"Keep" or "bear"....which is most important in RKBA?
- Thread starter Lavan
- Start date
Keep and bear carry equal importance. While you cannot bear arms unless you can keep them, the reverse is not true. Keeping arms without the ability to bear them renders the intent of the framers mute. It plays into the recreational use argument.
As much as personal ownership of arms is recognized in the 2nd amendment, it is also in the 9th. The 9th could be construed as the "Natural Law" amendment, meaning that your rights as a living creature are preserved.
All living creatures have an inherent right to self defense. Each creature has some form of defense. It may be claws or teeth, it may be the ability to flee or hide. Mans ability lays in his brain, his ability to fashion and use arms. To remove those arms makes him defenseless thereby placing him in a position of having less rights than an animal.
The effect of removal of natural rights can be seen in England. The people have been disarmed and rendered defenseless prey.
As much as personal ownership of arms is recognized in the 2nd amendment, it is also in the 9th. The 9th could be construed as the "Natural Law" amendment, meaning that your rights as a living creature are preserved.
All living creatures have an inherent right to self defense. Each creature has some form of defense. It may be claws or teeth, it may be the ability to flee or hide. Mans ability lays in his brain, his ability to fashion and use arms. To remove those arms makes him defenseless thereby placing him in a position of having less rights than an animal.
The effect of removal of natural rights can be seen in England. The people have been disarmed and rendered defenseless prey.
The man who came up with the idea to begin with, George Mason of Virginia, wrote a lot about the concept but he kept coming back to the idea of "well-regulated," the part of the admendment that simply gets ignored here. You see, he may have been afraid of standing armies but he was afraid of private armies, too. He refused to sign the constituation because of the lack of a bill of rights. My wife is a direct decendant of George Mason and is very proud of the fact (as well as a direct decendant of the last owner of Mt. Vernon) but it irritates her when I remind her that he established the idea of "keep and bear arms."
I might also point out that some of the sparks that started the revolution were the intention of the British to confiscate the colonist's arms. Not their personal arms that supposedly hung over the fireplace but rather the militia weapons owned by the state (colonial) governments and stored in magazines. The other spark was something to do with taxes.
I might also point out that some of the sparks that started the revolution were the intention of the British to confiscate the colonist's arms. Not their personal arms that supposedly hung over the fireplace but rather the militia weapons owned by the state (colonial) governments and stored in magazines. The other spark was something to do with taxes.
He feared private armies but state militias were the norm until well after the Civil War. The feds had no power to call the militias of the states to the national defense. The request would go to the governor of the state who could then place the state militia under federal control. The regular army of the time consisted of a small force of men and an officers corps.
I make the argument that arms in the hands of individuals is more important today because the state no longer has an independent militia. Basically, the national guard is a reserve force loaned to the states by the federal government. That fact, and the 17th amendment, have degraded states rights to the level we see today, a virtual subordinate branch of the federal government.
The laws of the period, pre revolution, required men to keep arms in there home and to muster for inspection upon command. The armories held extra small arms, powder, ball and often the towns cannon. The idea that arms were required to be stored in a central place has no historical merit. These laws carried on after the ratification of the constitution. Including muster, which is what the town squares were used for.
I make the argument that arms in the hands of individuals is more important today because the state no longer has an independent militia. Basically, the national guard is a reserve force loaned to the states by the federal government. That fact, and the 17th amendment, have degraded states rights to the level we see today, a virtual subordinate branch of the federal government.
The laws of the period, pre revolution, required men to keep arms in there home and to muster for inspection upon command. The armories held extra small arms, powder, ball and often the towns cannon. The idea that arms were required to be stored in a central place has no historical merit. These laws carried on after the ratification of the constitution. Including muster, which is what the town squares were used for.
steelheart
Moderator
"Militia is the National Guard" = an easy kill
Lavan,
The "militia" argument the antigun bigots love to use is one of the easiest arguments to gut. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1787. The National Guard did not come into exsistence until 130 years later.
When The Founders used the term Militia, they were not referring to an organization that did not exsist and of which they had no knowledge. Also, there are various quotes from The Founders identifying the Militia as "the people themselves," "the whole people," etc.
Lavan,
The "militia" argument the antigun bigots love to use is one of the easiest arguments to gut. The Constitution and Bill of Rights were ratified in 1787. The National Guard did not come into exsistence until 130 years later.
