- Esrati - https://esrati.com -

What a right to bear arms means- really.

For years, I’ve tried to argue about the 2nd Amendment by bringing up the part most skip- “a well regulated militia” and gotten nowhere. Today, Aloysius Schneider from Centerville made the argument absolutely clear in his letter to the editor- I’m reposting:

A lesson in gun ownership

Re: “Reader: Militia ‘is every able-bodied man’,” Jan. 13: For those who think that the Second Amendment is a God-given right to universal unrestricted gun ownership, it is instructive to read the Articles of Confederation. The letter writer interprets “A well-regulated militia” as every able-bodied man. What about able-bodied women?

One can get a better feel for what the founding fathers had in mind by reading Article Six of the Articles of Confederation [1]: “No vessels of war shall be kept in time of peace by any State, except such number only as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State, in time of peace, except such number only as in the judgment of the United States in Congress assembled shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutred, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field-pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition, and camp equipage.”

It is obvious that what the founders meant by “militia” is equivalent to our National Guard, not every able-bodied man.

And none of the rights enumerated in the Constitution are God-given. God is never mentioned in the Constitution beyond the requirement that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States” and “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

The rights were granted by citizens assembled, not by God.

ALOYSIUS SCHNEIDER, CENTERVILLE

Source: LETTERS TO THE EDITOR [2]

If you want to own a gun, first qualification should be military service. Once returned from service, you can continue to train at the local armory, where your weapons are stored and guarded, around the clock. Regular qualification is required, as is annual training.

Hunters in rural areas would be allowed to have a shotgun (non-automatic) a rifle (bolt action) in the home, provided they have a safe. Any additional weapons, would be kept in the County armory. Qualification would be required annually.

Go ahead- let me have it.

 

If you enjoyed reading true breaking news, instead of broken news from the major media in Dayton, make sure you subscribe to this site for an email every time I post. If you wish to support this blog and independent journalism in Dayton, consider donating [3]. All of the effort that goes into writing posts and creating videos comes directly out of my pocket, so any amount helps! Please also subscribe to the Youtube channel for notifications of every video we launch – including the livestreams.
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

11 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Ralph

I’ll say this as succinctly as possible and with all the love in my heart . . .

ESRATI YOUR ARE FULL OF SHIT!

Geoff
Dave C.

Why make military service a prerequisite for owning a gun? One of my relatives (won’t specify) is 90+ years old, a WW2 vet, and crazier than a $hithouse rat. Hates Black people, Jews, women with college degrees/jobs, anybody with brown skin, and electric cars. I don’t care where it’s stored, this guy should not have a gun.

He lives rural, so I guess he would qualify for the bolt rifle or pump 12 gauge….?

We should ALL be thankful this nut-job doesn’t seem to want a gun, preferring a tv tuned to Fox News.

Dave C.

The same document this post references also talks about making Canada part of the Union, mentions being “infested by pirates” and allows each state to wipe out Indian populations, setting the stage for genocide.

Auston Hensley

“From my cold dead hands” for a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

1. I don’t trust police officers to show up in a timely fashion, and even in cases of negligence they are immune from liability. They often show up, do a postmortem on what happened, and take notes. Calling 911 will not stop an active home invasion, but my .45 stands a far better chance of doing so.

2. I don’t trust the criminal element to kindly ignore my house or my self while I’m going about my business, especially if they know I’m likely unarmed.

3. I don’t trust our political leadership to do the right thing, i.e. crime control, public safety, etc. We have seen time and again what happens when police officers are told to stand down in the face of an unruly mob.

Perhaps if government could instill confidence that it could handle all of these issues, maybe I could reconsider my position on having weapons.

Auston Hensley

David –

Your first statement about having a weapon increases the likelihood of getting shot is akin to saying the sky is blue. Obviously, I’m not going to get shot by a weapon that doesn’t exist, and the proliferation of weapons increases that likelihood of accidents happening.

However, I and millions of others take steps to mitigate that risk all the time – firearms training, practice, securing weapons away when possible, and the appropriate education on the use of force.

I can control those risks and reduce them. I can’t do nearly as much to reduce the risk of a criminal ruining my whole day, short of:

1) Moving, which I’ve recently done, and

2) The very real possibility that the would-be criminal finds himself on the business end of a lawfully carried pistol.

***

As to whether I am willing to do what it takes to turn the political situation around? No, I am not, because I do not believe it is worth trying to fight City Hall. Millions of Americans reach this conclusion every single year and decide they’re better off voting with their feet.

Unless of course you’d like to say you have been well served by Nan, Joey Williams, Rhine McLin, etc… I know I wasn’t.

Nuge

It is perpetually astonishing that the liberal mind is so intent to confiscate guns from the people while governments are the biggest murderers, sellers and purveyors of arms. If the liberal had a true concern for human life, one would think they would have a little bit of historical perspective. The greatest mass murderer in history is and always has been government. How convenient that they forget the atrocities of the FBI, ATF, CIA, Adolf Hitler, Uncle Joe Stalin, and Pol Pot. There is no such thing as gun control. There is only centralization of gun ownership in the hands of the political elite and their minions.

Dave C.

Auston Henley has it right.

Moving out of a high crime area is top priority. If you want further protection, a gun (safely and intelligently handled and stored) works pretty well, along with an alarm system, exterior lighting, secure windows and doors, and a big dog.

Dayton politicians and administrators suck, period. They will not improve any time soon. If someone wants to put up with living in Dayton, well……good luck with that.

I live in Greene county. The roads are plowed, trash service is private and works fine, schools are OK, crime is pretty low. Nobody from the government (or anywhere else) ever intrudes into my life.

I think of the greater Dayton area as a donut. Not much in the middle, but the surrounding areas are nice.

EZ name changed to orignal post name- you can't have multiple names here

Americans currently have one, and only one identified individual “gun right”: the right to a usable handgun in the home. this right was identified by SCOTUS in the landmark 2008 Heller case(s).

What’s important to understand is that currently, there is no identified right to either public carry of guns, or to any class of gun in the home other than a handgun. “No right to” means that residents of a community or state may, thru their elected officials, prohibit them if they want, or allow them if they want. it should be up to them.

Caveats: Many (most?) states have “preemption” laws which enforce a level of gun-friendliness on all jurisdictions in that state. So for instance, a big city in OH is not allowed to be strict “May Issue” with ccw. It has to be “Shall Issue” because the state declared itself to be SI and preempts any attempt by cities to be any stricter.

But as far as actual “constitutional rights” go, no: for ccw or assault weapons, you don’t have the “right” to these things in the US. And the recent Kolbe v Hogan in the 4th Circuit doesn’t change this. Neither does Peruta over in the 9th. Both these cases are pending, both will likely overturn the panel’s initial decision en banc, and neither will have any force of law until they are finalized. Which, even if the stars aligned and either made it past the Appellate level favorable to the gun rights side, would still have to win in SCOTUS. Which has about as much chance as I do of winning Best Supporting Actress in the remake of The Dirty Dozen. (i’m male)

trackback

[…] etc) in the category “hot button issues.” Without scrolling too far is this post: What a right to bear arms means- really.  And then there is Boobs vs. Bullets and The 2nd Amendment and foreign policy and Limits on killing […]