Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWho are the Militia?
"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
--Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 1788
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
WovenGems
(776 posts)The militia now is filled with folks nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake. Check out the nearest militia to you and then tell me I'm wrong.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)
safeinOhio
(32,641 posts)
.html?filters[term]=militia&filters[primary]=images&sort=1&o=202
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)I'm impressed. A non sequitur, an ad hominem and a straw man done with a broad brush.
WovenGems
(776 posts)Are the militias near you nice honorable folks without a weird agenda? Here we have the Michigan Militia who's claim to fame is avoiding jail time for the OK City federal building bombing.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)WovenGems
(776 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...if you're wondering who the "Militia" are, you are.
WovenGems
(776 posts)is now the National Guard and I was regular Army for four years and in the Reserve for four years.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...it is clear that the Militia is distinct from any regular paid military force.
WovenGems
(776 posts)The constitution does not state we need anti-government militias in each state that have the right to the same weapons as the regular army. Militia now is a code word. Originally it was the groups that fought through the civil war. Now it what separatists call themselves.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)I think you meant Revolutionary War rather than Civil War. Yes 'militia', which I use with a lowercase 'm', is being used by groups that mean something different than what Madison referred to in Federalist #46.
This is the exact reason semantics make a difference.
I would suggest that the existence of these divisive (and somewhat anti-social) groups are an argument in favor of the current existence of a Militia. An effective force of soldiers, marines or guardsmen is built on a pool of citizens familiar with rifles and firearms, in general. Numerous leaders have made the point that it should be viewed as a duty to become proficient with a firearm.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)The United States Government defines the Militia as all able-bodied men between the ages of 17, and 45. (Unorganized Militia)
It also includes women in that age range that are ALSO members of the National Guard.
Your status as a member of the military is only relevant if you are female.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)To provide for calling forth the Militia...
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
So, the militias must be armed, organized and disciplined per federal standards, and trained by the states by state-apointed officers. AKA well-regulated.
When do you muster? When will you be called forth?
Or does this actually mean the National Guard these days?
Yes, it does.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Please note it calls out only females who are ALSO members of the NG.
And of course, this is only the REASON for the 2nd Amendment, not a specific protected class. The REASON is that the Militia is formed of the people in times of need.
The only active specification of the 2nd Amendment is that the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Prefatory Clause only says 'why', it does not limit the protected class (the people) to a smaller subset of people (members of the militia)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)which is what is called for constitutionally. Militia as used several times referring to those that existed at the time - the militias of the several states; well-regulated ones being deemed "necessary".
Makes sense, only a well functioning uniform militia would be effective at 'securing freedom of the state'...OUR freedom depend on them! Even the founders knew, from experience, that UNorganized militias were/are pretty useless.
Since then though, those required militias were recreated as the National Guard, which is federal entity, armed by the federal govt. We also have a huge standing army besides - quite contrary to the intent of the 2nd (making standing armies unnecessary), so the primary purpose of the 2nd, as explained right in it, is obsolete.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Unorganized militia can be well-regulated.
There are also State Guards that are not subject to federalization, and subject to a civilian authority (The Governor being top of the food chain)
The 'purpose' of the 2nd Amendment is not obsolete.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"
The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
...
VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline."
"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"
Uniform, trained/disciplined, well-armed.
Not much else needs to be explained on that matter, aslittle else makes sense...
So now you understand too.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Federalist 29:
"Disciplining the whole nation is impractical. However, we should adopt a well-formed plan to create a militia as soon as possible. The government should form a small army that is fit for service in case of need. With a clear plan, a trained militia will be ready whenever the defense of the States requires it. We will need fewer military forts and bases. And if circumstances ever force the government to form a large army, it will never be a big threat to the liberties of the people. There will be a large body of citizens who are members of the militia. They will be disciplined and trained in the use of arms. They will be ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow citizens. This is the only substitute for a standing army. And it is the best security against a standing army, if it exists."
The 'whereas' clause of the 2nd Amendment speaks to a goal, again, as I said earlier, it does not establish or limit a protected class. The OPERATIVE clause is 'the PEOPLE' keep/bear arms. Because, the Militia is formed of the People in times of need.
I do agree that the training envisioned above is lacking. That doesn't change the protected class of the 2nd Amendment, and does not render it obsolete. The National Guard is a logical extension of a standing army, drawing pay from the DoD, subject to regulation and control by the DoD, and ultimately subordinate to the President at the stroke of a pen.
State Guards are a closer analogy to the ORGANIZED and drilled militia described, and it is still formed of the People, who ought to remain armed. All the normal 'arms' of a soldier are, and can of course be, available to you and I. (This has never been interpreted to include crew served weapons, or destructive devices, of which were normally owned by and stored in municipal armories.)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)They HAD TO EXIST. The state militias had to BE - They were given very specific, very vital roles to fill in the constitution.
We could raise an Army, and support a Navy, but the militias were necessary.
Only THEY were to be called forth - for almost all the reasons the constitution was created in the 1st place:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
"The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States"
The Militia Acts makes this quite clear - the people HAD to serve...well-regulated militias HAD to exist. There HAD to be ways to call them forth, when and why.
It is this recreation of these "well-regulated militias" into completely new entity w/the dick act - federal reserves, federally armed, volunteers (along with the HUGE armies), that make the purpose of the 2nd obsolete. It was a usurption of powers, but one done apparently with the approval of we, the people. Our notions of the best security, and our roles in it, had changed.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)that he call up the state militia for non-combat purposes, such as sandbagging for flood control/search-rescue. That, I think, would put the question of obsolescence to the test.
I think you might be surprised.
The Dick Act does not change the protected class of the 2nd Amendment. I think we may have to agree to disagree on it's relevance/obsolescence.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Now, called forth to repel invasion, or ensure the laws of the state?
OK, but...not likely.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Flooding/wildfires can see evacuations with civil disorder problems like looting, so arms would be relevant.
I would like to see a practical test anyway. I think it would answer a lot of questions for a lot of people.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)and organized.
Not a bad idea.
beevul
(12,194 posts)First off, "well regulated" doesn't mean heaped under regulations.
It means well equipped.
Second, Amendment 2 calls for nothing of the sort.
Amendment 2 says that because a well regulated ( equipped ) militia is nessessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Amendment 2 does not however "call for" anything, except to say shall not be infringed, referring to what government shall not do regarding a right which belongs to the people.
Whether you consider any of the above "obsolete" or not matters not. Its standing law.
Lastly, the framers made clear their intentions where the bill of rights is concerned - what the first ten amendments were for, what their purpose was, and to what entity they applied:
THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution
http://billofrights.org/
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;" "
"The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
...
VII. And be it further enacted, That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline."
"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"
Uniform, trained/disciplined, well-armed.
The rest is interesting, but does little to refer to the primary purpose of the 2nd - securing the militias to remove the pretext for those bain of liberty - large standing armies.
That you can find quite clearly in the debates concerning those propsed articles which became the Bill of Rights. Stangely - or not really, not 1 - not ANY mention of the need for arms for self-defense, in days of debates.
beevul
(12,194 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)THAT part, right there.
It is quite clearly contradicted, as you can see - well-regulated is explained quite succintly and completely.
(Note all the mentions of "training" and "disciplined", especially per rules specified in federal regulations.)
beevul
(12,194 posts)The "well regulated" which I refer to, is the "well regulated" in amendment 2.
It does in fact mean well equipped.
It does not, however, authorize anything.
Nothing in amendment 2 does.
Amendment 2 could be changed to say "a well oiled bike chain, being necessary to the security of your pant leg, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
And it would mean exactly the same thing. That is to say - the restriction on governmental exercise of power - which is the ONLY thing in amendment 2 that is force of law - and by the framers own words the only purpose of the amendment and indeed the bill of rights in the first place - would still be as it was, and mean what it very clearly means.
Because a well equipped militia (a militia that is the whole body of the people, as we've established) , is necessary to the security of a free state (not "the" free state) the right of the people to keep and bear arms - to equip themselves as members of the militia, shall not be infringed.
My extrapolation:
A. makes more sense textually than yours,
B. fits better historically in about ten different ways than yours
C meshes with the framers own words in the preamble to the bill of rights
D has the support of 70+ percent of the American people - 70 plus percent of the American people agree that amendment 2 protects a right that belongs to individuals
E Has court precedent on its side
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 04:29 PM - Edit history (1)
documents, all describing exactly the same way as to what it means??
Like I said...bullshit.
And YOU established that 'a well-equipped militia of the whole body the people" is some thing real - and it MIGHT be, but a "well-regulated militia" is something very different, as shown in the constitution, in federal law, and as shown above re:regulation and organization and training per federal guidleines, and being uniform. One entity was and is relied on, the other is not. One is well- regulated. Any 'militia of the body of the people', well equiped or otherwise - without uniform regulations and guidleines AND TRAINING, is quite clearly no such thing (instead - think National Guard these days).