When The Founders used the term Militia, they were not referring to an organization that did not exsist and of which they had no knowledge. Also, there are various quotes from The Founders identifying the Militia as "the people themselves," "the whole people," etc.
Source: http://www.constitution.org/mil/cs_milit.htm
I consider myself to be "the militia."
And anyone who thinks I'm not "well regulated" can pay my taxes, fill out my CCW, see my traffic tickets, check the county recorder, read all my laws......etc etc etc.
I was thinking more that "keeping" ...assumed .... "bearing" cuz you gotta bear it to keep it.
Probly just a mental masturbation thread.
I will keep AND bear.
And anyone who thinks I'm not "well regulated" can pay my taxes, fill out my CCW, see my traffic tickets, check the county recorder, read all my laws......etc etc etc.
I was thinking more that "keeping" ...assumed .... "bearing" cuz you gotta bear it to keep it.
Probly just a mental masturbation thread.
I will keep AND bear.
Let me clear up a few things...
The quoted USC (Title 10) above, has been in that particular form since the late 1800's.
The definition of "militia" dates to an earlier federal law passed in 1792 - The Federal Militia Act, which defined "Militia" as all able bodied white male citizens ages 18 to 45. Citizen-militias were in the colonies since from the early to mid 1600's.
The most current Militia Act was passed in 1956. This act pertains almost exclusively with the National Guard. What this does is to clarify when the National Guard, which is normally under State control (Title 32), can be tranferred to Federal control (Title 10).
Now, while the Guard, in this case, the Army National Guard, can trace it's history back to the Mass. Bay Colony in 1636 and it does on its website), it was not what we today would consider the Guard. It was at that time a citizen-militia of the kind and type exemplified by the founders in the Federalists Papers.
Just before the civil war, the New York state militia became the first militia to be actually named "National Guard" in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette who commanded the "Garde Nationale" in the early days of the French Revolution.
After the civil war, many states began to follow the lead of New York, by naming their state militias, National Guards.
It was during the Spanish American war that the courts ruled that the Federal Government could not call up the guard and federalize them, as the Guard were State units. The 1892 Militia Act was codified and Title 32 came into existance. The Guard still came under State authority except in times of national emergency when, according to the Constitution, they could then be federalized.
The problem prior to the Spanish American war was that while the Constitution gave Congress the authority to call up the militia, the Congress had not passed any laws to codify when, where or how this was to be accomplished.
This then was the lawfull beginnings of the organized militia as codified under Title 10 of the USC. It did not change the nature of the unorganized militia. No passage of law before or since has changed that nature.
Hence, under current equal rights laws, who are the militia? All able bodied persons aged 17 to 45.
Today, when referencing the militia, one must understand the nature and differences of the organized and the unorganized militias. To simply state "the militia" is legally refering to the unorganized militia. Whereas the National Guard now refers to the organized militia under State control (see the Militia Act of 1956) unless and until it has been called up under Title 32 by an act of the Congress or the President under Congressional mandate (see the National Defense Act of 1916). At which time, the control of the Guard is transferred from Title 32 to Title 10.
That is a brief but accurate history of the Guard. So that, while the Guard claims a history of 366 years of recognition, it would be more accurate to say that the Federalized National Guard only has a history going back to the Militia Act of 1892.
The quoted USC (Title 10) above, has been in that particular form since the late 1800's.
The definition of "militia" dates to an earlier federal law passed in 1792 - The Federal Militia Act, which defined "Militia" as all able bodied white male citizens ages 18 to 45. Citizen-militias were in the colonies since from the early to mid 1600's.
The most current Militia Act was passed in 1956. This act pertains almost exclusively with the National Guard. What this does is to clarify when the National Guard, which is normally under State control (Title 32), can be tranferred to Federal control (Title 10).
Now, while the Guard, in this case, the Army National Guard, can trace it's history back to the Mass. Bay Colony in 1636 and it does on its website), it was not what we today would consider the Guard. It was at that time a citizen-militia of the kind and type exemplified by the founders in the Federalists Papers.
Just before the civil war, the New York state militia became the first militia to be actually named "National Guard" in honor of the Marquis de Lafayette who commanded the "Garde Nationale" in the early days of the French Revolution.
