1
1
0
Everyone loves debating the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. I want to discuss a recent event and hear some interpretations from my brothers and sisters in arms.
The whole Cliven Bundy incident. Ok, the guy's a racist schmuck. Let's not go into that. I want to know why people are defending a man who is breaking the law and doing so by exercising their rights as they perceive them: Standing against law enforcement, armed, and willing to defend/engage. They have said they would put women up as human shields and have threatened law enforcement officers.
Whatever your opinion on the subject, Bundy has broken the law and continues to do so. The courts have spoken.
He has a well-regulated militia guarding his cattle. Is this what the 2nd Amendment was all about? Protecting a citizen (Who doesn't recognize the American Government yet parades about carrying the flag) who violates the law?
Sean Hannity was a big supporter before it turned out he was a racist pig. What's the deal with defending a criminal???
I don't understand the defense. It is indefensible... why???????????????
Thoughts?
The whole Cliven Bundy incident. Ok, the guy's a racist schmuck. Let's not go into that. I want to know why people are defending a man who is breaking the law and doing so by exercising their rights as they perceive them: Standing against law enforcement, armed, and willing to defend/engage. They have said they would put women up as human shields and have threatened law enforcement officers.
Whatever your opinion on the subject, Bundy has broken the law and continues to do so. The courts have spoken.
He has a well-regulated militia guarding his cattle. Is this what the 2nd Amendment was all about? Protecting a citizen (Who doesn't recognize the American Government yet parades about carrying the flag) who violates the law?
Sean Hannity was a big supporter before it turned out he was a racist pig. What's the deal with defending a criminal???
I don't understand the defense. It is indefensible... why???????????????
Thoughts?
Posted in these groups: 
2nd Amendment
Militia
2nd Amendment Militia
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 13
10
10
0
Reference militia act of 1792. My opinion is that armed citizens representing one another's liberty against what they perceived to be a tyrannical government act is valid. I am specifically pleased that all involved were mature enough to keep ethically grounded and not act irrationally, which in my opinion is the basis of "well regulated." I don't believe "well regulated" references drill or structured organization, but rather ensuring that if arms are brought against a domestic enemy, the militia maintains the moral high ground so-to-speak. I find that no matter Bundy's legal missteps, the arrival of a government militia with extreme firepower was highly inappropriate, and the arrival citizens who presented themselves in kind was an appropriate response. I would not have advocated any violence on either side, but when the government went too far the PEOPLE showed up. That is a pretty significant glimmer of patriotic hope if you ask me. I don't believe there was any intention of aggression and wouldn't agree with a deliberate act of aggression towards the agencies. Once again, I am not advocating ANY specific acts of violence against the government, but do firmly believe in the protections established by the Constitution for the citizen's pursuit of life, liberty and happiness.
(10)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
SFC (Join to see), I generally agree with you, except for the opinion on the nature of the regulation of the Militia.
I encourage you to consider this article on the matter: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin271.htm The author is -- to my knowledge -- the foremost expert on the matter.
Do not misunderstand me; I strongly support the right of the people to keep and bear arms (even to the point that some who call themselves staunch 2A advocates would call me crazy). However, I further support the *duty* of the people to keep and bear arms, including in a well-regulated Constitutional Militia.
I encourage you to consider this article on the matter: http://www.newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin271.htm The author is -- to my knowledge -- the foremost expert on the matter.
Do not misunderstand me; I strongly support the right of the people to keep and bear arms (even to the point that some who call themselves staunch 2A advocates would call me crazy). However, I further support the *duty* of the people to keep and bear arms, including in a well-regulated Constitutional Militia.
Edwin Vieira Jr. -- Who Regulates "A Well Regulated Militia"?
Edwin Vieira Jr.'s column on NewsWithViews.com
(0)
(0)
SSG Gerhard S.
I'll quote Jefferson first here regarding Mr. Vieira's "squeezing" of meaning from the words of the Constitution.
