Democrats VS Federalists

turbo

Unlike present day Democrats;FEDERALISTS argued for the peoples right to bear arms, recalling this countries resistance against the British Crown.However, in this argument against the proposed Constitution, Madison , Noah Webster and others envisioned State governments to be SUBORDINATE to the federal system of governing.********************************************James Madison in the Federalist Papers #46"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State Government is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition....... The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country does not exceed one-hundredth part of the whole number souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million citizens with arms in their hands....... It may well be doubted whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the late successful resistance of this country against the British arms will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over he people of almost every other nation, the existence of SUBORDINATE GOVERNMENTS (in the states) forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."Noah Webster's argument:"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that exists among the people, or which they can command; otherwise, this force would be annihilated on first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword, because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States ."********************************************So long as the Federal government is supreme in it's enforcement of constitutional issues, there will always be a uniform law and enforcement of that law for all states.However when each state is allowed to set it's own laws for enforcing constitutional issues, we will wind up with different laws in each state which are not uniform throughout the land, for all law abiding citizens.Since the second amendment guarantees the people, the right to bear arms, and is tied directly to a well regulated militia, the states should not have the right to impose any law which would hinder nor usurp this constitutional right , or discourage gun ownership to any law abiding militia member citizens.The problem I see, is that no one has pushed any state to conform to the constitution, with regard to maintaining a militia, thus the confusion on exactly who or what constitutes the present day militia.So, liberals and conservatives remain confused believing that the state national guards are the militia, and gun right advocates continue to lose ground and rights while sitting by passively, when we ought to be taking the lead, in forcing the issue of gun rights, as a strictly federal issue.Imagine being a member of your own states militia, instead of just the NRA, our right to own and bear arms would be as secure as those who have in recent times been granted class status (handicapped, gays, minorities, etc) As I see it, people that feel passionate about this right need to take the lead a push for the forming of militias in each and every state that conform to the "militia of the Constitution", just like the special interest crowds. and wrestle for administrating and overseeing the same from bureaucrats or any state agency, I for one would be willing to pay a yearly membership fee in place of license fee to the state, for keeping and maintaining guns amd would prefer to have it under the auspices of the NRA.With all this helluballoo about the tenth amendment arguments going around, because I live in KA, I would not want this state to decide anything with regard to guns, drugs, or freedom to do anything laws, and since everyone uses the mantra, that KALIFORNIA sets the standards by which other states shall govern this would concern me if I lived in Podunk.Is this thought, to far to the right? Any other ideas, out there....[This message has been edited by turbo (edited 04-06-2002).]