After the civil war, many states began to follow the lead of New York, by naming their state militias, National Guards.
It was during the Spanish American war that the courts ruled that the Federal Government could not call up the guard and federalize them, as the Guard were State units. The 1892 Militia Act was codified and Title 32 came into existance. The Guard still came under State authority except in times of national emergency when, according to the Constitution, they could then be federalized.
The problem prior to the Spanish American war was that while the Constitution gave Congress the authority to call up the militia, the Congress had not passed any laws to codify when, where or how this was to be accomplished.
This then was the lawfull beginnings of the organized militia as codified under Title 10 of the USC. It did not change the nature of the unorganized militia. No passage of law before or since has changed that nature.
Hence, under current equal rights laws, who are the militia? All able bodied persons aged 17 to 45.
Today, when referencing the militia, one must understand the nature and differences of the organized and the unorganized militias. To simply state "the militia" is legally refering to the unorganized militia. Whereas the National Guard now refers to the organized militia under State control (see the Militia Act of 1956) unless and until it has been called up under Title 32 by an act of the Congress or the President under Congressional mandate (see the National Defense Act of 1916). At which time, the control of the Guard is transferred from Title 32 to Title 10.
That is a brief but accurate history of the Guard. So that, while the Guard claims a history of 366 years of recognition, it would be more accurate to say that the Federalized National Guard only has a history going back to the Militia Act of 1892.
What I posted earlier was done at the end on my lunch hour, so I didn't even get to address the OP!
Lavan, there is no "or". It is "and", full stop! Both the keeping and bearing of arms are a necessity within the framework of the amendment. You want to drive a wedge into the anti's militia argument, then learn the basic history I just brought you. The National Guard is not the whole of the militia, only the smallest part.
Also learn what the words, "well regulated" meant back then, It does not mean what the anti's say it means today. It had nothing to do with being regulated by a government, but everything to do with being properly equipped and properly trained in the use of the equipment. Which saying, sinks another of their arguments.
BlueTrain, I'm curious, why does the upper age requirement bother you? And why should those who wish to become citizens, be free of the obligations of citizenship? You want to become an American? Then shoulder the responsibility!
Lavan, there is no "or". It is "and", full stop! Both the keeping and bearing of arms are a necessity within the framework of the amendment. You want to drive a wedge into the anti's militia argument, then learn the basic history I just brought you. The National Guard is not the whole of the militia, only the smallest part.
Also learn what the words, "well regulated" meant back then, It does not mean what the anti's say it means today. It had nothing to do with being regulated by a government, but everything to do with being properly equipped and properly trained in the use of the equipment. Which saying, sinks another of their arguments.
BlueTrain, I'm curious, why does the upper age requirement bother you? And why should those who wish to become citizens, be free of the obligations of citizenship? You want to become an American? Then shoulder the responsibility!
The upper age limit bothers me because my age is becoming upper.
The comment about non-citizens was to make you think. After the Civil War supposedly a very large percentage of the army was made up of foreign born men. Couldn't quote any numbers, though, and I'm not saying it makes any difference. Other armies have frequently had large numbers of foreigners serving in the ranks, the best known being the French Foreign Legion. Spain has a foreign legion, too. The British have had Gurkhas since the partition of India and even the Germans employed large numbers of foreign volunteers. I'm an immigrant myself. I came from West Virginia.
The comment about non-citizens was to make you think. After the Civil War supposedly a very large percentage of the army was made up of foreign born men. Couldn't quote any numbers, though, and I'm not saying it makes any difference. Other armies have frequently had large numbers of foreigners serving in the ranks, the best known being the French Foreign Legion. Spain has a foreign legion, too. The British have had Gurkhas since the partition of India and even the Germans employed large numbers of foreign volunteers. I'm an immigrant myself. I came from West Virginia.
dakotashooter2
New member
Since I was REQUIRED by law to register for the draft and was eligible for call at any time it could be argued that I was a reserve member of the militia as is/was every other male 18 years of age or older. Since the draft is an ORGANIZED method of calling citizens to arms it would seem that every male of 18 years of age would have the right to keep and bear arms.
FirstFreedom
Moderator
They're equally important, because:
1. Without Keep (Own), there can be no bear
2. Without Bear (Carry), there can be no utility (a gun is of no good just lying around)
So both aspects are completely indispensable, and must not be allowed to be abridged, as the amendment says.
