December 14, 2009
Huck Riley said
It's always been my belief that a militia is a people's army and as such, those were the people's personal weapons.
By definition, it's not a governmental or collective thing. In fact, that which distinguishes a *well* regulated militia from a regulated militia (State militias?), or even a highly regulated militia (Brown Shirts?) is the fact that the individual people regulate themselves. It's not a collective thing, regardless of how they choose to bear, or where they choose to keep their arms. This reading was later codified when a *well* regulated militia was specifically defined as one wherein the right of the *people* to keep and bear arms has not been infringed.
I know it's difficult for people today to fathom a time when "regulated" was something that individuals were capable of doing to themselves, without government, but nevertheless, that used to be the case. Indeed, it was expected and necessary and it was well that it should be so.
Huck, Regardless of whose weapons were at Concord the confiscation of personal weapons was not a reason for the revolution as far as my understanding goes.
Without getting into a discussion about the merits of an regulated militia and an unregulated militia the Second Amendment is a guarantee of the citizens to keep and bear arms and you Americans are indeed fortunate to have that enshrined in your constitution.
January 19, 2017
Every revolution has many reasons. Confiscation of personal weapons was indeed one of them in our revolution; efforts to do so immediately preceding commencement. When folks received secret intelligence regarding English intent, they got the ball rolling.
There is no discussion of an "unregulated" militia here. Long-standing canons of Constitutional interpretation require us to accord each word intent and meaning. In the instant case, the word "well" distinguishes a militia necessary to the security of a free state from all other militias which, history shows, can present a substantial, credible threat to the security thereof.
December 21, 2006
Well here's My 2 cents worth. First off, prohibition has never worked on anything (booze, dope, firearm s free speech etc), anywhere at any time in history. Except for a complete dictatorial government, who usually gets overthrown by the rebellious freedom seekers. In France before the 2nd w.w. they had a gun registry. This made it very convenient for the Nazi's to round up all those loose civilian guns and it was death to those who refused to turn 'em over. Like was said, here in Canada the Liberal gov't under Jean Cretien imposed a long gun registry after the senseless slaughter of 14 ,I think, Nurses and students at ecole politec in Quebec This put the fear of the gov't in a lot of firearms owners, at the time, Myself included. A lot of guns were exported to the U.S. for fear of confiscation and loosing them completely. A lot of them were turned in to the police , they called it amnesty, by older folks etc. who just didn't want to be bothered or were scared of repricussions . I knew of a pair of beautiful cased Scottish dualing pistols, that I tried to rescue, turned in by two elderly sisters that had been in the family for 150 years, only to be taken home by the then acting sergeant at our local O.P.P. detachment and later sold along with a couple thousand other guns he acquired that way. I on the other hand registered most of My guns and hid a few hopeing that the gov't would come to their senses. I think economics eventually took over. This registry was supposed to be self supporting at no cost to the public. I think it ended up costing the public around $14billion .and didn't do any thing to prevent violent crime, our crime rate actually went up. Any ways You all get the point. These "gun Laws" are the result of our country being run by the reactions of a few misguided people, to actions of a very few extremely bad people. We have a reasonable system here in Canada where a person is trained .in the use and possession of firearms. , Now saying that I still don't have the right to protect Myself or My property, We still need some changes. I'm 70 years old and if My gov't were about to confiscate My property, I can assure You there would be one hell'uva fight, What are they going to do to 2 or 3 million people refusing to hand in their guns, they can't lock everybody up. I guess that's what democracy is about, if the majority of the population makes an informed decision to ban guns then I being the minority must abide or remove Myself from that situation and move. It seems common sense has gone by the wayside in favor of electoral popularity in New Zealand. Well maybe that was 4 cents worth but there You have it.
W.A.C.A. life member, Marlin Collectors Assn. charter and life member, C,S.S.A. member and general gun nut.
December 14, 2009
Henry, France was not the only European country with a gun registry that the Nazis benefited from when occupying the country. My father-in -law was involved with throwing the gun registry records in the river Waal when the Germans invaded Holland in 1940. He spent time in a concentration camp for that bit of patriotism. The Germans has a particular hatred of partisans since in their mind they weren't fighting by the rules of war and didn't wear uniforms etc.
Most Users Ever Online: 628
Currently Online: jwm94
Currently Browsing this Page:
Guest Posters: 859
Newest Members:email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, Bob C., email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com