What is (well - was) thought necessary wa/is a well-functioning well-armed well trained, & uniform militia...trained and exercised often enough "to entitle them the character", to be described as "well-regulated". Those days they were state entities, these days they are a select federal militia (think National Guard).
Sorry - clearly organized & regulated is quite a bit different then "unorganized"...no matter how equipped the people are.
And just like you can't redefine words as you please...you also can't redefine how to read law...read the Heller decision on the importance of the 1st clause...it is not only an interesting observation, it also help to explain what is to follow, if there is any doubtfulness.
But the Heller decision is a ruling, so no biggie here, just that the primary purpose is obsolete, as mentioned.
Quit getting 2nd amendment info from that group. They want to sell you a tank but can't till you get more to agree that regulation and armed mean the same thing.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Not only has the NRA never tried to do that sort of thing, the NRA actively worked to limit the availability of machine guns in the NRA-drafted and sponsored 1934 NFA, that established a registry and tax stamp for all fully automatic/burst capable weapons.
So, while the NRA may be a political piece of shit, you missed your mark with that comment pretty badly.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)SCOTUS has already ruled it is an individual right, not tied to the militia, national guard, or, well, anything else.
/start sarcasm/
It is sort of like your freedom of speech. You don't have to get a permit before you incite a riot (as in the Zimmerman trial, and what is about to happen if he is acquitted). That's dangerous, but we allow it and punish it later, if necessary. Freedom of the press really means newspapers, so we can regulate radio, TV, and the internet to prevent them publishing inaccurate material which may inflame the populace. I mean, they didn't have radio/TV/internet back then, so it's obvious that those methods of communication aren't covered.
/end sarcasm/
jmg257
(11,996 posts)And trying to force the people into some role they do not fill.
I find the evolution interesting, but hardly relevant - for now anyway.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...were printed on hand cranked presses. Nothing like the "fully-automatic" presses we have today.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)That means we can regulate those too, because it is obvious that the Founding Fathers never imagined a machine that would produce that much newsprint in so short a time. Since it wasn't around back then, it is not protected!
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)When one considers the topics actually debated by Congress, it is not strange at all that there was no mention of self defense during the Congressional debates on the BOR, since the nature of the RKBA was not debated, or at least no record exists of the debates if they occurred. Of the three parts of the amendment proposed by Madison, the CO clause and what became the preamble were discussed/altered, and in the case of the C/O provision deleted, while the RKBA clause remained as Madison proposed it. There was a vote in a Senate committeee to add "for the common defense" after the word "arms" but no record of debates, just that the proposal was rejected. If anything, this rejection leans towards the view that the RKBA included personal self-defense, as there was no qualifier attached to the RKBA.
It is interesting to note that in the debates on the first miltia act(these debates occurring only a few months after the BOR was ratified by the states and became part of the Const.), the RKBA and self-defense were mentioned:
Representative Sherman questioned if Congress could give an exemption to pacifists since “the state governments had (not) given out of their hands the command of the militia, or the right of declaring who should bear arms?” He went on to argue that it was the privilege of every citizen, and one of his most essential rights, to bear arms, and to resist every attack made upon his liberty or property, by whomsoever made. The particular states, like private citizens, have a right to be armed, and to defend, by force of arms, their rights, when invaded. A militia existed in the United States, before the formation of the present constitution: and all that the people have granted to the general government, is the power of organizing such militia. The reason of this grant was evident; it was in order to collect the whole force of the union to a point, the better to repel foreign invasion, and the more successfully to defend themselves
Note that Sherman drew an anology between the private citizen's essential right to be armed and the states' right (vis-vis the federal government) to say who should bear arms. Essential rights are those individual rights never to be surrendered.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)They being the militias of the several states as called out in the constitution itself.
They being obsolete of course, with the federal entity the National Guard (and the armed forces) now serving in the role originally calling for state militias (well-regulated ones).
beevul
(12,194 posts)Amendment 2 does not "call for" anything.
Any absurd notions or assertions to the contrary prove without a shadow of a doubt, ignorance of the bill of rights, its purpose, and how it functions.
The constitution separate from the bill of rights is a different matter. We however, are discussing an amendment in the bill of rights - which has the soul purpose of restricting the exercise of power by government.
If you read through the amendments, carefully, you may detect a trend which illustrates that for you.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Part of an amendment, and part of constitutional law.
One which, BTW, AMENDS, or changes/overules anything coming before it (which is why it is BS how the interstate commerce clause is used to control arms).
ETA:
Don't forget, there were other articles which were propsed to serve as changes for the constitution, they weren't all ratified though. The original list weren't all a restriction on congress in preservation of rights.
Article the first. . . After the first enumeration required by the first
Article of the Constitution, there shall be one Representative for every
thirty thousand, until the number shall amount to one hundred, after which,
...
Article the second. . . No law, varying the compensation for the services of
the Senators and Representatives, shall take effect, until an election of
Representatives shall have intervened.
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Sure it does. A well-regulated militia is "necessary"."
Saying one is necessary, is not the same thing as saying that "because one is necessary, X is forbidden".
One of those two things was done in amendment 2, and one wasn't.
Its that simple.
None of which changes what was passed into law, or what the framers said about what was passed into law.
What may have been, might have been, but ultimately wasn't, is not an argument against what is.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"Saying one is necessary, is not the same thing as saying that "because one is necessary, X is forbidden"
I didn't say this.
I did say the 2nd states that well-regulated militias are necessary. In 1788 they were the state militias - they were to be well- regulated according to regulations provided by Congress (Militia Act 1792). In 2013, BY LAW, the closest thing to the constitutional militias is the National Guard.
I also said that the well-regulated militias in 1788 were thought to be necessary, because THEY removed the pretext for large standing armies, THEY were to be called forth to secure our freedoms, and the people, who composed the well-regulated militia, typically armed themselves (per govt regs) to avoid the govt DISarming them (though there was debate on this too).
As the 2nd states, BECAUSE well-regulated militias are necessary, the right of the people to bear/keep arms can't be infringed.
BUT!!...
These days, we have HUGE standing armies, the well regulated militia, AKA: the NG, is a federal entity, is a reserve to the armed forces, is provided special arms by the govt (which they can only bear in service, and which we, the people do not have access to - not to bear, not to keep). The armed forces can be called forth same as the well-regulated militia, and are clearly our 1st defense against invasion, etc.
Since the primary purpose of the 2nd was to secure arms for the well-regulated militias of the several states, made of the whole body of the people, that purpose is obsolete...THAT militia no longer exists. WE, the people don't think it is necessary at all.
Notes:
What the framers who debated the amenments said about the article which became the 2nd (passed into law):
PRIMARY PURPOSE - Securing arms for the militia, keeping the miltia entities from being destroyed:
Mr. Gerry — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government; if we could suppose that in all cases the rights of the people would be attended to, the occasion for guards of this kind would be removed. Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms. What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.
Mr. Jackson — Did not expect that all the people of the United States would turn Quakers or Moravians, consequently one part would have to defend the other, in case of invasion;
Mr. Sherman — Conceived it difficult to modify the clause and make it better. It is well-known that those who are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, are equally scrupulous of getting substitutes or paying an equivalent; many of them would rather die than do either one or the other — but he did not see an absolute necessity for a clause of this kind. We do not live under an arbitrary government, said he, and the states respectively will have the government of the militia, unless when called into actual service; beside, it would not do to alter it so as to exclude the whole of any sect, because there are men amongst the quakers who will turn out, notwithstanding the religious principles of this society, and defend the cause of their country.
Mr. Benson — Moved to have the words "But no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms" struck out. He would always leave it to the benevolence of the legislature — for, modify it, said he, as you please, it will be impossible to express it in such a manner as to clear it from ambiguity. No man can claim this indulgence of right. It may be a religious persuasion, but it is no natural right, and therefore ought to be left to the discretion of the government. If this stands part of the constitution, it will be a question before the judiciary, on every regulation you make with respect to the organization of the militia, whether it comports with this declaration or not?
Mr. SCOTT objected to the clause in the sixth amendment, "No person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms." He said, if this becomes part of the constitution, we can neither call upon such persons for services nor an equivalent; it is attended with still further difficulties, for you can never depend upon your militia.
etc. etc.
Not one mention of self-defense, or hunting, or ???.
The Congress was to be given powers related to regulating and arming the militias. The people feared the govt would abuse this power to detroy the militias, in order to raise an army - the power of tyrants. The states needed their militias, and especially slave states 'due to their situation'. They need them well-regulated, effective, and available.
The primary purpose of the 2nd is to secure arms for the militia, and to ensure they are well-regulated..
beevul
(12,194 posts)Dance around that all you like, but its a fact as plain as the document itself.
Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The context of that sentence makes it very crystal clear that "regulated" means "equipped", and written in modern language, that is precisely how it would be worded.
You guys can cite "well regulated" to your hearts content, it still doesn't change what is.
"The primary purpose of the 2nd is to secure arms for the militia, and to ensure they are well-regulated."
No, the primary purpose, is to prevent government from disarming the people, of which the militia is made up. The framers clearly state it as a right which belongs to the people, not just "the militia".
At the end of the day, right of the people to keep and bear arms belongs to the people as the amendment itself says, not just "the militia".
No "creative" interpretation or extrapolation is going to change that.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)will always be bullshit.
THAT JUST PLAIN MAKES NO SENSE!! You are the ONLY person who has ever said that, and it is a crazy notion. A notion easily proven to be wrong in numerous period documents all talking about "well-regulated" militias.
Really - it is really hard to take anything else you say serious after that fuck-up.
Knox, in his Militia plan:
The latent springs of human action ascertained by the standard of experience, may be regulated and made subservient to the noble purpose of forming a dignified national character.
...
The commanding officer, or general of the advanced legions of the district, shall regulate the manner of the service of the youth respectively, whether it shall be in the infantry, artillery, or cavalry; but after having entered into either of them, no change should be allowed.
...
The time of the annual encampments shall be divided into six parts or periods of five days each. The first of which shall be occupied in acquiring the air, attitudes, and first principles of a soldier— the second in learning the manual exercise and to march individually and in small squads. The third and fourth, in exercising and manoeuvring in detail, and by battalions, and regiments. In the fifth, the youth of twenty, having been disciplined during the two preceeding annual encampments are to be included. This period is to be employed in the exercise and tactics of the legion; or if more than one, in executing the grand manouvres of the whole body— marching, attacking and defending in various forms, different grounds and positions; in fine, in representing all the real images of war, excepting the effusion of blood. The guards, and every other circumstance of the camp, to be perfectly regulated.
...
Every State possesses, not only the right of personal service from its members, but the right to regulate the service on principles of equality, for the general defence.
Articles:
Milita Act:
Federalist #29
But still. since you are trying a bit...
Doesn't need to be creative, just need to read the debates with regards to amendments, where there was VERY little worry about disarming the people as individuals, and TONS of concern about destroying the militias.
Were/are they related? Certainly were in 1788, but they are not so much today, not with the National Guard as the well equipped, well trained, well-disciplined = well regulated miltia.
Do the people still have the right to bear arms? OF COURSE THEY DO!
But THE primary purpose for securing the militias, just as declared numerous times by the framers, is indeed now obsolete
beevul
(12,194 posts)A well <blank> militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Its clear that where <blank> is, should be the phrase "burdened with rules and regulations", and not "armed/equipped".
You're completely right. How did I ever miss that context... 
And like I said, none of it matters anyway. The right belongs to the people, including individuals.
Court precedent is what it is, and you "militia reading" guys are sol.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)You are right that it doesn't really matter, anyway - THAT I agree with. It may make a difference though in the future at some point (again).
BTW - I AM NOT SOL, I enjoy the right to bear arms as much as the next guy!
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the
best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms
shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be
compelled to bear arms."
"Seventeenth, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well
regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the
proper, natural and safe defence of a free State"
Curious - do you think "well-regulated" means something different here? Or only the militia be well-equipped (Because hey - untrained, undisciplined, unorganized, unregulated but well-armed militias are kick ass defenders of freedom! George Washington would LOVE that!)
Can we all get our new M-4s and M-16s now???
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)beevul: The "well regulated" which I refer to, is the "well regulated" in amendment 2. It does in fact mean well equipped. Which part of that contradicts anything I said? N/T
Webster contradicts you. Equipped isn't even synonymous with regulated, you're simply trying to substitute the definition of equipped for regulated. Had madison only meant 'equipped' he'd have written equipped, but he used regulated - for a reason.
websters1828 dictionary: EQUIP'1. Properly, to dress; to habit. Hence, to furnish with arms, or a complete suit of arms, for military service. Thus we say, to equip men or troops for war; to equip a body of infantry or cavalry. But the word seems to include not only arms, but clothing, baggage, utensils, tents, and all the apparatus of an army, particularly when applied to a body of troops. Hence, to furnish with arms and warlike apparatus; as, to equip a regiment.
2. To furnish with men, artillery and munitions of war, as a ship. Hence, in common language, to fit for sea; to furnish with whatever is necessary for a voyage.
EQUIP'PED, pp. Furnished with habiliments, arms, and whatever is necessary for a military expedition, or for a voyage or cruise.
.. point out exactly where 'regulated' is defined as meaning 'equipped' or 'furnished'.
1 REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
2 REG'ULATE, v.t.1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet. http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate
It's obvious equip & regulate have different definitions, I can't see them being synonymous, neither does roget. Regulate has a broader definition & while equipped could be included in regulating the militia, equipped standing alone limits the meaning to provisioning. Had madison intended 'equipped' he'd have written equipped since it was defined as providing, supplying, furnishing - separate from regulated.
.. It's obvious what beevul et al are doing, trying to substitute equipped for regulated, since equipped removes the 'rules & regulations' part of the 2ndA & substitutes a 'guns galore' policy instead. Revisionist history part & parcel of 2ndAmendment Mythology.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)beevul:"well regulated" in amendment 2. It does in fact mean well equipped. Which part of that contradicts anything I said?
An early draft (june8,1789) of 2ndA contradicts you: early 2ndA draft: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. June8,1789 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
The early 2ndA draft lists both 'well armed' and 'well regulated', thus they are two separate concepts. Well armed of course is synonymous with 'well equipped', but obviously well regulated was added to express regulation of said well armed militia forces.
beevul: My extrapolation: A. makes more sense textually than yours, B. fits better historically in about ten different ways than yours C meshes with the framers own words in the preamble to the bill of rights D has the support of 70+ percent of the American people - 70 plus percent of the American people agree that amendment 2 protects a right that belongs to individuals E Has court precedent on its side
He's so vain; you got one of 5, mendoza line, but you apply modern understanding of 2ndA with original intent to back into correctness; for most people can't even recite properly the 2ndA, know who wrote it or when, less yet understand in depth the underlying issues. Most generally think of 2ndA as granting a right to bear arms - completely out of line with your interpretation as a limitation on congress, eh? - & most americans view the militia interpretation as denying said rkba to the people, equating this with a police state, nra propagunda has been effective.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Knox, in his Militia plan:
The latent springs of human action ascertained by the standard of experience, may be regulated and made subservient to the noble purpose of forming a dignified national character.
...
The commanding officer, or general of the advanced legions of the district, shall regulate the manner of the service of the youth respectively, whether it shall be in the infantry, artillery, or cavalry; but after having entered into either of them, no change should be allowed.
...
The time of the annual encampments shall be divided into six parts or periods of five days each. The first of which shall be occupied in acquiring the air, attitudes, and first principles of a soldier— the second in learning the manual exercise and to march individually and in small squads. The third and fourth, in exercising and manoeuvring in detail, and by battalions, and regiments. In the fifth, the youth of twenty, having been disciplined during the two preceeding annual encampments are to be included. This period is to be employed in the exercise and tactics of the legion; or if more than one, in executing the grand manouvres of the whole body— marching, attacking and defending in various forms, different grounds and positions; in fine, in representing all the real images of war, excepting the effusion of blood. The guards, and every other circumstance of the camp, to be perfectly regulated.
...
Every State possesses, not only the right of personal service from its members, but the right to regulate the service on principles of equality, for the general defence.
Articles:
Milita Act:
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)I'd not heard of it prior either, jmg, but I'm wondering if we shouldn't give some partial credit to beevul. Just imagine, madison could've written it this way:
.. "A WRM, being necessary etc.. the right of the people to be equipped snbi".
I think it synonymous with what he wrote, or at least intended. Adding 'well' equipped would be gloss tho, & actually could be construed as excluding inferior weapons.
Here again is the 1828 definition:
websters1828 dictionary: EQUIP'1. Properly, to dress; to habit. Hence, to furnish with arms, or a complete suit of arms, for military service. Thus we say, to equip men or troops for war; to equip a body of infantry or cavalry. But the word seems to include not only arms, but clothing, baggage, utensils, tents, and all the apparatus of an army, particularly when applied to a body of troops. Hence, to furnish with arms and warlike apparatus; as, to equip a regiment.
2. To furnish with men, artillery and munitions of war, as a ship. Hence, in common language, to fit for sea; to furnish with whatever is necessary for a voyage.
EQUIP'PED, pp. Furnished with habiliments, arms, and whatever is necessary for a military expedition, or for a voyage or cruise.