1. Without Keep (Own), there can be no bear
2. Without Bear (Carry), there can be no utility (a gun is of no good just lying around)
So both aspects are completely indispensable, and must not be allowed to be abridged, as the amendment says.
Wyo Cowboy
New member
"...and..." end of arguement.
Another point that the anti- crowd like to put up is... "A well regulated militia,..." claiming that one must be under military regulations and orders.
In the 18th century, the term "regulated" also refered to equipment and supplies. A number of the militia orders of the day detailed exactly the minimum equipment and supplies that each person were expected to report with. Often statements such as... "A rifle or musket, in good order, one pound of lead, five pounds of gunpowder, five striking flints..." and on into other personal equipment were posted for the local militia members.
Another point that the anti- crowd like to put up is... "A well regulated militia,..." claiming that one must be under military regulations and orders.
In the 18th century, the term "regulated" also refered to equipment and supplies. A number of the militia orders of the day detailed exactly the minimum equipment and supplies that each person were expected to report with. Often statements such as... "A rifle or musket, in good order, one pound of lead, five pounds of gunpowder, five striking flints..." and on into other personal equipment were posted for the local militia members.
"A well regulated militia, being....."
So, playing devils advocate, it seems to me that the members of the militia (male citizens 17-45) that are able to keep and bear arms are those in the National Guard and Naval Militia.
Also
In the 18th century, the term "arms" referred to swords and muskets. Not semi-automatic rapid fire high capacity rifles.
Im just saying: These are the arguments we are leaving ourselves vulnerable to here. Its so easy to argue ourside...Learn to argue thiers and you can use it against them to win, and explain that we have this right as indivudual citizens.
It concerned arms that were useful to the individual soldier of the day.
From U.S. v Miller 1939 U.S. Supreme Court
And:
So basically the decision lays at the fact that a weapon must be a viable one for a common soldier. Now a Thompson or BAR may have been except that the court might have decided that they were specialty weapons, not of common issue.
So, what is common issue today: A full auto M16 or its equivalent.
By the Miller decision, taken in its purest form, a musket could more easily be outlawed
steelheart
Moderator
And the answer is...
Now - do we need to debate the meaning of "every?"
Methinks not.
The fact that the Second Amendment refers to the unorganized militia (i.e., the people) is evident if you look at Ariticle I, Section 8 of the Constitution (the enumerated powers section). That section provides, in part, that the federal government has the power:
BTW, each state can define what constitutes its militia. Section 219 of the Ky. Const. defines the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45, inclusive. Thus, all able bodied men 18 to 45 would be part of an unorganized militia.
By statute, Kentucky distinguishes between the National Guard and other "active militia" which is defined as "a volunteer defense unit other than the National Guard." Ky. Rev. Stat. 35.010(2). The governor can appoint an active militia which does not consist of the National Guard and is to be known as the "Kentucky State Defense Force, which shall consist of able-bodied citizens who are residents of the State of Kentucky between the ages of eighteen (18) and sixty-four (64) who are not active members of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States." Ky Rev. Stat. 37.170.
It has always been my position that the right to keep arms for self-protection is a basic human right which exists independent of the Second Amendment and is one of the rights reserved to the people by the 9th and 10th Amendments.
Since the organized militia (National Guard) could be called into federal service at anytime, then the Second Amendment would be meaningless if it only applied to the organized militia. It clearly contemplates protecting the unorganized militia of the state.
BTW, each state can define what constitutes its militia. Section 219 of the Ky. Const. defines the militia as all able bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45, inclusive. Thus, all able bodied men 18 to 45 would be part of an unorganized militia.
By statute, Kentucky distinguishes between the National Guard and other "active militia" which is defined as "a volunteer defense unit other than the National Guard." Ky. Rev. Stat. 35.010(2). The governor can appoint an active militia which does not consist of the National Guard and is to be known as the "Kentucky State Defense Force, which shall consist of able-bodied citizens who are residents of the State of Kentucky between the ages of eighteen (18) and sixty-four (64) who are not active members of a reserve component of the Armed Forces of the United States." Ky Rev. Stat. 37.170.
It has always been my position that the right to keep arms for self-protection is a basic human right which exists independent of the Second Amendment and is one of the rights reserved to the people by the 9th and 10th Amendments.