, every Christian man needs to assume the "homesteader mindset" depicted in Matthew 24 and Luke 11. Every Christian householder is commissioned by Yeshua and by the law of Yahweh to defend his family, his possessions, his fellow man, and himself. Every Christian woman without a man to protect her should likewise arm herself.
Where Does Your Authority Come From?
Now there was no smith found throughout all the land of Israel: for the Philistines said, Lest the Hebrews make them swords or spears: But all the Israelites went down to the Philistines, to sharpen every man his [plow]share, and his coulter, and his axe, and his mattock.... So it came to pass in the day of battle, that there was neither sword nor spear found in the hand of any of the people that were with Saul and Jonathan.... (1 Samuel 13:19-22)
The desire to deprive us of our arms is nothing new. It has been with us from nearly the beginning of time. Consequently, it is imperative for us to know that the authority to arm ourselves comes from Yahweh.
Nearly all gun enthusiasts point to the Second Amendment as their authority for possessing firearms. In other words, their authority to keep and bear arms can be traced back to 1789. Where did the men living in America prior to 1789 get their authority to be armed in defense of themselves, their families, their communities, and their nation? I suspect they got it from Exodus 22:2-3; Deuteronomy 22:23-24; Psalm 149:6-9; Luke 11:21, 12:39, 22:36; and 1 Timothy 5:8 - just as those living before 1870, when the first marriage license was issued, got their authority to be married from Genesis 2:21-24, etc. Why did what was already lawful by Yahweh's standards suddenly, in 1789, need the authorization of the Second Amendment? There is only one answer to this question: The people had transferred their allegiance to a surrogate god.
If your authority to keep and bear arms is derived from the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution -from WE THE PEOPLE - it is unlikely that you will react any differently from the British and Australians who surrendered their weapons without any significant struggle when required to do so by their respective governments. On the other hand, if your faith is in Yahweh's sovereign authority, you will be far less likely to turn over your weapons to any government unauthorized by the omnipotent Supreme Ruler of the universe.
End Notes
1. For a more thorough study contrasting the United States Constitution with Yahweh's Laws, Bible Law vs. The United States Constitution: The Christian Perspective may be read online.
2. "...the National Guard is not the 'Militia' referenced to in the Second Amendment.... Congress had organized the National Guard under its power to "raise and support armies' and not its power to 'Provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' The modern National Guard was specifically intended to avoid status as the constitutional militia, a distinction recognized by 10 U.S.C.311(a)." Report of the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the Committee on the Judiciary, United States Senate, Ninety-Seventh Congress, Second Session, February 1982, Senate Document 2807.
3. YHWH (most often pronounced Yahweh) is the English transliteration of the Tetragrammaton, the principal Hebrew name of the God of the Bible. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, "The Third Commandment" may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
4. Not everyone claiming to be a Christian has been properly instructed in the biblical plan of salvation. Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:36-41, 22:1-16; Romans 6:3-4; Galatians 3:26-27; Colossians 2:11-13; and 1 Peter 3:21 should be studied to understand what is required to be covered by the blood of Yeshua and forgiven of your sins. For a more thorough explanation concerning baptism and its relationship to salvation, "Baptism by the Scriptures" and "Fifty Objections to Baptism Answered" may be read online, or the book Baptism: All You Wanted to Know and More may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for free.
5. Where the Tetragrammaton YHWH (or its abbreviated form YH) - the four Hebrew characters that represent the personal name of God - has been unlawfully rendered the LORD or GOD in English translations, I have taken the liberty to correct this error by inserting YHWH where appropriate. For a more thorough explanation concerning the sacred names of God, "The Third Commandment" may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363 for a suggested $4 donation.*
6. All Scripture is quoted from the King James Version unless otherwise noted. Portions of Scripture have been omitted for brevity. If there are questions regarding any passage, please open your Bible and study the text to ensure it has been properly used.
7. Joseph Story, Three Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 3 vols. (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray and Company, 1833) vol. 3, pp. 746-47.
8. John Bouvier, "Burglary," Bouvier's Law Dictionary: A Concise Encyclopedia of the Law, 3 vols. (Kansas City, MO: Vernon Law Book Company, 1914) vol. 1, p. 404.
9. Yeshua is the English transliteration of our Savior's given Hebrew name. Jesus is the English transliteration of the Greek Iesous, which is the Greek transliteration of the of Savior's Hebrew name Yeshua. For a more thorough explanation concerning the use of the sacred names of God, "The Third Commandment" may be read online, or the book Thou shalt not take the name of YHWH thy God in vain may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363, for a suggested $4 donation.*
10. Fredrick Bastiat, The Law (Irvington-on-Hudson, NY: The Foundation for Economic Education, Inc., [1848] 1987) p. 6.
11. For a study on unlawful vigilantism, the book The Phinehas Hoods: A Biblical Examination of Unscriptural Vigilantism may be read online, or it may be ordered from Mission to Israel Ministries, PO Box 248, Scottsbluff, Nebraska 69363 for a suggested $3 donation.*
12. Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law (The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, 1973) p. 464.
13. "Judge Advises Crime Victim to Arm Herself After Attack: Moon Says No Longer for Police to Protect Citizens," 27 June 2008, <http://www.chattanoogan.com/articles/article_130537.asp>.
*We are admonished in Matthew 10:8 "freely ye have received, freely give." Although we have a suggested a price for our books, we do not sell them. In keeping with 2 Corinthians 9:7, this ministry is supported by freewill offerings. If you cannot afford the suggested price, inform us of your situation, and we will be pleased to provide you with whatever you need for whatever you can send.
Mission to Israel · P.O. Box 248 · Scottsbluff, NE 69363
Quote from: CelticMind on January 01, 2011, 11:27:38 PM
Yahweh's law clearly provides for self-defense as demonstrated in this statute. Because this statute is case law, it likewise vindicates a person who kills a daytime assailant.
What? Yahweh's law, statute and case law vindication for daytime killing? We may be losing the thread here.
quoth CelticMind:
" Many Americans who extolled this decision overlooked the fact that it can - and likely will - be overturned by a future court, just as this decision overturned United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, rendered in 1939."
I suggest a re-reading of the case. US v. Miller was limited in many ways, most notably by the lack of opposition. I have never really understood why anyone would quote this case as a gun control victory. The core question was one concerning Millers possession of a short-barreled shotgun, and whether or not it was a "militia weapon", and thus protected by the 2A. Since Miller didn't show up, the hearing was, shall we say, slightly skewed. In later wars, the shotgun would play a key role as a secondary CQB weapon. Even the Air Force had them in the inventory when I spent a couple of years in San Antonio one summer....
In any case, the SCOTUS is reluctant to reverse itself, hence the significant discussion of the 14th amendment and P&I yadda yadda during Heller.
If you read the actual decision from McDonald, it appears that the "reasonable" restrictions under discussion were things like convicts and those adjudicated mentally defective being debarred the use of arms.
I think that's OK, don't you?
They left a lot of work to be done in future lawsuits, and it is being done as we speak.
No one can tell where it all will land. There is every possibility that the whole nation will end up with "constitutional carry" like Arizona. Or perhaps it will be a higher standard, like Florida's "shall issue" laws.
This sort of question is the real work of Appleseed. Not to advance any particular agenda, but to rouse the sleeping giant that is the American voter, and get them of the couch, and speaking loudly with a small stick. (With appologies to Teddy R. who said 89 of the 100 Best Things Ever Said...)
Just my $0.02