Again: "A WRM, being necessary etc.. the right of the people to be equipped snbi"
Obviously militias were internally landlocked at their own desires so we can dismiss sea cruises, but the definition of 'equip' was used in a military sense.
So to substitute 'equip' for 'right to keep & bear arms' would put 2ndA in a clearer military sense, don't you think?
.. equipping the people with arms would be only an instrumental part of being a well reg'd militia, but they could not equate as beevul contends. Silly to be redundant 'A large militia being necessary, the right of the people to be large snbi'.
I can hear the wheels spinning in beevul's head already - but madison DIDNT use equip, so he must've meant it individually by saying 'the people'! which means he'd have to about face 180 degrees, or at least change his screenname, to go with it.
I think beevul's been cornered on his 'well equipped' argument.
beevul
(12,194 posts)All thaty ability to copy and paste, and yet you either can't or wont reply to the person you're actually addressing...for what...the hundredth time now?
The early draft isn't what was passed into law.
"The early 2ndA draft lists both 'well armed' and 'well regulated', thus they are two separate concepts."
That just means they were expressed as different concepts by the author of that particular version, which did not pass.
What did pass, and the context of what did pass, makes it very crystal clear to those without anti-gun blinders, that "well regulated" means well equipped.
It really doesn't matter anyway, the operative restriction in a sentence which has no other purpose but to restrict government from infringing on a right belonging to the people, contained in a document that has the stated purpose to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its (governments) powers, is shall not be infringed.
That says about everything that needs saying.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)beevul: All thaty ability to copy and paste, and yet you either can't or wont reply to the person you're actually addressing...for what...the hundredth time now?
Both my posts were replies to 'beevul', can't you read? apology warranted but not expected.Response to beevulReply #111
beevul: The early draft isn't what was passed into law. That just means they were expressed as different concepts by the author of that particular version, which did not pass.
That's irrelevant as the day is long. The author writing it didn't get confused over the difference between equipped & regulated, he wrote what he wrote in the vernacular of the day, using understood definitions of regulate & equip. I could have taken any contemporary quote contrasting regulate & equip in the militia sense - that it happened to be a 2ndA first draft is pretty irrelevant.
It was an official first draft & differentiated between equipped & regulated, considering them two separate concepts. Face the facts man, stop tapdancing, you're proven wrong. You only try to impose your expedient substitution to remove the regulatory intention of the 2ndA.
What did pass, and the context of what did pass, makes it very crystal clear to those without anti-gun blinders, that "well regulated" means well equipped.
Crystal clear? says who you?, what specious nonsense, where do you dig up this baloney;
..equipped was provisioning the militia, while regulating included disciplining, training, paying, logistics, supply, & INCLUDED equipping the militia with proper firearms.
That says about everything that needs saying.
Sure, for 2nd Amendment Mythology believers your pathetic dodge saves the day. But when it comes down to logic & reason, you haven't proved anything at all about equipped except that your arguement leaks like a sieve.
Oh, & which definition from websters 1828 dict, defines regulated as 'equipped'?
beevul
(12,194 posts)"Sure, for 2nd Amendment Mythology believers your pathetic dodge saves the day."
That the right belongs to the people is no dodge.
Its an inconvenient and dare I say, annoying fact, to...some.
The fact that it protects an individual right, is, dare I say, an annoying fact, to...some.
Which is, of course, why...some...care not to discuss it, and would rather discuss the "milita reading". Nothing could be more transparent than that.
It is what it is, court precedent is what it is, and you're just going to have to live with it. 
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person, religiously scrupulous, shall be compelled to bear arms.
Mr. Gerry — Objected to the first part of the clause, on account of the uncertainty with which it is expressed: a well-regulated militia being the best security of a free state, admitted an idea that a standing army was a secondary one. It ought to read "a well regulated militia, trained to arms," in which case it would become the duty of the government to provide this security, and furnish a greater certainty of its being done.
I.E. "A Well-regulated militias being necessary..." means something...it is a duty of congress to provide for them. {also note his use of "trained to arms..." too!}
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Of principle importance to consider are these two canons of textual statutory interpretation:
In pari materia ("upon the same matter or subject"
> When a statute is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined in light of other statutes on the same subject matter.
Noscitur a sociis ("a word is known by the company it keeps"
> When a word is ambiguous, its meaning may be determined by reference to the rest of the statute.
While the word "militia" within the 2A can be interpreted to mean either the organized or unorganized component, reading the 2A as a whole, the meaning of the word "militia" necessarily comports with the meaning of "the people". In addition, reading the 2A along with the other nine amendments, it is clear that they are intended to express individual rights and act as restrictions on government.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Or is it really the case that "Militia", just as used elsewhere in the constitution - without definition or explanation - were well-understood, existing entities - state entities that were around for decades, and just recently codified as mandatory in the AoC?
Truth is militia as used in the constitution had a very specific meaning...the militias of the several states.
The use of "Well-regulated" explains exactly how these militias were to be - only well-organized militias were recognized/intended, and ONLY those deemed "necessary", to secure freedom. Which of course - once again - is why the congress was given the power to REGULATE THEM (AKA "organize"
(and so why the 2nd was wanted/needed, because the feds had new powers related to "arming" the militias)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Second Militia Act of 1792:
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. (This was later expanded to all males, regardless of race, between the ages 18-54)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)The one that then goes on very specifically on regulating them????
"The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.
An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.
Quite hardly a good example/recognization of "unorganized" militia!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)The unorganized militia here are the same folks.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)And the use of "militia" in the Constitution, ratified in 1788/9?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)The folks that wrote the Dick Act in 1903 read the Militia Act 0f 1792. The unorganized militia referred to therein are the same folks referred to as militia in Federalist #46 which was written before the 2A and before the Constitution was ratified.
There. 
Now it's your turn to say, "What constitution."
jmg257
(11,996 posts)and included everyone eligible, and required them to be just that. There was NO "UNorganized militia" in 1792.
The militias existed, they weren't uniform, and they weren't yet regulated or organized according to federal guidleines.
The whole reason for the militia clauses in section 8, is so the state militias would be assured as "well regulated" - well-trained, armed, accoutered, AND uniform... i.e effective. The 2nd made them necessary.
"The unorganized militia", created with the dick act, is simply that, folks who will be UNorganized & UNregulated - requiring nothing but of a certain age. QUITE opposed to the well-regulated constitutional militias.
One requires by definition being organized, armed and disclplined per regulations, the other??? Nothing.
Yes - there are now 2 classes of "militia" one is well-regulated, and serves a constitutional role, and is also loosely associated with the 2nd. The other is...of little value with no mandated role, in securing our freedoms, enforcing laws, quelling domestic violence, or etc.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...mine, the courts and what is commonly accepted and I have to respect that as you are also in good company.
It's been an interesting day. Thank you and have a nice night.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)"but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered"
Articles of Confederation : March 1, 1781
Organized state militias were clearly in existence, were the only ones codified in law, and the only ones assigned very vital roles in the constitution (1788/9). The 2nd amendment (1791) deemed them necessary, and had as its primary purpose securing their arms. Militia Acts (1792) organized & armed and speced how they would be disciplined, be subject to federal controls for regulation, & the state for training, per the constitution.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)General Washington didn't have a particularly high opinion of them, but they served their purpose.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Agreed on GW, though.
"No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops,..."
Quite a contrast with the mandatory "militia of the several states".
jmg257
(11,996 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)When Mason used the word "now" the implication being the distinction between the years of the war and time of the Constitution's adoption.
Please feel free to add your own distinction along with adequate justification for that.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)"Now" as being here and now - when the constitutional militias are the National Guard.
And the "whole people" get tossed a bone & are called "Unorganized". With no duty or resonsibility to do...anything, other then be of a certain age.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...would highlight the difference between "then" and "now".
jmg257
(11,996 posts)That takes the place of those entities referred to in the constitution.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_%28United_States%29
Now that women and other minorities are recognized as full and equal citizens, that would include them as well.
Federalist #46, authored by Madison, the same person who drafted the Bill of Rights, made clear therein that it was expected that every fully free and equal person in the country had the RKBA.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)What your point was, I am not sure.
DWC
(911 posts):"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? – Trench Coxe
"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." – George Mason
A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms. — Richard Henry Lee
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age… — Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code
Today, we need a nation of Minutemen, citizens who are not only prepared to take arms, but citizens who regard the preservation of freedom as the basic purpose of their daily life and who are willing to consciously work and sacrifice for that freedom. — John F. Kennedy
For a more complete list go to
http://www.famous-quote.net/quotes-on-the-militia.html
Following your logic, Our Nation is now “filled with folks nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.”
I disagree.
But I do agree that both extremes, right and left, of our political spectrum are “filled with folks nuttier than a Christmas fruitcake.”
