Interesting Ideas, Your opinions/Thoughts?

[Buffalo Wing]

Tommy, I'm right there with Alabama Shooter. I didn't join the military out of some notion that my own desires or "activities" are more important than the future of our nation.

I think your ideas are so different from everything I have learned about the Founders and their intentions for the country they formed that you can't even begin to understand where I am arguing from.

I'm less surprised, however, to see a blanket condemnation of libertarians in your post, so I'll add that I've never considered myself a libertarian, and have a very healthy respect for authority. By no means does that provide any reason why I should also begin to feel that basic human rights are a negotiable topic.

Two departing thoughts for you:
1. Coercing people to do good does not make the end act they will perform good.
2. I, too, took an oath to defend the Constitution, and I take it very seriously.

 

[Evan Thomas]

Right of women to bear arms?

Right to arms: Preservation of a baseline of private arms suitable to an individual's station in life for the militia purpose of defense of home and homeland.
<snip>
The theory of the "militia rifle" (aka, "Homeland Defense Rifle") is the intersection of Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 15-16 and Amendment 2. The Article allows for "arming" the "militia." Thus, even as an active duty soldier does not have a "right" to carry whatever arm he or she chooses, the "unorganized militia" would be subject to regulation. HOWEVER, the Amendment would preclude such a regulation from effectively DISarming the private individual in militia terms.
<snip>
"[The "official militia rifle"] would be--subject to mandatory periodic reviews of technology--THE Second Amendment-protected weapon.""

What you're saying here quite specifically is that, in your scheme, the only weapons protected by the Second Amendment would be those to be used for militia purposes; hence, those owned by members of the unorganized militia.

With me so far? I'm just paraphrasing your own statements.

There are two ways this could work:

First, these weapons (the only ones protected by the Second Amendment) would be available only to persons who currently make up the unorganized militia. As women who are not members of the National Guard are excluded from the legal definition of the unorganized militia, along with men aged 45 and over, these two classes would no longer have any rights under the Second Amendment. Their ability to arm themselves would no longer be a right, but a privilege.

Second: the only way around this would be to expand the unorganized militia to include women (old, young, and in between) and older men. But the only modern purpose of the unorganized militia is to define a pool of citizens who may be called up for military service; this is explicit in the statute I quoted above, 10 USC Sec. 311.

Is it really sensible, or practical, to include (for example) your grandparents in this pool? I don't think so, and I don't think those in charge of the military would, either.

So you'd deny the right to bear arms in self-defense to the very people who need it the most: those least able to defend themselves if they are unarmed.

Oh, and just an aside for whatever mental case said I was disarming women, etc.: The purpose is the militia, but the right is to "the people". My ideas in no way disarm women or anyone else (save cuckoo clocks and criminals). Quite the opposite, all can contribute in some way.

This is just waffling. You can't have it both ways. You're proposing specific changes to the laws governing who can own weapons under the Second Amendment, based on "militia purposes." If you want to do that, you need to acknowledge the current laws and their implications, and explain how the changes you want would either mesh with those laws, or alter them.

As I said, it was an expression of philosophy and vision more than a legal analysis.

This is a cop-out, pure and simple. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land, not the supreme philosophy.

[Insert haiku here.]

 

[Justice06RR]

(On a related point, regarding pro-gun critics of the NRA: I love these people who are criticizing the NRA specifically for inaction, when the NRA is the only reason they have any right to arms at all. Those people are uneducated and unfamiliar with the reality of our political system...

I did not read the long first post, but I had to comment on the above.

The NRA is not the end-all-be-all of Pro2a movement. the above statement is actually almost offending; it says we have rights only because of what the NRA is doing?

I don't think so. 2A is a God-given right protected by the Constitution, not granted or protected by the NRA. They have a good cause, but there are other organizations and other means to show your support for 2A.

 

[Tom Servo]

Unfortunately, this site has proven to be full of self-focused, self-defeating individualists who would rather see it all be taken than put their their country first, make sacrifices, and keep what they can.

So, individualism is self-defeating?

Freedom is only good when it is the freedom to what is right, not what is wrong and not the freedom to frolic and play at hobbies.

Then it isn't freedom at all. If only certain people can exercise a right, and only in proscribed ways, it is not a right. It is a privilege. Those are two very different things.

The more we can limit freedom to right choices, the stronger our country is, and thus the stronger our real freedom is.

The 1st Amendment protects our right to redress grievances with the government, free of reprisal. An unfortunate side-effect is that it also protects various types of speech we may find reprehensible or offensive.

You have both, or you have neither.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Thanks guys!*

I knew the men and women of TFL would respond with intelligent, well thought out replies.









* Guys being gender non-specific as used in this situation.

 

[jimbob86]

And to everyone here: If being a patriot and putting country before individual is "statist," then call me a statist.

OK. You Statist!

I think the country you are putting before the rights of the individual is a very different one than the one I volunteered to wear a uniform for......

Your individualism is killing the very freedom you treasure above your country.

I would not serve such a country, nor live in it. If this country becomes that country you dream of, then I probably will not.

ETA: "Libertarian cesspool"?

We are not all frolicking in the pool- go look up BlueTrain- you guys would sure hit it off!

 

[Al Norris]

Jimbob, I'd actually wear that badge of being part of a "Libertarian Cesspool" with honor and pride.

To me it means TFL and myself are more of the type of Liberal that our Founders were!

 

[Evan Thomas]

I vote we exercise our "freedom to frolic:" give it a good cleaning out, install some plumbing, and turn it into a Libertarian Hot Tub... That would be fun.

 

[sakeneko]

Any sort of hot tub sounds good at this point.

 

[SPEMack618]

I swore to uphold and defend our rights to hottubs, and wings, and girls....oh, wait, college flashback...

I always chuckle when some of my more liberal Fraternity Brothers, all two of them, are dismayed when I spout of "libertarian nonsense" and list my views as "Constitutionalist".

I mean, shouldn't be suprising, that is the Document I swore to uphold and defend.