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson)
Richard Henry Lee tells us WHO the Militia ARE.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee)
Here, James Madison tells us the purpose of the militia.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison)
Eldridge Gerry tells us here that it is the job of the militia (the armed citizenry) to protect us against standing armies, foreign or domestic.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry)
And to those who believe Americans should supplicate themselves to Federal powers, particularly when they are secular in nature and not Constitutionally based, Noah Webster has some words on that.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster)
Tench Coxe of Massachusetts makes it clear that the whole of the people, armed, should not be concentrated in the General government, but rather disbursed among the states, and among the armed people in general.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe)
"On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." (Thomas Jefferson)
Richard Henry Lee tells us WHO the Militia ARE.
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." (Richard Henry Lee)
Here, James Madison tells us the purpose of the militia.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country..." (James Madison)
Eldridge Gerry tells us here that it is the job of the militia (the armed citizenry) to protect us against standing armies, foreign or domestic.
"What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.... Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." (Rep. Elbridge Gerry)
And to those who believe Americans should supplicate themselves to Federal powers, particularly when they are secular in nature and not Constitutionally based, Noah Webster has some words on that.
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States" (Noah Webster)
Tench Coxe of Massachusetts makes it clear that the whole of the people, armed, should not be concentrated in the General government, but rather disbursed among the states, and among the armed people in general.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people" (Tench Coxe)
(2)
(0)
SFC (Join to see)
SPC Elijah Henry: Not sure you can identify someone as a 'foremost expert' regarding any matter for which they are writing opinion pieces. Also, I completely disagree with the author in almost every facet. The Constitution is quite specific regarding prohibition of a standing Army/Navy, which would squash the National Militia concept. Also, he can use the example of the Revolutionary War but it is a poor one. For one, yes the state's volunteers came together to form one collective, but the continental Congress asked their permission and participation. Government didn't regulate the militia, the representatives of the citizen volunteers did. And the Constitution wasn't framed to grant the government specific authority to regulate the nation's militia (COMPLETELY SEPARATE FROM STANDING ARMY), but rather to regulate the Government's imposition on the militia. To this end it is critical to note that the the Constitution doesn't regulate or restrict Citizens, it does so for government. It is also to this end that I find much of the author's language regarding the Constitution offensive.
(2)
(0)
SPC Elijah J. Henry, MBA
SSG Gerhard S., I'm sure that both I and Dr. Vieira wholly agree with each and every quotation that you presented.
SFC (Join to see), a fair point about the opinion piece. I refer you to his magnum opus about the Constitutional Militia: 'The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of "the Militia of the Several States."' It is a comprehensive CD-ROM study-2,304 pages in length, with 6,544 footnotes and endnotes from original sources. There was not sufficient market to print such a work, thus the CD-ROM. Note also that Dr. Vieira has four degrees from Harvard, including a J.D. and Ph.D. This should give him some modicum of credibility, at least.
Congress is granted Constitutional authority to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy, but the Militia of the several States are assumed to exist before the Constitution was written; Congress is only given power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, calling them forth for certain functions, and governing "such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." There is a huge difference between an army or navy -- standing or not -- and the Militia of the several States. Which, by the way, you are correct: there is no such thing as a National Militia: only the Militia of the several States. In the Revolutionary War, "representatives of the citizen volunteers" may have regulated the Militia, but under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution (written after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War), Congress is given the authority to regulate them -- provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining them.
As you say, the Constitution was not written to regulate citizens, but rather the government, but the Constitution does give authority to Congress in some things, including this.
If you read his other articles and books, you may find yourself more amenable to his position. Here is the last part of an 8 part article about the importance of the Constitutional Militia in preserving the right to keep and bear arms: http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin41.htm (The first seven parts are linked at the bottom of the article.)
Dr. Vieira argues that -- while Congress can require us to own certain weapons and accoutrements necessary for modern warfare -- they cannot restrict our right to own any weapon that we could conceivably use in the performance of our Constitutional Militia duties to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and execute the laws of the union. I have a a hard time thinking of a lot of weapons that could not be used for any of those purposes.
