[etgryphon]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
"what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously."

It is those who ignore the militia clause who believe that what is actually written down shouldn't be taken seriously.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sigh.

1. Though some of our civil rights, such as the right to keep and bear arms, are recognized in the Bill of Rights, they nevertheless exist independently and may not properly be infringed, even if the entire Bill of Rights were repealed.

2. The right to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the ninth amendment: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

3. In any case, the militia clause in the second amendment was added to emphasize that the RKBA is a paticularly important right for the people to retain to enable them to resist not only foreign agression, but also tyranny in their own government. Thus, it makes zero sense to suppose it authorizes the government to form a government controlled standing army. This interpretation is apparent by reading Federalist #29, authored by Hamilton: [Added emphasis mine]

"By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

[/ QUOTE ]

Excellent post.

I don't think Andy is far off the mark though. I just believe the militia extents to all people who are not disinfranchised of their rights (felons). The right to bear arms has been eroded over the last 60 years or so because people were "willing" to trample their rights in order to solve a problem.

Remember when the Constitution was passed there were no:

1. Standing Armies
2. National Guard
3. Organized Police

There was just you and your ability to take care of youself as a law-abiding citizen.

And based on the following cases:

Hartzler v. City of San Jose, 46 Cal. App. 3d 6 (1st Dist. 1975)

Riss v. New York, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. 1968)

Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981)

DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989)

Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Department. (901 F.2d 696 9th Cir. 1990)

Zinermon v. Burch (110 S.Ct. 975, 984 1990)

Castle Rock v. Gonzales

The courts have repeatedly ruled that the police\government\NG\Army has no obligation to protect you or to save you. So now we are left with the thought of how to protect myself and my family.

So I own and carry a farearm everywhere that I can for the express purpose of defending myself and my family.

This is the last word if people want to be honest with themselves. There is a battle raging in the federal courts at the moment. It will definately make it to the Supreme Court. Hopefully the justices will have the fortitude to rule in favor of law abiding citizens.

I think that it is very interesting when disasters happen (9/11, Katrina) that gun sales go through the roof. People's eyes are opened to how dangerous the world is and how weak the governement is at its ability to protect "individuals". I don't fault the government because it is a n impossible task, I just am angry that they limit my ability to care for myself so that they can look like they are "doing something". I do believe that gun grabbers are for the most part well-intentioned, but vastly ignorant or unwilling to face the facts. Gun Controllers are the real extremist.

-Gryph