'No way an AK-47 is going to take care of you': Biden dismisses Founding Father quote on militias
(www.washingtonexaminer.com)
Comments (26)
sorted by:
DEFAULT COMMUNITIES
•
All
General
AskWin
Funny
Technology
Animals
Sports
Gaming
DIY
Health
Positive
Privacy
Except for the Navy, it is not clear that constitutionally the government has a right to own guns.
IMHO the 2nd Amendment acknowledges that the government has the right to bear arms when it says "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, ...". Remember, when the Constitution and Bill of Rights were penned the fledgling American government had just finished fighting the British Militia, a militia at the time being the conscripted forces of a state power.
Government with guns is the entire reason that statement is included as a subordinate clause in the 2nd. I think weapons are implied with the "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;" section. Again, the militia in this context is a conscripted standing army.
A militia isn’t an army. It wasn’t then either. A militia is a non governmental group. It feels like you are shilling against private gun rights, but I could be reading your motivation wrong.
That is not correct. re: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_(British_Dominions_and_Crown_Colonies)
At the time of the writing the Militia referred to standing conscripted state armies.
My motivation is that the fake news reading of the 2nd is designed to restrict private ownership. My reading (and I believe the correct reading) is:
[Because we need an army] then [the people can have the same weapons as the army]. Plainly stated...
Standing armies and government ownership of arms are covered by the original document Article I, Section 8:
12: To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
13: To provide and maintain a Navy;
The Bill Of Rights was intended to focus on the rights of citizens and not the government. There would be no need for a second amendment at all if it was meant to guarantee that the government could keep and bear arms, which was already covered and at the time already being done. The only thing not guaranteed in the original document specifically was private ownership of arms. I haven't asked the author directly, but I believe it was excluded for the same reason that the phrase "water is wet" does not appear in the Constitution.
Clause 15. The Congress shall have Power *** To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.
All of the constitution is restrictive of Government's power. The 2nd amendment doesn't bestow any rights to citizens, it restricts the Government's right to make any law that infringes on the right God gave all of us for self protection, especially against tyranny. IMHO... I could be wrong for course but that's the way I take it.
To be clear, I didn't say the 2nd gave Government any guarantee to the government, I said that the 2nd acknowledges the fact that the Government will have guns because other parts of the Constitution explained that we need a standing army (militia) to protect our borders et. al.
You are correct that the Navy is the only enumerated branch of the military, but I think that was for appropriations because ships are expensive. Remember: the Militia consisted of conscripted civilians that were required to provide their own weapons so appropriations for Militia weapons didn't have to be inscribed at the founding.
I'm sure they never envisioned the other provisions would empower Congress to spend trillions on a military, but they intended all civilians to be armed enough to fight a war and with as high as taxes are we should ALL be driving an M1A1 to work every day IMHO.