Semper Fi,
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Louisiana Governor Mike Foster: "Most people don’t ever want to use a gun to protect themselves — that’s the last thing they want to do — but if you know how and you have a situation with some fruitcake running around, like they’ve got right now, it sure can save you a lot of grief."
jmg257
(11,996 posts)responsibility, or duty, of being in the militias.
That's why we the people have the select organized militia, AKA National Guard, we have today to serve as the well-regulated militia of long ago.
has never changed. If it did, we would no longer by homo sapiens.
Those instincts and emotions that motivated humans 10,000 years ago are exactly the same as those that motivate humans today. Hunger, thirst, sex, fear, fight-or-flight, dominance, social interaction, survival, etc.
Societal organization, infrastructure, and tools have changed dramatically and will continue to do so at an ever increasing pace, but the basic psychological constructs of humanity will never change so long as humanity exist.
It would show a complete lack of understanding to hold or assume that there were no irresponsible cowards here during and following the American Revolution but IMO you are correct that they represented a significantly smaller percentage of the population.
Semper Fi,
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)that would have included you under federal law.
So I assume that you're making a comment about society in general. Feel free to correct me if you were talking about yourself, or if female, about your male friends.
geckosfeet
(9,644 posts)Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
And I kind of agree. I think a standing army has its place.
Now that Virginia law would be read as National Guards, weekend warriors. Almost properly trained and armed with the right gear. How many nutters volunteer to be trained in how to handle natural disasters?
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)Okiedoke then.
Conveniently broad brush you have there.
By the way, the allegory you were or should have been looking for, is the State Guard, not the (XYZ State) National Guard. They are separate entities, one draws pay from the DoD and can be federalized, the other does not draw pay from the DoD, and cannot be federalized, and is subject the civilian authority of the Governor of each respective State.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)"By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy... The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important." John F. Kennedy, Junior Senator of MA in a 1959 letter to E.B. Mann (From the 1974 Gun Digest, article titled Gun Laws)
"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, 1788)
jmg257
(11,996 posts)...
"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.
The Federalist, 1788
Sounds alot like the National Guard.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)"...the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia."
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Primarily because the 2nd mentions specifically the "well-regulated militia".
And the militias of the several states were certainly organized, and regulated.
The "unorganized militia"? Not so much (aka..not at all).
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)An effective force of soldiers, marines or guardsmen is built on a pool of citizens familiar with rifles and firearms, in general. Numerous leaders have made the point that it should be viewed as a duty to become proficient with a firearm. The term "regulated" meant effective and in good operation. A watch that kept good time would be described as well-regulated. A pool of recruits with skill-at-arms will make for an effective military.
Snipers are among the most effective tools in battle. Such skills are the product of great understanding of the rifle and ammunition along with an extraordinary amount of practice and experience.
If you have any interest in marksmanship and are not already familiar with some noted riflemen, let me recommend a short google of the names George R Farr, Rob Furlong and Carlos N Hathcock.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)virginia, circa 1776: That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state;
Note how virginia refers to 'the people' as free white male adults, excluding about 75% of other americans (women children aged, slaves). Not 'everaboddy' in america, as could pertain to other amendments in the bill of rights.
dwc/tench coxe, 1788: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 1788
Was there some kind of hidden individual rkba subtlety implied here? pls explain what you're driving at.
.. tench coxe is not speaking of an individual rkba disconnected from militia service, as scalia & robts scotus ruled, he's obviously in militia mode, & note again how he limits 'the people' as being free white adult males which comprised about 25% of the people. And as woven gems pointed out, there's no well regulated citizens militia any longer, just crackpot militias, like 'Big Bob's Militia' down the street, anytown america.
.. Tench, by the way, was known as 'mr both sides' or something like that, in the revolutionary war, since he fought for the british & succored them & profited from british trade during the revwar, then later switched to the american cause, enlisted militia iirc.
Tench: The unlimited power of the sword..
Homer - "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence."
Even the greeks & romans knew what gunfolk deny; Somebody didn't tell homer it wasn't the 'blade', but the peoples, eh?
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Really? Today, we don't make distinctions on race or origin. We recognize that gender is not a basis for denying rights. Maybe you have some idea when the last group of Americans was recognized and allowed to vote. Do you?
Righting misconceptions and learning from mistakes is part of being progressive; in fact, it's the BEST part.
The Greeks and Romans knew a thing or two.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)I wrote: "...excluding about 75% of other americans..."
dscntnt: Really? Today, we don't make distinctions on race or origin. We recognize that gender is not a basis for denying rights. Maybe you have some idea when the last group of Americans was recognized and allowed to vote. Do you?
Taking things out of context again & making some hairbrained allegation or something, completely out of line with what I wrote as historical fact - 75% americans did not have any federal right to bear arms in late 1700's.
Are you alluding to emancipation proclamation or civil rights act? Circa 1862/3 & a hundred years later, so far removed from the virginia declaration of rights in 1776 makes me wonder if you were sober when you wrote this. I kinda hope you weren't, would help excuse your nonsense.
Righting misconceptions and learning from mistakes is part of being progressive; in fact, it's the BEST part.
practice what you preach.
The Greeks and Romans knew a thing or two. "Rome remained free for four hundred years and Sparta eight hundred, although their citizens were armed all that time; but many other states that have been disarmed have lost their liberties in less than forty years." - Nicollo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
It wasn't for individual roman citizens bearing arms but for legions that rome stayed afloat so long- rome was scared sh**less when caesar crossed the rubicon, cause pompey was in greece or spain iirc;
I suspect machiavelli in awe & approving the conquests of imperial rome, & what has rules of conquest to do with modern day guncontrol efforts? You cite hitlerian mentality draped in machiavellian & roman costume. What are you doing here dscntnt, applauding tyranny? are you FOR the barbarian guerillas, or AGIN them? you approve of machiavellian strategies?
.. rome eventually fell even when they had the 'sword' didn't they? them armed pagan barbarians & turks & muslims.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)However, 100% of Americans (and everyone else in the world) has had forever a human right to self defense and may justifiably use the best and most efficacious tools for the task.
DWC
(911 posts)There is nothing hidden, subtle, or implied here at all.
Coxe plainly and accurately states "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
It just can not be any more clear and forthright than that.
Semper Fi,
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Trench might have wanted to re-read the constitution...and also the fears of the Virginia Ratifying Conventions...
Mr. GEORGE MASON.
Mr. Chairman, unless there be some restrictions on the
power of calling forth the militia, to execute the laws of the Union,
suppress insurrections, and repel invasions, we may very easily see that it
will produce dreadful oppressions. .... I conceive the general government
ought to have power over the militia, but it ought to have some bounds.
...
Here is a line of division drawn between them -- the state and general
governments. The power over the militia is divided between them. The
national government has an exclusive right to provide for arming,
organizing, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of
them as may be employed in the service of the United States. The state
governments have the power of appointing the officers, and of training the
militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress, if they should
think proper to prescribe any. ...
Mr MADISON:
I cannot conceive that this Constitution, by giving the general government
the power of arming the militia, takes it away from the state governments.
The power is concurrent, and not exclusive.
Have we not found, from experience, that, while the power of arming and governing the militia has
been solely vested in the state legislatures, they were neglected and
rendered unfit for immediate service? Every state neglected too much this
most essential object. But the general government can do it more effectually....
If the regulation of the militia were to be committed to the executive authority alone, there might
be reason for providing restrictions. But, sir, it is the legislative
authority that has this power. They must make a law for the purpose.
...
Mr. HENRY.
Mr. Chairman, in my judgment the friends of the opposition have
to act cautiously. We must make a firm stand before we decide. I was heard
to say, a few days ago, that the sword and purse were the two great
instruments of government; ...
as the new government would have power over the militia, we should
have no standing army -- it being unnecessary. This argument destroys
itself. It demands a power, and denies the probability of its exercise.
...
As my worthy friend said, there is a positive partition of power between the
two governments. To Congress is given the power of "arming, organizing, and
disciplining the militia, and governing such part of them as may be employed
in the service of the United States." To the state legislatures is given the
power of appointing the officers, and training the militia according to the
discipline prescribed by Congress."
These delegates truly feared congressional power over the militias, especially the potential lack of arming and regulating the militias, and the abuse of them too.
"Congress have no power to disarm the militia"...
True - NO power to disarm the militia....hmmm..
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)that the general public should have access to regular military-grade weapons ("and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...").
Coxe was speaking of the fact that all (as in every citizen) of us were the militia and as such, entitled to military weapons.
I also note that you are still in denial that it is an individual right. Judge Posner favors gun control, but he didn't have any problems understanding what SCOTUS said when he ordered Illinois to allow its citizens to "bear arms", as in carry them outside of the home.
ileus
(15,396 posts)Before anything else matter's.
My country comes second to my family...
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Constitutionally speaking anyway. They are the only ones who are well-regulated per federal guidelines, and have provisions for being called forth per section 8.
