Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Dude provided his name, apparently as an invitation to check out his cred. His dissertation is on his website for anyone and everyone to read. I read a small portion of it. It was entertaining, if you like incredulity, but if I am going to read fiction I can think of far better works.
But back on topic... how about them principles in the Federalist 29... on which the 2nd amendment is based?
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ah, yes. Thank you.
It is interesting that you quote only the subset of that larger passage, because the larger passage actually quite clearly specifies the principles that would not appear to serve your purposes nor the very thing you emphasize in your quote. Here is the larger, containing passage:
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Then Hamilton goes on to explain the great economic loss that would result from trying to train up the average Joe to become truly "well-regulated" (a term meaning "well-trained"). Then the passage you quote appears.
But Hamilton goes ON to discuss the creation of a truly well-regulated militia, and we see the closest outworking of this principle in our current National Guard. And the combination of "the people at large" and the National Guard are supposed to act as "the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."
The FEAR at that time was the formation of a large standing army (as the USA presently has). It was felt (apparently rightly so) that a large standing army under direct control of the Federal Government (directly under the President) was a HUGE threat to individual liberty, because such an army could on a whim be directed against "the people at large."
This was, in fact, a major point in the federalist/anti-federalist debates. So, in this Paper, Hamilton endeavors to lay that concern to rest BY outlining the principles: 1) it is necessary that "the people at large" be well armed and equipped, and: 2) from among such people, a genuinely well-regulated militia be formed and continually available.
Let's start by noting that the large standing army (with drones aimed at US soil) is a present reality that the anti-federalists feared, and it IS the very abridgment of liberty they feared.
The very fact that so many of you anti-gun folks argue that it is absurd to think that "the militia" or "the people" could EVER successfully take up arms against the US military... well, that MAKES the very point that Hamilton endeavored to make.
Hamilton responds to the anti-federalists regarding this very fear by saying, in effect, "Look, this is an unfounded fear. First, 'the people' will never tolerate such a standing army. Second, between 'the people' and 'the militia' all being 'well armed and equipped,' and with them ever ready to rise up in defense of liberty from enemies both foreign and domestic, IF a standing army ever did get formed, the people would EVER have the capacity to rise up against it and subdue it if necessary."
Read further on in the next paragraph from the one you quote: "This [well armed people and a well-regulated militia] 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."
A number of things are notable from these passages, and NONE of them help the anti-gun case in the slightest!
1) There was never supposed to be a large, standing army in perpetuity. The principle was that "the people" could be called upon directly by the federal government (a "draft," if you will) in any case of national distress requiring large-scale force of arms. And if a temporary standing army were deemed expeditious, the emphasis was on "temporary."
2) It was presumed throughout this argument (in this Paper) and in many others throughout the Papers that "the people" and the derivative "militia" would be EQUALLY armed and equipped as any standing army! This is the very POINT upon which the anti-federalists were assured to not fear a strong federal government: "No worries, folks! The PEOPLE and their derivative militia will ALL be 'little if any inferior to [that army]' and so will be able to rise up against it if it EVER attempts to abridge liberties at the behest of a strong federal government."
3) The intent of the Second Amendment is made CRYSTAL clear in this Paper, including definitions of "well regulated" and "militia," AND how these principled ends are to be derived DEPENDS 100% on the FACT that "the people" of the USA were to be "properly armed and equipped," which, in the context we find these statements, can ONLY mean "armed and equipped comparable to the very standing army that they act as the better alternative to and that they might well have to rise up against!"
Unlike the Euro Socialist Democracies we now see, OUR nation was formed with a deep-seated fear of despotic power (and not enough of that today!), and INDIVIDUAL LIBERTY was presumed to trump all.
It was PRESUMED by federalists and anti-federalists alike that "the people" would be well armed and equipped to defend their liberties against ANY form of federal despotism. And the idea that it was never intended that "the people" would take up arms against any standing army the USA might muster is FLATLY DENIED by this very Federalist Paper. Indeed, Hamilton assuages the fears of his anti-federalist opponents BY assuring them that they are all (federalist and anti-federalist alike) on common ground as regards the three principles I've outlined above.
Thus, you anti-gun folks are DEEPLY begging the question when you assert that the average Joe should not have military-style arms! You say "Joe can't take on the US military, so that can't be what the founders intended." Yet the founders DID intend for Joe to be ABLE to take on the US military IF it ever became a threat to liberty. That requires both comparable ARMS and, for a subset of "Joes" derived from "the people" into a well-regulated militia, TRAINING... so that Joe and his proxies could band together at will to put down any threat from a US standing army!
So, yes, the average Joe SHOULD (and according to THIS Federalist Paper, and others) have access to EVERY form of weaponry the standing army has and comparable training should he also desire to join "the militia."
