tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3060534295892170518.post8753955040939548904..comments2024-02-06T18:46:04.220+10:00Comments on Real World Libertarian: The 2nd Amendment and The Wall St JournalJim Fryarhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15780237902858889143noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3060534295892170518.post-21756968471937927562008-03-01T23:21:00.000+10:002008-03-01T23:21:00.000+10:00maderak; Great to have you over, that was really i...maderak; Great to have you over, that was really interesting and worth reading, and backs up my position that the first part in no way places any limits on the last part.<BR/><BR/>Michael; This may well be the case as armed civilians acting together would be a viable ready reaction force in an emergency, especially back then when the vast majority of people had guns and were very competent at the use of them.<BR/><BR/>A government that doesn't oppress the people can generally rely on such groups to be on their side, and therefore have nothing to fear from them.Jim Fryarhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15780237902858889143noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3060534295892170518.post-9593091544585924592008-03-01T21:27:00.000+10:002008-03-01T21:27:00.000+10:00A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the s...<I>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” is essentially a preamble, basically nothing more than an introduction. It if anything reinforces what follows, by recognizing the right of the citizen to resist oppression and possess the means of doing so.</I><BR/><BR/>I actually think the first part acknowledges a right of the people to form militias. Basically it's going beyond the right of the individual to own firearms, also acknowledging their right to join together and get 'well organised' like an army. And that the state should not stop this from happening.<BR/><BR/>It all comes back to the basis of the US constitution. A government that governs with the full consent of the people shouldn't be concerned if the people go as far as forming a militia. If a government cracks down on anything it considers a threat to it, then it probably no longer has the consent of the people.<BR/><BR/>I think this quote applies:<BR/><BR/><I>The people of the various provinces are strictly forbidden to have in their possession any swords, bows, spears, firearms or other types of arms. The possession of these elements makes difficult the collection of taxes and dues, and tends to permit uprising. – Toyotomi Hideyoshi, Japanese Shogun, August 29, 1558</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3060534295892170518.post-58000490103348848222008-03-01T16:37:00.000+10:002008-03-01T16:37:00.000+10:00I could not agree more mate. An essay by Professor...I could not agree more mate. An essay by Professor Eugene Volokh of UCLA called "The Commonplace Second Amendment" points to the use of 'justification clauses' in numerous state constitutions drafted in the same era.<BR/>For example he cites the New Hampshire constitution drafted in 1784:<BR/><BR/>"In criminal prosecutions, the trial of facts in the vicinity where they happen, is so essential to the security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen, that no crime or offence ought to be tried in any other county than that in which it is committed"<BR/><BR/>He points out that while offering a similar justification clause, the existence of the right is not dependent on whether or not it is still essential to the "security of the life, liberty and estate of the citizen", as today it may well not be. It is simply an explanatory note.<BR/><BR/>I thought this was interesting observation.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com