Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Right to Bear Arms? What History Tells Us.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #76
    Originally posted by Torien View Post
    a cursory glance of your post shows some glaring problems.

    1) You title your post: "What was Saint George Tucker's interpretation of the Second Amendment?", and then proceed to quote an obvious piece on the Constitution itself. Specifically the afore-mentioned Article 1, sec. 8. I have a little problem with that.
    What's the problem? Those were the exact words of Mr. Tucker.

    Comment


    • #77
      Originally posted by Torien View Post
      A little mention of history of bans on gun ownership in England, which Tucker clearly does not agree with.
      When reading a legal commentary, don't confuse the author's personal opinions on a subject with his interpretation of a law on that subject.

      Even according to your own emphasis. ("This may be considered as the true palladium of liberty .... The right of self defence is the first law of nature")
      In 1789, the right of self-defense didn't include an individual right to keep and bear arms for personal protection.


      I will add more in coming posts. Although, I doubt I will change your mind as you seem willing to disregard the Supreme Court ruling I posted.
      With respect to my personal behavior I always respect Supreme Court rulings. However, I have no respect for the reasoning of the judicial activists who wrote D. C. v. Heller, because they didn't apply the rules of legal interpretation the lawmakers subscribed to when the Second Amendment was made.
      Last edited by Miss You; 11 Nov 08, 18:14.

      Comment


      • #78
        I believe that the words of Tucker that he used when he actually interpreted the 2nd Amendment should have far greater weight than any other reference Tucker might make to the 2nd Amendment while interpreting other sections of the Constitution.... and when Tucker is actually interpreting the 2nd Amendment, he clearly sees it as an individual right involving self defense.

        Perhaps, your time would be better spent trying to reconcile how an individual right to keep and bear arms would help insure that arms would always be available to the militia in the event the Federal Government disarmed the well regulated militia?

        Finally you should consider that the right to arms, as envisioned by Blackstone and by Tucker, actually protects two underlying natural rights, to wit: 1.) the natural right of resistance; and, 2.) the natural right of self-preservation. If you do a search of how Blackstone used the term "resistance" and how he used the term "self-preservation", the result is clear and unmistakeable. When he uses the term "resistance", Blackstone is speaking of a confrontation involving lawful or pretended authority on the one hand and the people or another institution on the other. Thus when a person refuses an order of the Sheriff, Blackstone terms it "resistance". When the Pope made a claim, it was met with vigorous resistance from the Englifh parliament. This should be contrasted with how Blackstone employed the terminology "self-preservation". When using that term, Blackstone is invariably speaking of the individual right of self defense.

        Your problem, Miss You, is that you choose to see only those things that relate only to the natural right of resistance in the 2nd Amendment and fail to comprehend the aspect of the 2nd which relates to self preservation.

        Comment


        • #79
          I'm glad you're here to argue this legaleagle -- I got frustrated very quickly and lost interest
          I like Dogs far better than most People

          As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

          BoRG

          Comment


          • #80
            Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
            Perhaps, your time would be better spent trying to reconcile how an individual right to keep and bare arms would help insure that arms would always be available to the militia in the event the Federal Government disarmed the well regulated militia?
            I'll plunge in where KF won't. Isn't it individual's? And AFAIK most branches of the military in the US require two arms for enlistment. So it's maybe a good idea to keep them safe and secure.
            Last edited by General Staff; 11 Nov 08, 17:22.
            Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
            (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

            Comment


            • #81
              Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
              I'm glad you're here to argue this legaleagle -- I got frustrated very quickly and lost interest
              Perhaps I can rectify that somewhat, and bring this discussion of the 2nd Amendment into something dealing with military history, which your expertise can be more aptly employed.

              Firstly, what is a militia? How did it compare with a regular army and why did the Framers of our Constitution prefer a defense based upon a militia force rather than that of a regular army?

              The English tradition of the militia begins with King Alfred the Great who first organized a national militia in England. BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARIES, VOL. 2, CH. 13, P. 409.

              http://www.lonang.com/exlibris/tucker/tuck-213.htm

              King Alfred the Great ruled England from 871 to 899. This was the height of the "Age of Vikings" and King Alfred was noted for his defense of the kingdom as against the Vikings. The Vikings created a special and somewhat unique problem for Alfred. Their longboats had a shallow draft which not only allowed the Vikings to navigate the ocean, they could also strike deep in the countryside by navigating their ships upstream on rivers. A regular army could not respond quickly or efficiently to viking raids which could occur almost anywhere. The solution devised by Alfred was the militia which made all the subjects of Alfred his soldiers. They were given a modicum of training and were required to provide themselves with weapons to be employed in this role.

