Re: [asa] Creation Care Magazine

At 05:46 PM 12/27/2007, David Opderbeck wrote:
>Without getting into too many details, I think
>this clause relates to official state militias,
>and I don't think such g overnment entitites in
>themselves violate any teaching of Jesus or
>scripture. It will be interesting to see how the
>Supreme Court rules on this issue this term, as
>there is a case on this very question (of
>whether the right to bear arms if individual or
>relates to g overnment militias).
>
>On Dec 27, 2007 5:27 PM, John Walley
><<mailto:john_walley@yahoo.com>john_walley@yahoo.com> wrote:
>David,
>The example of an intruder with intent to do
>violence to your family is a red herring. As a
>lawyer, you know that clause refers to a "well
>regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state ".
>
>To use a "turn the other cheek" argument to
>debunk the right to keep and bear arms, you have
>to establish that Jesus no longer intended
>national g overnments, national defenses and the
>concept of righteous g overnments, which I don't
>think you rationally can do. ~ Thanks John

@ They had better rule according to the INTENT of the Framers or look out!!

"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the
whole body of the people always possess arms, and
be taught alike, especially when young, how to
use them." (Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate
to the Continental C ongress, initiator of the
Declaration of Independence, and member of the
first Ssenate, which passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed . .
. Everyone who is able may have a g un." (Patrick
Henry, in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the C onstitution.)

"The advantage of being armed . . . the Americans
possess over the people of all other nations . .
. Notwithstanding the military establishments in
the several Kingdoms of Europe, which are carried
as far as the public resources will bear, the g
overnments are afraid to trust the people with
arms." (James Madison, author of the Bill of
Rights, in his Federalist Paper No. 46.)

"...James Madison would be startled to hear that
his recognition of a right to keep and bear arms,
which passed the House by a voice vote without
objection and hardly a debate, has since been
construed in but a single, and most ambiguous
Supreme Court decision, whereas his proposals for
freedom of religion, which he made reluctantly
out of fear that they would be rejected or
narrowed beyond use, and those for freedom of
assembly, which passed only after a lengthy and
bitter debate, are the subject of scores of
detailed and favorable decisions. Thomas
Jefferson, who kept a veritable armory of
ppistols, rrifles and sshotguns at Monticello,
and advised his nephew to forsake other sports in
favor of hunting, would be astounded to hear
supposed civil libertarians claim ffirearm
ownership should be restricted. Samuel Adams, a
hhandgun owner who pressed for an amendment
stating that the "C onstitution shall never be
construed . . . to prevent the people of the
United States who are peaceable citizens from
keeping their own arms," would be shocked to hear
that his native state today imposes a year's
sentence, without probation or parole, for
carrying a ffirearm without a police permit.

This is not to imply that courts have totally
ignored the impact of the Second Amendment in the
Bill of Rights. No fewer than twenty-one
decisions by the courts of our states have
recognized an individual right to keep and bear
arms, and a majority of these have not only
recognized the right but invalidated laws or
regulations which abridged it. Yet in all too
many instances, courts or commentators have
sought, for reasons only tangentially related to
c onstitutional history, to construe this right out of existence.

They argue that the Second Amendment's words
"right of the people" mean "a right of the state"
­ apparently overlooking the impact of those same
words when used in the First and Fourth
Amendments. The "right of the people" to assemble
or to be free from unreasonable searches and
seizures is not contested as an individual
guarantee. Still they ignore consistency and
claim that the right to "bear arms" relates only
to military uses. This not only violates a
consistent constitutional reading of "right of
the people" but also ignores that the second
amendment protects a right to "keep" arms. These
commentators contend instead that the amendment's
preamble regarding the necessity of a "well
regulated militia . . . to a free state" means
that the right to keep and bear arms applies only
to a National Guard. Such a reading fails to note
that the Framers used the term "militia" to
relate to every citizen capable of bearing arms,
and that the C ongress has established the
present National Guard under its own power to
raise armies, expressly stating that it was not
doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.

When the first C ongress convened for the purpose
of drafting a Bill of Rights, it delegated the
task to James Madison. Madison.did not ..." Continued here:

http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm
The Right to Keep and Bear Arms
REPORT of the SUBCOMMITTEE ON THE C ONSTITUTION

~ Janice

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Thu Dec 27 18:50:42 2007