Thus, contrary to your claim about "this" not making it into the Second Amendment, I would beg to differ. Indeed, EVERY principle of this Federalist Paper DID make it into the Second Amendment. Anti-gun folks just refuse to accept all these implications because they prefer some set of damned lies to trump the founding principles.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Of course he deleted that post, along with many of his other post...
Which post do you say I deleted? I'm baffled because I NEVER delete posts. Yes, I am principled that way. lol
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
Aww c'mon D.C. You must've made up that quotation from Federalist 29. (sarcasm intended)
odd isn't it, how ANGRY the gun toters get? As if they're afraid of people knowing they really are irresponsible?
How the H*** can responsible citizens get so freaked out about proposals to reduce irresponsible behavior?
That is part of the social madness.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
How the H*** can responsible citizens get so freaked out about proposals to reduce irresponsible behavior? That is part of the social madness.
How the H*** can "responsible citizens" NOT get so freaked out by a government that has become totally despotic and tyrannical?
Oh, right. Silly me! They really are NOT responsible citizens.
And that IS part (a huge part) of the social madness.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Then Hamilton goes on to explain the great economic loss that would result from trying to train up the average Joe to become truly "well-regulated" (a term meaning "well-trained"). Then the passage you quote appears.
hahahaaaa... interesting, because the parts I quoted are within the first 2 paragraphs.
ah, yep, my bad... your post is still there. I just overlooked it. Sorry Richard Jensen. Carry on.
So, yes, the average Joe SHOULD (and according to THIS Federalist Paper, and others) have access to EVERY form of weaponry the standing army has and comparable training should he also desire to join "the militia."
Sure, SHOULD HE DESIRE TO JOIN THE MILITIA, regulated at the direction of the national authority... as Hamilton CLEARLY expressed. If not, he should be subject to reasonable gun regulations... like waiting periods, restrictions on mass killing machines, etc.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
the parts I quoted are within the first 2 paragraphs
I was responding to ontheedge, not you.
Yours and my posts "crossed in the night," so I wasn't responding to yours.
I find nothing in yours now that needs any response, as my larger post encompasses the points you were emphasizing.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
I thought you had already responded to OTEASTD with your 'good stab' post. It took you that long to dribble that additional load of rhea?
|
|
HighTraverse
Trad climber
Bay Area
|
|
you've NO idea what a tyrannical and despotic government looks like.
You and I likely have a similar number of things we don't much like about our government (most likely of opposing views), but it is NOT despotic or tyrannical.
Try Putin's "democratic" Russia or Iran or Syria. How about Saddam's Iraq? That was a government despotic enough for Bush to lie to us about reasons for invasion. Didn't hear too many gun toters saying Shrub/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz and gang were despots. Didn't hear too many gun toters questioning the Patriot Act.
So actually when I think about it, the Bush regime was the closest to a tyrannical and despotic government we've had in my not so short lifetime. And even there, the people's elected representatives had the option of saying NO. They just didn't have the cojones.
Go live in North Korea, or even China, for a while and come back and call your government tyrannical and despotic. Then you might have some credence.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Sure, SHOULD HE DESIRE TO JOIN THE MILITIA, regulated by the militia at the direction of the national authority... as Hamilton CLEARLY expressed. If not, he should be subject to reasonable gun regulations... like waiting periods, restrictions on mass killing machines, etc.
To respond to your late post-addition....
Hamilton not only did NOT "clearly" express what you say he does, he CLEARLY expresses the exact opposite of what you claim:
ontheedge quoted it.... "Little more can reasonably be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped...."
In other words, "We can expect them to be trained up like military men, but at least they can be armed and equipped like military men."
And keep in mind that it was from these very people that the militia would be formed and add to the "properly armed and equipped" ONLY additional training.
Show me any place in this or any other Federalist Paper that distinguishes between the armaments of "the people at large" and those of "the militia" or a standing army! In fact, this ludicrous point is flatly refuted by the very arguments Hamilton makes. I reiterate from my post above:
The COMBINATION of "the people at large" and "the militia" derived from them, ALL being "properly armed and equipped" is what was supposed to make a standing army unnecessary AND act as the security against any standing army being misused by a strong federal government.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
Then Hamilton goes on to explain...
ACTUALLY, what Hamilton then goes on to explain in his hypothetical address, in the VERY next paragraph that you conveniently skipped over (while accusing others of skipping relevant information) is:
But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. 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.
The undeniable PRINCIPLE expressed by Hamilton in Federalist 29 is absolutely federal involvement in the training and direction of "a well regulated militia."
Leave it to the gun nuts to shoot themselves in the foot.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Go live in North Korea, or even China, for a while and come back and call your government tyrannical and despotic. Then you might have some credence.
I don't need to LIVE in other countries to be able to compare their operational principles.