Understand that real militias were most often connected to some sort of govt authority.
Of course these days "ourselves" get a bone, most being in the UNorganized militia, but that entity has very little resemblance to the numerous militias of the states which were thought so necessary to secure our freedoms.
Coxe's notions, and numurous similiar notions of the founders on militia theory, standing armies, etc., have been deemed obsolete by We, the people for a good 100 years now.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)...I'd feel better if calling out the militia wasn't justified by 'section 8'.
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_8_%28military%29)
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)dwc: Coxe plainly and accurately states "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." It just can not be any more clear and forthright than that.
In context, that particular quote, he was in militia mode; whether he believed in an individual rkba is unclear, despite your protestations. He might have been I guess in adjunct sense, since he was profitting from the sale of firearms postwar, his business & all, kinda like the wayne lapierre of the revolutionary era.
(edited): Tench Coxe (20yo) was the son of a merchant residing in Philadelphia in 1775. Coxe's company carried on a thriving business with Loyalists and the British army when the British occupied Phila ―a business which would have been impossible if the British military commanders had decided not to allow it. After radical Patriots took power, Coxe left Phil for a few months only to return when Brit General Howe occupied Sept 1777. Coxe remained Phil after British departed 1778, some Patriots credibly accused him of having Royalist sympathies and of having served briefly in the British army. Coxe's trading successes during British occupation lent considerable support to the charges, nothing came of the allegations, and the Revolution ended before Coxe became active in politics. Pennsy records 1780, 1787, 1788 listed Coxe as militia private.
When Revolution ended, Coxe formed the international merchant firm of Coxe & Frazier and began to take an interest in political reform. Firearms were among the many commodities dealt in for many years by the firm of Coxe & Frazier.. business records from 1786 illustrates the company's involvement in the firearms businesses.. Several New York militia ordered 200 stands.. Georgia militia ordered 500 stands .. Like most others in the arms business, Coxe made arms for private purchase (firearms sold in Mass), state militias (Ga), local militia groups (NY).In a circular to contracting gunsmiths, Coxe emphasized: "The importance of good arms is manifest.. The lives of our fellow citizens, to whom the use of them is committed, depend upon the excellence of their arms." Coxe demonstrated great technical expertise in the design and manufacture of muskets, rifles, pistols, and swords.. despite Coxe's expertise and dedication, the public arms program ran into trouble.
... articles published early 1811, Coxe's former political associate, Wm Duane, charged that Purveyor Coxe had accepted large quantities of inferior firearms. In his first article, Duane made the sweeping allegation "that arms we had seen, which had been manufactured for the MONEY (for we cannot say the use) of the United States, were better adapted to kill American soldiers into whose hands they should be put, than an enemy." Coxe rejoined in the same issue, flatly denying the charges and noting that all arms were inspected prior to payment.
Duane claimed that some rifle barrels lacked grooves (rifling), had grooves only 6" down the barrel, or had grooves too shallow. Some were made with unfit Dutch locks (firing systems), stocks filled with glue and sawdust. Hessian or Hanoverian arms needed inspecting. "There were 900 pairs of pistols, but not one pair fit for public service." Duane insinuated that in America there were those who placed "a military force before its enemy with saw dust cartridges or balls too large for the calibre, or with rifles without touchholes, and without spiral grooves, and of which 8 out of 18 burst on the proof with powder only of 135, whilst the true proof should be of the standard of 150."http://www.madisonbrigade.com/t_coxe.htm contends coxe supported individual rkba, if so it appears to have been moreso the profit motive, eh?
DWC
(911 posts)Can not hide your total absence of content relevant to his plain and accurate statement.
If one has something of value to impart, it rarely takes many words to state it.
Semper Fi,
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)Plus it doesn't make sense, so why bother?
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Sorry, munching on a salad (Dr. Orders) and I think I see words in the bowl. Wait, what were you trying to say!!!
Jessy169
(602 posts)Armed and dangerous, waiting for armaggedon and doing their best to bring it about because THAT is what they live for.
Have you ever planned a big camping trip with your friends? A lot of the fun -- at least for me -- is getting ready -- making the lists, checking off the items that are in the bag, planning, strategizing, anticipating.
That what the militia guys and gals are doing -- getting ready. It is their pastime, their idea of a good time.
I do some planning and a little "prepping" too -- water and food, just in case of earthquake, power outage or whatever. But these militia types are preparing for "the end" and they vote for the crazy-ass representatives who best represent their points of view.
Scary people.
using different dictionaries and living in different countries
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age… — Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code
Semper Fi,
Jessy169
(602 posts)I'm looking at the actual reality.
OK, "militia" is all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age.
Now look around the country at self-described "militia"s. They more closely fit the definition I gave, and you'll be hard-pressed to find anybody younger than 40 - 50 in most of those "militia" groups.
Decoy of Fenris
(1,954 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)dwc: Your high volume of verbiage Can not hide your total absence of content relevant to his plain and accurate statement. If one has something of value to impart, it rarely takes many words to state it.
I surmise you've never read the high volume of verbiage in the constitution then? I read 20 - 30 books per year, writing is fun, & your tailing merely an expedient.
Tench Coxe's 'plain & accurate statement'? it's ambiguous, are you blind? and coxe was a gun salesman, quelle surprise he wanted people to own private guns: Every man should own a gun to defend our liberty to go hunting & defend his home, to arms, to arms, let every man be armed. And for this month only, buy one firearm of any kind & get a half pound powder free! Buy now before pres Adams imposes gun restrictions soon, then you can kiss your gun rights goodbye!
(my previous post): Wm Duane, charged that Purveyor Coxe had accepted large quantities of inferior firearms. Duane made the sweeping allegation "that arms we had seen, which had been manufactured for the MONEY (for we cannot say the use) of the United States, were better adapted to kill American soldiers into whose hands they should be put, than an enemy.
--------------------------------------------------
beevul: The "well regulated" which I refer to, is the "well regulated" in amendment 2. It does in fact mean well equipped.
Here's websters 1828 dictionary, pls point out exactly where 'regulated' is defined as meaning 'equipped'.
1 REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.
2 REG'ULATE, v.t.1. To adjust by rule, method or established mode; as, to regulate weights and measures; to regulate the assize of bread; to regulate our moral conduct by the laws of God and of society; to regulate our manners by the customary forms.
2. To put in good order; as, to regulate the disordered state of a nation or its finances.
3. To subject to rules or restrictions; as, to regulate trade; to regulate diet.
http://1828.mshaffer.com/d/word/regulate
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)dscntnt: George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."
Taking things out of context again, mason was speaking of the several classes of people the militia was comprised of (free white males that is) - & mason also suggested a select militia possibility;
This one {Geo Mason quote} seems to have entered the gun-lobby's list of clipped quotes in support of a universal militia
.. in fuller context: I ask, Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor; but they may be confined to the lower and middle classes of the people, granting exclusion to the higher classes of the people.
Mason was worried that in the future higher classes would exempt themselves from militia duty: {mason} he, himself, had not spoken of a selection of militia, but of the exemption of the highest classes of the people from militia service; which would justify apprehensions of severe and ignominious punishments http://www.saneguns.org/law/mason_01.html
beevul: Amendment 2 does not "call for" anything. Any absurd notions or assertions to the contrary prove without a shadow of a doubt, ignorance of the bill of rights, its purpose, and how it functions.
The 2ndA in 1791 defined what was needed regarding well regulated militias, & the militia act of 1792, written about 6 months later, described & 'called for' well regulated militias. It also mandated every man bring a musket, which proved untenable, since only about 1 in 4 men had a firearm.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)dscntnt: .. reading the 2A along with the other nine amendments, it is clear that they are intended to express individual rights and act as restrictions on government.
Wow. What a switch, that's what I have said the bor entails (with an individual right/duty to be in a militia). But, this is how you defined it 2 weeks ago when you disagreed with me:
dscntnt: The point has been made numerous times that the BoR "confers" nothing. The BoR began as a list of articles added to the Constitution and was passed by popular demand of the individual states to protect preexisting human rights. The BoR operates as a restriction on government to the benefit of individuals. http://sync.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1172&pid=125577
dscntnt: While the word "militia" within the 2A can be interpreted to mean either the organized or unorganized component, reading the 2A as a whole, the meaning of the word "militia" necessarily comports with the meaning of "the people".
COMPLETE BUNKUM. The unorg'd militia did not come about till early 1800's, years after the 2ndA was written. You can't apply the unorg'd militia as being what madison & ff intended in 1791.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)jimmy said; The unorg'd militia did not come about till early 1800's, years after the 2ndA was written. You can't apply the unorg'd militia as being what madison & ff intended in 1791.
PA did not have an organized militia until after 1776, the unorganized militia in PA predated the organized militia.
Read the various state militia acts, they had both train bands (those currently in training) and call lists.