              This duty to have and maintain arms was codified by a series of laws generally known as the "Assize of Arms" where specific weapons were required of specific individuals based upon "their condition and degree". Thus, a duke was required to maintain a greater degree of weaponry that a mere freeholder. The militia had regular "musters" in which basic battle techniques and manuevers were taught to the members of the militia. These could occur once a month or at other sporadic intervals depending upon the specific militia law in place at any given time during the history of England. Of special importance is that these militia members were primarily civilians, coming from and representing their communities.

              This is contrasted by the troops of a regular army of the era. Prior to the rise of nationalism during the French Revolution and the subsequent Napoleonic period, regular armies were more akin to what we would call mercenaries today. Professional soldiers who owed their primary alleginanace to the person who provided them with a paycheck.

              The framers trusted the militia because it was drawn from the people and represented the people. A similar comparison or analogy, can be made with their preference for a jury. A group of ordinary citizens drawn from the community. Just as the jury served to inject the voice of the people in the judicial system, the militia served to inject the voice of the people into the military system.

              The description of how this individual duty of freeholders to keep arms and serve in the militia transformed itself into an ancient right to keep arms for self defense is quite fascinating. Perhaps the best work on this subject is Joyce Lee Malcom's book, To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right .

              The critical stage of this development occured during the period commencing with the beheading of Charles I, the republican period of Cromwell, the restoration of Charles II and culminating in the the ouster of James II by the Glorious Revolution, the accession of William and Mary and the adoption of the English Bill of Rights in 1689.
              Last edited by legaleagle_45; 11 Nov 08, 13:38.

              Comment


              • #82
                Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                I'll plunge in where KF won't. Isn't it individual's? And AFIK most branches of the military in the US require two arms for enlistment. So it's maybe a good idea to keep them safe and secure.
                You obviously are not familiar with the newly adopted law "American Soldiers With Disabilities Act"

                Comment


                • #83
                  Originally posted by legaleagle_45 View Post
                  You obviously are not familiar with the newly adopted law "American Soldiers With Disabilities Act"
                  No, though on this day of all others to me, whatever they legislated is not enough.
                  Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                  (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                  Comment


                  • #84
                    Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                    No, though on this day of all others to me, whatever they legislated is not enough.
                    Agreed!

                    Comment


                    • #85
                      Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                      I'll plunge in where KF won't. Isn't it individual's? And AFIK most branches of the military in the US require two arms for enlistment. So it's maybe a good idea to keep them safe and secure.
                      The question is -GS - must those two arms be "bare" or must they be strong enough to "bear" arms ?? -- This is so confusing
                      I like Dogs far better than most People

                      As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                      BoRG

                      Comment


                      • #86
                        Or is it OK to have bare arms while we bear arms ? LOL
                        I like Dogs far better than most People

                        As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                        BoRG

                        Comment


                        • #87
                          Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
                          The question is -GS - must those two arms be "bare" or must they be strong enough to "bear" arms ?? -- This is so confusing
                          Both.

                          P.S. You set me up you devil.
                          Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                          (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                          Comment


                          • #88
                            Just a little word play to lighten the mood -- no offense intended
                            I like Dogs far better than most People

                            As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                            BoRG

                            Comment


                            • #89
                              Originally posted by Kaiser Franz View Post
                              Just a little word play to lighten the mood -- no offense intended
                              None taken- you're far too clever for this simple Saxon boy. And you know how they're regarded in Germany, don't you?
                              Tactics are based on Weapons... Strategy on Movement... and Movement on Supply.
                              (J. F. C. Fuller 1878-1966)

                              Comment


                              • #90
                                Originally posted by General Staff View Post
                                None taken- you're far too clever for this simple Saxon boy. And you know how they're regarded in Germany, don't you?

                                Sure -- Simple Saxon Boy - my rear end -- I'm wise to your game my friend --

                                How are Saxons regarded in German ? My time has always been spent in the Munich area - and from there south - not exactly Saxon country
                                I like Dogs far better than most People

                                As our Supply Sargent once said "If'n you only got one - order one - If'n you got Two - turn one in !! (???)

                                BoRG

                                Comment

                                Latest Topics

                                Collapse

                                Working...
                                X