Originally Posted by
PeterS
This is nothing more than media tendering to whom they perceive to be their listeners. We live in a free-market society and it reflects equally in our media coverage. If you don't think this isn't so then simply tune into Fox or conservative radio or thumb through The Weekly Standard or News Max or any right-wing rag. These and more have made their founders wealthy pandering solely to right-wing ideology. *Good for them. From the day that the first page rolled off the first printing press bias entered into the media. The founders were notorious in their manipulation of the media to suit their own political perspectives and for media pandering to them. Yet through it all we have somehow muddled through. This is why I say so what. You are sniveling and whining about something that, at the end of the day, really doesn't matter.
So, you are admitting that the mainstream media is as far to the left as you claim that Fox and talk radio are to the right? That's nice of you to concede, but unfortunately, the mainstream media won't admit what you have. They keep insisting that they are unbiased, and that only the sources that you cite are ideological, but even that only tells half the story. I've never heard Fox claim that Al Gore was responsible for the Unabomber, or that Piers Morgan was responsible for Dorner. The most you will hear conservatives say is that they object to the double-standard, where the media claims that conservative speech breeds violence, but then deny that leftist speech does (and, for the record, leftists routinely call for actual violence, not just rhetorical violence, as any coverage of a strike by a union will demonstrate). The media's coverage isn't simply biased, it's dishonest. Glad that you admit it.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
Where is that being suggested? The question is why one can only defend oneself with an assult weapon with a 100 round clip?
No, the question is who gives you, or the federal government, the authority to decide what we can and cannot use to defend ourselves? In your case, the answer is nobody, and in the case of the federal government, the Second Amendment makes it quite clear that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
First, you didn’t give an argument. Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the right to regulate militia but you ignored the reason why congress sought to rely on the militia instead of a permanent army. An argument would have explored the reasons behind the wording of the Constitution and its articles.
No, the distrust of a standing army was not germane to my point, but since you've decided that you need to delve into the Third Amendment, and the other acts by which the Crown used standing armies to enforce its will, I will happily explain that to you.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
The original intention of the Founding Fathers was that America would not risk maintaining a traditional standing army. The new American nation was to be founded on the high principles of freedom, liberty, and respect for life and property. As such the only concern was to defend the nation, not establish the means to conquer America's neighbors. When a need to defend the new nation arose, they would do as they'd done to fight the British - rely on a well armed citizenry motivated by enlightened self-interest to defend their own lives and property.
Assuming that this is the reason for the founders' distrust of a standing army, you have argued for ensuring that the militia has to have the kind of arms that any standing army would, to include crew-served weapons, heavy artillery, armor and aircraft, and nowhere have you proven that we are not the militia. However, the founders' prohibition of a permanent standing army came from a greater concern than a supposed belief that Americans should not fight land wars outside of our borders (Jefferson sent a punitive expedition against the Barbary Pirates, which included land forces, so he clearly was not averse to fighting wars overseas). The aversion to standing armies came from the experiences of the British people, from 1066 onward, but especially in the century prior to the American Revolution, and the British Crown's use of military personnel to enforce his edicts in the colonies, in direct conflict with the local laws passed by colonial legislatures. Initially, William the Conqueror destroyed the Saxon militias when he took England, and imposed Feudal obligations of levies of troops on his loyal retainers, but the subsequent issues arising from convoluted formulas of how many troops and arms were owed per fiefdom, led to the replacement of the obligation to provide manpower with money. The taxes imposed by the Normans were used to maintain standing forces which then kept the country in a constant state of war between William and his barons, and facilitated the seizures of Saxon holdings. The native population came to loathe the standing armies that routinely pillaged their lands while idle, and laid waste to them during combat. The constant conflicts between subsequent kings, barons and foreign powers led to the perpetuation of standing armies, always to the detriment of the people. Things came to a head under Charles I, whose standing forces were so abusive to the populace, not to mention expensive, that the Lords and Commons petitioned the King to withdraw his troops from their homes. The Petition of Right, which was presented in 1628, resulted in conflicts between the Crown and Parliament, and ultimately, civil war. The Parliamentary forces won, and with the dismissal of those members of Parliament who were not Puritans (and therefore not inclined to convict Charles I of treason), the Rump Parliament became a rubber stamp for the military dictatorship under Cromwell. This, combined with the forced quartering of British troops in private homes in the colonies (where they ran roughshod over local governance), was why the founders considered standing armies a threat to liberty.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
This isn't a question of weather the militia should be armed or how congress would regulate armament--of course they should be armed, they were intended to be the army!!!
