"Well-regulated" Democracy & The Second Amendment

[Kirk Freeman]

Dave Hardy discusses the "well-regulated" language of the Second Amendment and points out that it does not involve the USC or the CFR.

This may come up in discussions regarding the permissibility of "gun control".

Of Arms and the Law: "Well-regulated"

 

[Trooper]

Dave Hardy discusses the "well-regulated" language of the Second Amendment and points out that it does not involve the USC or the CFR.

This may come up in discussions regarding the permissibility of "gun control".

Of Arms and the Law: "Well-regulated"

The real question, given that the militia is to be all males between 17 and 45, is why so few males in society are "well regulated" (self disciplined)?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

is why so few males in society are "well regulated" (self disciplined)?

Ok, ok, I'll go work out tonight.

 

[edporch]

"Well regulated" at the time the US Constitution was written meant "in good working order".
Secondly, the USA is a republic and not a democracy.
"The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, ..." Article IV Section 4 US Constitution.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

"Well regulated" at the time the US Constitution was written meant "in good working order".

That's why Hardy provides further evidence of this.

The argument put forth by Amin of Yale and others is that "well-regulated" permits the government to restrict this right.

Secondly, the USA is a republic and not a democracy.

Not that you are wrong but the Marshall quotation in the link references democracy.

 

[N8RV]

..."The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a republican form of government, ..." Article IV Section 4 US Constitution.

Well, there you go. No more Democrats. Problem solved.

 

[netsecurity]

It's simple:

A well regulated militia = An armed citizenry (to be prepared is to be armed!)

The rest of the amendment is pretty darn clear, except one could argue what "bear arms" means. That line must be open to some interpretation, and think the supremes did a very good job of it in Heller.

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.

 

[netsecurity]

In other words, the meaning is undeniably this:

An armed citizenry being necessary for the security of a FREE state (notably, not for the protection of our government!!!!), the right of THE PEOPLE to keep AND carry arms shall not be infringed.

There is no sane argument that only official militias can be armed, since they are not "the people".

 

[edporch]

That's why Hardy provides further evidence of this.

The argument put forth by Amin of Yale and others is that "well-regulated" permits the government to restrict this right.



Not that you are wrong but the Marshall quotation in the link references democracy.

I challenge Marshall or anyone else to show me where the word "democracy" or any variation of it is in the US Constitution, or anywhere else in the founding documents of this country?
The word "republican" clearly is there.

 

[BogWalker]

In other words, the meaning is undeniably this:

An armed citizenry being necessary for the security of a FREE state (notably, not for the protection of our government!!!!), the right of THE PEOPLE to keep AND carry arms shall not be infringed.

There is no sane argument that only official militias can be armed, since they are not "the people".

Official militia is an oxymoron.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

I challenge Marshall or anyone else to show me where the word "democracy" or any variation of it is in the US Constitution, or anywhere else in the founding documents of this country?

It was Marshall that was using the term democracy. Marshall was right there with the Founders if not a Founder himself.

The Federal Papers are full of references to democracy, but mostly how to blunt it.

 

[Bummer]

Not that you are wrong but the Marshall quotation in the link references democracy.

A fine example of evidence that they're not always right. And, it would almost seem, getting less right every day. Is it time for a bad behavior impeachment yet?

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Well, you need to borrow a time machine. John Marshall died in 1835!

 

[edporch]

It was Marshall that was using the term democracy. Marshall was right there with the Founders if not a Founder himself.

The Federal Papers are full of references to democracy, but mostly how to blunt it.

My point.
That's why you don't see the word "democracy" in the US Constitution.


Are We A Republic Or A Democracy?

Are We A Republic Or A Democracy?
by Walter E. Williams


We often hear the claim that our nation is a democracy. That wasn't the vision of the founders. They saw democracy as another form of tyranny. If we've become a democracy, I guarantee you that the founders would be deeply disappointed by our betrayal of their vision. The founders intended, and laid out the ground rules, for our nation to be a republic.