We live in a (presently) benevolent tyranny, but it is a tyranny nevertheless. And I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you of that fact, because from your posts it is clear that principles and definitions are not things that move you. If you can look at the IRS, the NSA, the Supreme Court asking "If government can do this, what can government not do?" and then in effect answering: "Government can do ANYTHING," and none of this moves you to outrage and the recognition of our present state, then NOTHING I say is capable of moving you. Waste of time, although I would urge you to WAKE UP!
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
In other words, "We can expect them to be trained up like military men, but at least they can be armed and equipped like military men."
I assume you meant "can't." And if so, you need to reread Federalist 29, and this time take your head out of you ass.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
ACTUALLY, what Hamilton then goes on to explain in his hypothetical address, in the VERY next paragraph that you conveniently skipped over (while accusing others of skipping relevant information)
Clearly you didn't actually carefully read my post. Not only did I not "overlook" that paragraph, I quote directly from it, making the case that Hamilton argues that BOTH a "well armed and equipped people at large" AND a well-regulated militia (derived from those well-armed and equipped people) are the preferred substitute for a standing army AND the best protection against any abused perpetrated by it!
THIS is the point you keep insisting on not getting, although HAMILTON (not me) is crystal clear about it: THE PEOPLE and the militia were to be armed and equipped comparable to any potential standing army! The ONLY difference between "the people at large" and "the militia" is their training, which in solely a function of the time they devote to "being under arms."
|
|
Ksolem
Trad climber
Monrovia, California
|
|
I have a question for all of the constitutional scholars. "The People" are mentioned in 5 amendments in the Bill of Rights. Are "The People" in the 2nd somehow different than those in the first? Or can freedom of the press, of speech and to peaceably assemble be limited to certain special groups ( as in the case of a government sanctioned militia?) Or are "The People" in the second different than "The People" mentioned in 4 other amendments?
1.) Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[69]
2.) A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
4.) The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
9.) The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
10.) The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
I assume you meant "can't." And if so, you need to reread Federalist 29, and this time take your head out of you ass.
Yup, "can't."
And before you start going off with vile epithets again, I'm not overlooking entire POSTS, as you are! LOL
I find it honestly hilarious, and I'm sure many lurkers are finding it at least as entertaining as I do, that when you cannot "win" arguments using a careful, thoughtful, reasoned verbiage, you INSTANTLY devolve into vile epithets and ad hominum attacks.
Keep it up! Get a bit drunker and then really GO OFF in your typical spectacular style! LOLOL
You are making my case for me: anti-gun people are mostly knee-jerk reactionaries arguing that statistics trump founding principles and that we should all fall all over ourselves to as quickly as possible become just another Euro Socialist Democracy.
|
|
Dr. Christ
Mountain climber
State of Mine
|
|
What part of Hamilton's direct quote, which was in the paragraph following the part you quoted but that you absolutely did not quote in your post, do you not understand:
it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need.
idiot
Over and over and over Hamilton calls for Federal involvement in the planning and formation of this well regulated militia. Only an idiot could miss that and conclude Hamilton is arguing that a bunch of nut jobs who can buy guns on a whim is close enough... or someone who does not have the full document.
http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/poldocs/fed-papers.pdf
or
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
Get a bit drunker and then really GO OFF in your typical spectacular style!
Nah, after you cried like a bitch, I promised the authorities I wouldn't... for the sake of the kids.
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Social climber
SLO, Ca
|
|
There are numerous restrictions on the press, speech and other rights provided for in the bill of rights.
The second amendment was more or less ignored for about two hundred years. Nature abhors a vacuum so that dead space has been filled with the NRA beginning in the late 60s early 70s and now any moron with an internet connection and an opinion. Currently, the only recognized constitutional right re guns is the right of an individual to have a gun in his house. The rest is just spew.
The idea that there is a constitutional right to overthrow the government is so stupid it does not even warrant a reply.
|
|
Chaz
Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
|
|
"well regulated" had a very different meaning back then. It had nothing to do with government control. Especially federal government.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
Ksolem, "the people" mean one and only one thing throughout the Federalist Papers and the Constitution: as Hamilton puts it, "The people at large" and "the great body of citizens."
"The people" are technically distinguished from "the militia" and "the states."
You might be triggering on the fact that the "militia" and "the people" are mentioned in the same amendment, which is why we need to understand their relation. "The militia" is a subset of "the people" derived from "the people" and distinguished from "the people" according to Hamilton by ONE quality: the amount and intensity of their military training.
According to the arguments of Federalist 29, the ONLY thing making "the militia" distinct from "the people" is the additional training "the militia" receives, and that is 100% a function of not wanting to cripple the economy by taking "the people" out of the workforce for the lengthy periods of time such training takes.
Their armaments and "equipping" were supposed to be the same.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!