SFC (Join to see), a fair point about the opinion piece. I refer you to his magnum opus about the Constitutional Militia: 'The Sword and Sovereignty: The Constitutional Principles of "the Militia of the Several States."' It is a comprehensive CD-ROM study-2,304 pages in length, with 6,544 footnotes and endnotes from original sources. There was not sufficient market to print such a work, thus the CD-ROM. Note also that Dr. Vieira has four degrees from Harvard, including a J.D. and Ph.D. This should give him some modicum of credibility, at least.
Congress is granted Constitutional authority to raise and support armies and to provide and maintain a navy, but the Militia of the several States are assumed to exist before the Constitution was written; Congress is only given power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, calling them forth for certain functions, and governing "such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States." There is a huge difference between an army or navy -- standing or not -- and the Militia of the several States. Which, by the way, you are correct: there is no such thing as a National Militia: only the Militia of the several States. In the Revolutionary War, "representatives of the citizen volunteers" may have regulated the Militia, but under Article I, Section 8, Clause 16 of the Constitution (written after the conclusion of the Revolutionary War), Congress is given the authority to regulate them -- provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining them.
As you say, the Constitution was not written to regulate citizens, but rather the government, but the Constitution does give authority to Congress in some things, including this.
If you read his other articles and books, you may find yourself more amenable to his position. Here is the last part of an 8 part article about the importance of the Constitutional Militia in preserving the right to keep and bear arms: http://newswithviews.com/Vieira/edwin41.htm (The first seven parts are linked at the bottom of the article.)
Dr. Vieira argues that -- while Congress can require us to own certain weapons and accoutrements necessary for modern warfare -- they cannot restrict our right to own any weapon that we could conceivably use in the performance of our Constitutional Militia duties to repel invasions, suppress insurrections, and execute the laws of the union. I have a a hard time thinking of a lot of weapons that could not be used for any of those purposes.
Edwin Vieira, Jr. -- "The Militia of The Several States" Guarantee the Right to Keep and Bear...
"THE MILITIA OF THE SEVERAL STATES" GUARANTEE THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS PART 8 of 8
(2)
(0)
3
3
0
As you stated, any racism aside. This comes down to the Constitutional powers of the Federal government, specifically in it's ability to own land and for what purposes.
Article I Section 8 says Congress has the power to:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
That being said, and understanding there is no subsequent amendment expanding the scope of that clause, can you argue that the Federal government should be owning, maintaining, or otherwise controlling all that grazing land?
The Simple fact that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to control that land means they shouldn't be there in the first place to kick him, or any other rancher off of it so long as they are operating inside the boundaries of a STATE, and outside the boundaries of the lands permitted the Federal government, by the Constitution.
Article I Section 8 says Congress has the power to:
"To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"
That being said, and understanding there is no subsequent amendment expanding the scope of that clause, can you argue that the Federal government should be owning, maintaining, or otherwise controlling all that grazing land?
The Simple fact that the Federal government has no Constitutional authority to control that land means they shouldn't be there in the first place to kick him, or any other rancher off of it so long as they are operating inside the boundaries of a STATE, and outside the boundaries of the lands permitted the Federal government, by the Constitution.
(3)
(0)
3
3
0
Sir, just because the courts have spoken doesn't mean they are right. The courts have been wrong before.
Where is the proof that Mr Bundy is a racist? A deliberately twisted and edited tape? If you watch the ENTIRE video, and not just the parts the lamestream media want to put out, you'll see what he's talking about. There have also been many military personnel, of various skin colors and ethnic backgrounds, who support and defend him as well as being his friend.
There is also a huge difference between loving one's country and parading the flag around vs worshiping the government. HUGE difference.
Where is the proof that Mr Bundy is a racist? A deliberately twisted and edited tape? If you watch the ENTIRE video, and not just the parts the lamestream media want to put out, you'll see what he's talking about. There have also been many military personnel, of various skin colors and ethnic backgrounds, who support and defend him as well as being his friend.
There is also a huge difference between loving one's country and parading the flag around vs worshiping the government. HUGE difference.
(3)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google