Wrong. The militia was and is the people.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
As for citations look at the Congressional Record for the period.The Founding Fathers viewed a standing army during times of peace as dangerous to freedom. Jefferson while he was president stripped it down to only 3000 men. Congress had no intention of infringing on the right to bear arms which is why your conclusion that “congress cannot, as a pretense of regulating the militia, infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” is pure BULLSHIT.
It isn't a pretense, it is an accurate summary of the intent of the founders. The concern among the founders was that a central government would attempt to usurp the militia and supplant it with a standing army, as William had done after Hastings, and Charles I had done prior to the English civil war. Further, congress had no authority over the property of individuals within the United States. This is repeated throughout the writings of the era, and your random citations above do not invalidate my argument. In fact, the militia was not a state entity, although it could be called out by the governors (as well as by mayors or private citizens, something which you appear not to know). The militia was the people, and the right of the people form a militia was the based on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
“
A well regulated militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”
--James Madison: 1st Annals of Congress, at 434, June 8th 1789.
“
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”
--Richard Henry Lee: Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788
“I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people.”
--George Mason
“A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them,
which would include their own government.”
--George Washington
“…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.”
--Alexander Hamilton: Federalist Paper #29
Originally Posted by
PeterS
The point that is being ignored here is that we don’t rely on a States Militia for protection but the largest and strongest free standing army every conceived by man. So, other than self-defense, what is the reasoning today behind the Second? Certainly not solely to entertain a segment of society that seeks an unlimited and unrestricted armament so as to repel some mystical tyrannical invasion of government....as so many conservatives seem to think.
The point that you are pretending not to see is that the militia is not a state entity, but is comprised of all of the people who are capable of bearing arms, as the founders intended. You are also ignoring the fact that our standing army protects us from foreign threats, but is barred by law from protecting us from domestic ones. For that, we have delegated our right of self-defense to local and state agencies which we have empowered through our consent, but that does not give them the right to unilaterally abrogate our right of self-defense.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
It isn’t a question now of whether congress can regulate arms, they already do, this is why we don’t see nukes or even an RPG in the hand of citizens. So why then are restrictions to certain types of weapons perceived as such an invasion of our rights?
First, please show me where the Constitution explicitly gives congress the right to regulate arms. Do not say that it is implied by something that has nothing to do with arms, such as the Interstate Commerce Clause, but the actual enumeration of that power. Second, militia weapons were always understood to be personal arms. A militiaman wouldn't necessarily own a cannon, but would not be barred from owning one. In fact, most of the units that fought in the Civil War furnished their own arms (especially on the Confederate side). The first Gatling guns used in combat were privately purchased by regimental officers of private militias. The last privately raised militia in federal service was the 1st Volunteer Cavalry, Teddy Roosevelt's Rough Riders. The National Defense Act of 1903 created the National Guard and Army Reserve, and specified standards for training and equipping, but did not bar private citizens from maintaining their own arms.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
How exectly would you defeat a tyrannicay goverment with an AR15? How did David Koresh fair?
He held out against the ATF and FBI longer than France did against Germany.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
This is why the Japs, Iraquis, and Afganis all won right! Yeah, we leftists know nothing of history...
First, Fertig's insurgency in Mindanao defeated the Japanese (you really should read my posts before you reply to them). Second, do you really think that we won the Afghan and Iraq wars? We invaded successfully, and defeated the standing armies that met us in the field, but the insurgencies have forced us to declare victory and leave without securing anything. We are negotiating with the Taliban for control of Afghanistan, and the government that we installed in Iraq is now allied with Iran against us. The US withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq is beginning to look an awful lot like our withdrawal from South Vietnam. So, yes, leftists do need to study history, and badly.
Originally Posted by
PeterS
It is question of whether they have a right to regulate moron...
And the answer is no, they do not. Once again, where is the enumeration of congress' power to regulate the private property of individual citizens? Where is the enumeration of congress' power to regulate our right to self-defense? What article of the Constitution contains that language?