The word democracy appears nowhere in the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution -- two most fundamental documents of our nation. Instead of a democracy, the Constitution's Article IV, Section 4, guarantees "to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government." Moreover, let's ask ourselves: Does our pledge of allegiance to the flag say to "the democracy for which it stands," or does it say to "the republic for which it stands"? Or do we sing "The Battle Hymn of the Democracy" or "The Battle Hymn of the Republic"?

So what's the difference between republican and democratic forms of government? John Adams captured the essence of the difference when he said, "You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; rights derived from the Great Legislator of the Universe." Nothing in our Constitution suggests that government is a grantor of rights. Instead, government is a protector of rights.

In recognition that it's Congress that poses the greatest threat to our liberties, the framers used negative phrases against Congress throughout the Constitution such as: shall not abridge, infringe, deny, disparage, and shall not be violated, nor be denied. In a republican form of government, there is rule of law. All citizens, including government officials, are accountable to the same laws. Government power is limited and decentralized through a system of checks and balances. Government intervenes in civil society to protect its citizens against force and fraud but does not intervene in the cases of peaceable, voluntary exchange.

Contrast the framers' vision of a republic with that of a democracy. In a democracy, the majority rules either directly or through its elected representatives. As in a monarchy, the law is whatever the government determines it to be. Laws do not represent reason. They represent power. The restraint is upon the individual instead of government. Unlike that envisioned under a republican form of government, rights are seen as privileges and permissions that are granted by government and can be rescinded by government.

How about a few quotations demonstrating the disdain our founders held for democracy? James Madison, Federalist Paper No. 10: In a pure democracy, "there is nothing to check the inducement to sacrifice the weaker party or the obnoxious individual." At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Edmund Randolph said, " ... that in tracing these evils to their origin every man had found it in the turbulence and follies of democracy." John Adams said, "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy yet that did not commit suicide."

Chief Justice John Marshall observed, "Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos."
In a word or two, the founders knew that a democracy would lead to the same kind of tyranny the colonies suffered under King George III.

The framers gave us a Constitution that is replete with undemocratic mechanisms. One that has come in for recent criticism and calls for its elimination is the Electoral College. In their wisdom, the framers gave us the Electoral College so that in presidential elections large, heavily populated states couldn't democratically run roughshod over small, sparsely populated states.
Here's my question. Do Americans share the republican values laid out by our founders, and is it simply a matter of our being unschooled about the differences between a republic and a democracy? Or is it a matter of preference and we now want the kind of tyranny feared by the founders where Congress can do anything it can muster a majority vote to do? I fear it's the latter.

Walter E. Williams
c2-05
January 3, 2005

 

[Dosproduction]

America is not a democracy. It is a Constitutional Republic. And modern democrats and republicans would be considered tyrannts to our Founders. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote. When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic. They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither safety nor liberty. Ben Franklin was a great man wonder why he never became president he sure could have won with little effort.

 

[SeaCaptain49]

Franklin was a great man wonder why he never became president

Because he died in 1790.

I don't think he would have ever sought the office anyway. It wasn't his style.

 

[Bummer]

Well, you need to borrow a time machine. John Marshall died in 1835!

No time machine needed. There are plenty of examples of judicial bad behavior active today.

 

[Birds Away]

I challenge Marshall or anyone else to show me where the word "democracy" or any variation of it is in the US Constitution, or anywhere else in the founding documents of this country?
The word "republican" clearly is there.

They have made a lot of judgements which have altered the fundamental nature of our country based upon the "seperation of church and state". Find that phrase anywhere in the founding documents.

 

[edporch]

They have made a lot of judgements which have altered the fundamental nature of our country based upon the "seperation of church and state". Find that phrase anywhere in the founding documents.

You're right.
I don't know how many people over the years have insisted to me that the US Constitution says there's a separation between church and state.
I've challenged them to show it to me and am still waiting...

All it says is in the 1st Amendment, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ..."

This was in response to the state's fear that the federal government would establish an official United States religion, much like the Church of England.
Also, some states had their own official state religion and didn't want that interfered with.

But this so-called "separation between church and state" thing has taken on a life of it's own, WAY PAST what the 1st Amendment says.