Reply #379: Response to "Natural Rights": I did not argue "guns" were the only means of self defense. I also [View All]

[jmg257]

did not argue that the states or the feds ignore the true definition of the militia.

It IS my argument that framers figured the "the right to keep and bear arms" as a natural right - because that is what they said (as well as absolute, inherent, private, personal). My view of the right is much less important, because THEY are the ones who wisely secured that right as part of the law of the land. I do indeed prefer their view of it.

I do argue that the Congress has redefined or recreated what the constitutional militia is. I also argue they had no power to do so, they had only the power to provide for arming, organizing and discipling THE MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES, entities that existed and were well defined BEFORE the Constitution gave them such vital and permanent roles. Congress could not ignore them, and Congress did not get power to create them, or recreate them, or redefine them. Any power they used to do so is a usurption.

I would also argue that they eventually created a "Militia of the United States" to take the place of the constitutional Militia of the several States (again a usurption). This includes the "organized Militia" (NG) and the "unorganized militia". They also redefined the role of their new creation to include actions not listed in the constitution, and to make the select and active part of it a reserve of the federal standing army. Although I have not argued it, they did force the states to cede most of whatever control they had over the militia as a condition precedent for receiving federal funds. Some states do have State Defense Forces; these however are also not the constitutional Militias, because they serve no federal role as mandated by the constitution.

I would also argue that the federal government providing the actual small arms the new militia uses is also in conflict with the intent of the Constitution. The intent of the Constitution was for the the Congress to provide guidlines, NOT the actual arms, and this intent is CLEARLY supported by the debates in the Constitutional Convention, the debates in Congress, the state Militia Acts, and the Militia Act of 1792, and the documented knowlege of how the Militia of the several States traditionally functioned...I would also argue that IF it was the intent that the feds provide the arms, that this would CLEARLY be in conflict with ANY notion that the 2nd only secures a militia right "to KEEP and bear arms". I have yet to hear of a Guard member being able to bring his M16 home with him.



Luckily, as we have seen, MY right to keep and bear arms is not dependent on my role in the militia, although my role in the militia does secure my right to those arms in common military use.