Hamilton in Federalist 29 calls for training only a portion of the militia, while arming "the people at large":
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, or even a week, 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. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year"
Previously I have read your comments and thought you must be feigning ignorance of facts which are well known to those who have studied the issue. But your last few posts (including yesterday's) lead me in another direction. I see now that it is not an act, you really do not know what you are talking about.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)hans: PA did not have an organized militia until after 1776, the unorganized militia in PA predated the organized militia.
stop hans, you're giving me a superiority complex.. there was no 'UNorganized militia' system that's absurd, in any of the colonies; Quakers who settled Pennsylvania were pacifist whose religious teachings compelled them to avoid scrupulously war and violence. They opposed enactment of a militia law, but the Duke of York initially compelled them.. The early militia law was soon abandoned under pressures from the {Quakers};
And hans you obviously are unfamiliar with the term 'unorganized militia': The term "unorganized" did not begin to emerge until the 1830s and 1840s, when a massive wave of opposition destroyed the compulsory militia system. Nobody wanted to serve in the militia. State governors and legislators wanted to be able to accommodate this desire, but they were bound by the 1792 Uniform Militia Act, which stated that every white male aged 18-45 would be in the militia. Militia service was so unpopular that Delaware abolished its militia system in 1831. Massachusetts eliminated compulsory service in 1840, followed by Maine, Ohio, Vermont 1844, Connecticut New York 1846, Missouri 1847, New Hampshire 1851. http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2012/12/nra-lie-2nd-amendment-is-to-prevent.html
hans: Read the various state militia acts, they had both train bands (those currently in training) and call lists.
wrong again hans, websters1828 TRA'IN-BAND, n. [train and band.] A band or company of militia. Train-bands, in the plural, militia; so called because trained to military exercises ... Train: 6. A company in order; a procession.
AmerHeritage: trainband: A company of trained militia in England or America from the 16th to the 18th century
hans: Previously I have read your comments and thought you must be feigning ignorance of facts which are well known to those who have studied the issue.. I see now that it is not an act, you really do not know what you are talking about.
I have never thought you were feigning ignorance, Hans.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)train-band:
From US v. Miller http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0307_0174_ZO.html
The General Court of Massachusetts, January Session 1784 (Laws and Resolves 1784, c. 55, pp. 140, 142), provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should ‘contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....’ Also, ‘That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.’
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)hans: try reading, it works for those who do
I know you can read, hans, it's comprehending what you read that you have trouble with.
you first wrote: Read the various state militia acts, they had both train bands (those currently in training) and call lists
You were pretty clearly thinking trainbands were 'in training' groups. No, they were generally trained militia, & while they 'trained' in your sense for new developments or periodically, you can't apply that to trainbands as you intended. You jumped to a conclusion without reviewing the facts about trainbands.
hans 'refutation'(?): train-band: From US v. Miller General Court of Massachusetts, 1784 provided for the organization and government of the Militia. It directed that the Train Band should ‘contain all able bodied men, from sixteen to forty years of age, and the Alarm List, all other men under sixty years of age, ....’ Also, ‘That every non-commissioned officer and private soldier of the said militia not under the controul of parents, masters or guardians, and being of sufficient ability therefor in the judgment of the Selectmen of the town in which he shall dwell, shall equip himself, and be constantly provided with a good fire arm, &c.’
OK hans I give up, I can't find anywhere in there that contends that trainbands are 'currently in training'. Pls point it out, thanks.
1 MeriamWebsters: Trainband:TRAINBAND a 17th or 18th century militia company in England or America Origin of TRAINBAND alteration of trained band First Known Use: 1630
2 OED: train-band, i.e. train'd band, a band of trained men, Cowper, Joh Gilpin, used by Dryden and Clarendon" Skeat's Etymological Dict English Language (Oxford1879)
3 Collins English Dict: a company of English militia from the 16th to the 18th century Word Origin altered from trained band
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)below is the Mass. Militia act cited in US v. Miller.
http://archives.lib.state.ma.us/actsResolves/1784/1784acts0055.pdf
And be it further enacted by the authority aforesaid,
That every captain or commanding officer of a company, officers to can
shall call the Train Band of his company together four days train band four
in a year, and oftener if he shall judge necessary, not ^"ie alarmexceeding
six days in the whole, for the purpose of exam- list once a vear-
ining their arms and equipments, and instructing them
in military exercises ; and shall also once in a year, on a
day when he shall muster the Train Band of his company,
call together the Alarm List belonging to his company,
within the limits of the town of which they shall be inhabitants,
for the purpose of examining their arms and
equipments
Your're welcome.
I suppose you will ignore this as you ignored Hamilton's Federalist 29 which I cited earlier for same purpose. But these facts continue to exist, though maybe not for you.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)In context you were trying to show that pennsy did NOT have a state militia: hans, #88: PA did not have an organized militia until after 1776, the unorganized militia in PA predated the organized militia. Read the various state militia acts, they had both train bands (those currently in training) and call lists.
You evidently thought trainbands were rudimentary 'unorganized' militia in training. Trainbands were somewhat organized militia, just smaller companies (couple hundred(s) etc).
You also misspelled trainband, separating into 2 words train & band, as if to say a band of men under training. Misspelling is excusable, except it implies you were under a misconception.
Trainbands A band or company of an organized military force instituted by James I. dissolved by Charles II; - afterwards applied to London militia. http://machaut.uchicago.edu/?resource=Webster%27s&word=trainband&use1913=on
hans posts, or rather has problems with copy & paste: That every captain or commanding officer of a company, officers to can shall call the Train Band of his company together four days train band four in a year, and oftener if he shall judge necessary, not ^"ie alarm exceeding six days in the whole, for the purpose of exam- list once a vear- ining their arms and equipments, and instructing them in military exercises ; and shall also once in a year, on a day when he shall muster the Train Band of his company, call together the Alarm List belonging to his company..
You appear to be wanting to show they trained. Fine, no argument, but that's not the point.. trainbands were early militias, & they drilled periodically but 'in training' was not the requisite for being one. You blow smoke with tangential vague excerpts.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)Though I am heartened that is is not only my writing that confuses you so completely. Apparently you cannot make sense of what Hamilton proposed in Fed 29 (see my post #88) as you seem befuddled that anyone would actually train the militia, or rather a portion of the militia, while arming all of the militia.
ceonupe
(597 posts)He will post lots of text but never answer your question.
In his mind he hopes that a new SCOTUS will reinterpret the 2nd and reverse course on about 100 years if rulings making 2nd an individual right.
He fundamentally does not agree that US should allow as a right individual citizens to have guns.
I'm not saying that he is 100% disarmament but I am saying he does not believe we as lawful us citizens and non prohibited persons have the right to own guns.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)ceu: He will post lots of text but never answer your question. In his mind he hopes that a new SCOTUS will reinterpret the 2nd and reverse course on about 100 years if rulings making 2nd an individual right.
There for a while I thought you a smart guy ceu, I guess I was wrong.
I 'will never answer your question' you say? when you posted in a queue after I had replied to hans 3 times, & several more elsewhere in the thread. Didn't you see my posts above you? I stopped tho, since hans was just tapdancing around & blowing smoke about trainbands & I'll not get in too long a battle with someone who avoids concerns by ever changing the subject. Hans is known to take text out of context to either mislead or misrepresent, I can post examples if you wish.
And you should talk ceu, you haven't replied to a post I made on the other gc reform group. Or are you blocked now?
ceu: He fundamentally does not agree that US should allow as a right individual citizens to have guns.. he does not believe we as lawful us citizens and non prohibited persons have the right to own guns.
You & hans have a lot in common, comprehension problems; I believe there was no constitutional rkba intended by 2ndA for individual rkba outside militia. Your state can grant you individual rkba, but the federal 2ndA did not.
.. btw ceu, don't expect many replies from here on out, your prediction comes true. And if you're still allowed over there I hope you don't mind if I repost your above, so they can see you talking out of both sides of your mouth.
ceonupe
(597 posts)A feature of some places on DU.
Now the goal of some is to enforce their belives outside of their self imposed safe zone by the eating anyone that does not agree with them.
Look JTO we disagree and I belive the SOP of the other group does not require you to belive the 2nd amendment does not apply.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)System were ignored initially, and are much more in line with the more modern National Guard system then they were with the early Militia Acts methods of regulating everyone, which were adopted?
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)What point were you making?
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)DWC
(911 posts)Last edited Thu Jul 11, 2013, 09:03 PM - Edit history (1)
The Bill of Rights is 385 words
I have read and embraced both documents many, many times and consider both among the most significant in the history of civilization.
Your last post is 642 words and still attempts to change the subject from the plain validity of Coxe's statement by attempting to discredit Coxe.
Yes, I do read.
Yes, I do call BS when it is presented to me in Black and White.
Semper Fi.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)Love ya Jimmy!!
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)tench coxe: Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." --Tench Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 1788
1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788 1788
HAHAHA. Just realized something. Coxe wrote that 2 or 3 years PRIOR to the 2ndAmendment being written! which makes some of the posts up above funny! (even a couple of mine!).
Coxe can't be referring to the 2nd amendment! he wasn't calling 2ndA an individual right. The bill of rights wasn't written yet!
The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
The only group of armed americans who had been mentioned was the militia in the constitution, or perhaps the rkbas 'granted' by the several states. Ergo dipso facto, coxe likely musta been speaking of them those, eh?
jmg257
(11,996 posts)being that the 2nd came about BECAUSE of the power the congress was given.
If the people had "unlimited power" re: arms, what the hell is the 2nd needed for??
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)Basically the same as the rest of the amendments in the BOR, to prevent abuse of the powers actually granted to Congress.
From Preamble tp BOR:
THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution
jmg257
(11,996 posts)So, Coxe was wrong that the unlimited power of the sword was in the hands of the people.
Seems most agree...powers were in the hands of the congress, and the state govts.
Which of course was THE reason for adding the 2nd amendment all along...so congress couldn't destroy the militias by disarming them or leaving them unregulated.
ETA:
and a good clue as to why UNorganized miltias aren't of much use "security of a free State"-wise.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)Congres s had the power to arm the militia, not to disarm anyone.
The anit-federalists claimed Congress might attmpt to abuse this power by forming a select militia and disarming the people in general
http://www.constitution.org/afp/fedfar18.htm
http://constitution.org/2ll/schol/jfp6ch04.htm#044
jmg257
(11,996 posts)And to provide for calling them forth in federal service.
Also agreed on numerous potential abuses of this power.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)jmg257
(11,996 posts)Has since been used to prevent some infringement on arms, congressional power granted or not.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)to arm the militia, 2A guarantees that the RKBA shall not be infringed.
Congress may indeed choose to train only a subset of the militia as the anti-federalists feared, but it cannot disarm the people at large. that power was never granted and 2A prevents any misconstruction / abuse of power.
Hamilton was upfront with the Anti-federalists, he told them straight out that he thought it unwise to try to train all of the militia, but he also made it plain that the people at large should be armed.
Today we have the National Guard, and the people at large, the rest of the militia, have arms provided by themselves.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Never really caught it thst way.
Cheers!
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)hansberrym
(1,571 posts)Yes jimmy, imagine that, Coxe was a Federalist writing in support of federal power over the militia (see militia clauses in US Const).
That fact that you are only now getting that shows how ignorant you are of the subject.
Below is what Coxe wrote regarding what became the 2A as the BOR was being drafted:
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
Apparently Coxe did not get the memo that "bear arms" must be understood as an idiom in 2A.
His comment makes a mockery of the claim that the RKBA was nothing more than short hand for a right to serve in the organized state militia, and also the claim that the RKBA is merely a collective right.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)Hans: Below is what Coxe wrote regarding what became the 2A as the BOR was being drafted:
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”
"Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution," under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
Note above, Hans, tench coxe said that on june 18th, 1789, and was referring to the following 'early draft' of the 2ndA. In other words, he wasn't referring to the final version 2ndA:
.. early 2ndA draft coxe referred to: The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person. June 8, 1789 http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llac&fileName=001/llac001.db&recNum=227
So tell me hans, ye with egg on thine face, how the 'prefatory clause' was then the operable clause, & how 'well regulated' meant 'well equipped' while 'well armed' didn't mean 'well equipped' (you too eggy beevul).
.. With the inclusion of 'no person religously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service..', the individual rkba view suffers, for the scalia version has it that 2ndA RKBA was disconnected from militia service, while the early draft links bearing arms with militia. Tell me hans, could that religious conscientious objector still go out & hunt? sure he could, he wouldn't be 'bearing arms'. Could he defend himself with a firearm? sure, if was at home, he wouldn't be 'bearing arms' in the militia sense.
hans: Apparently Coxe did not get the memo that "bear arms" must be understood as an idiom in 2A. His comment makes a mockery of the claim that the RKBA was nothing more than short hand for a right to serve in the organized state militia, and also the claim that the RKBA is merely a collective right.
That fact that you are only now getting that shows how ignorant you are of the subject.
Uh, wanna rethink your above silliness now that you stuck your foot in mouth?
The people could keep their private arms for sure, but bearing them was constitutionally protected for militia which was 'the best security of a free country' to 'render military service'.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)That was my point, even with the CO clause, which was in Madison's early draft, Coxe did not read the RKBA as an idiom. How can this be justice Stevens? How can the facts not fit with your theory? What must change, the facts or your theory?
jimmy said: "The people could keep their private arms for sure, but bearing them was constitutionally protected for militia which was 'the best security of a free country' to 'render military service'.
Well now at least you are admitting "keep" arms refers to private possession of arms. But of course in Coxe's comments, his usage of the words "keep" and "bear" both refer to "their private arms". You want to read an idiom that isn't there.
BTW, when you wrote "bearing them", you exposed yourself, You know full well that "bearing arms" is not an idiom in 2A.
Or will you now claim that "bearing them" is a well known idiomatic expression that anyone in the 18th century would instantly recognize?
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)beevul, post53: We however, are discussing an amendment in the bill of rights - which has the soul purpose of restricting the exercise of power by government.
A spiritual restriction from the sky fairy, eh? You'll have to argue this with dscntnt-irony since she sees it this way: dscntnt: .. reading the 2A along with the other nine amendments, it is clear that they are intended to express individual rights and act as restrictions on government.
And here's Wm Rawle on the bill of rights, wrote A View of the Constitution (1825): OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF CONGRESS — AND ON THE EXECUTIVE AND JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES — RESTRICTIONS ON THE POWERS OF STATES AND SECURITY TO THE RIGHTS OF INDIVIDUALS.
Rawle's treatise on 2ndA: In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest. http://www.constitution.org/wr/rawle_10.htm
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Scalia cited Rawle in heller, this very 2ndA treatise, the first sentence above & the last. Do you all know what a corollary is? Scalia didn't & stuck foot in mouth. A corollary is something which is derived from a higher rule or concept. Scalia then went on to say the individual clause is 'controlling', thus creating the oxymoron that a corollary controls the proposition it is derived from.
AtheistCrusader: You don't understand what was meant by 'well regulated'. Unorganized militia can be well-regulated.. The 'purpose' of the 2nd Amendment is not obsolete.
Wrong on all counts, laughably. Unorg'd militia is not well regulated, that's why it was named 'unorganized'; that it can become well reg'd is irrelevant & hasn't really been proven since the unorg'd militia has never been significantly mobilized - only ~5,000 mostly wwI vets mobilized in oregon after pearl harbor, a regiment.
The unorg'd militia was first mentioned about 1830's & was never what the founding fathers intended, that of a well regulated citizens militia. Thus the 2ndA is not only obsolete, but useless & worthless, except to a profit minded gunlobby pipering it's gunsheep off the piers.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)whereas what you have written....
BTW, if you think the 2A is obsolete, I direct your attention to U.S. Const. art. V. Have at it.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)DWC: Coxe plainly and accurately states "The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." Pennsy Gazette Feb20,1788 http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Tench_Coxe
I think I figured it out. Tench Coxe wrote that on feb 20, 1788. Here is apparently the first 2ndAmendment draft, written 2 weeks prior on feb 6, 1788.
Earlier proposals and {2ndA} drafts .. "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms. Samuel Adams, (Feb 6, 1788) This language was proposed in the Massachusetts convention for ratification of the Constitution to be added to Article I. http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Note that in the first draft of 2ndA, there is no mention of a militia - sam adams simply said congress could not 'prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms'.
In response to this new information for him at the time, tench coxe wrote on feb20,1788: The power of the sword, say the minority..., is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for The powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress has no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of Americans. The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but where, I trust in God, it will always remain, in the hands of the people.
Why did tench coxe introduce the militia in response to the first draft of 2ndA when militia was not even mentioned in the first draft?
Had he thought the people had an individual rkba, coxe would not have introduced militia at all when remarking upon the first draft. Chess Check.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)hansberrym
(1,571 posts)When did Madison present the first draft of the BOR to Congress?
You are either confusing or purposely conflating BOR proposals offered in state ratifying conventions(of the Constitution) and drafts of the 2A presented in the first Congress.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)Still here JTO?
None of your blather matters.
SCOTUS has ruled.
Thanks for playing.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excoplawstudent: Still here JTO? None of your blather matters. SCOTUS has ruled. Thanks for playing... TLDR Plus it doesn't make sense, so why bother?
An aside for a moment, readers, just wanted to demonstrate some blatant hypocrisy.
ExcopLawStudent admonished democrats & guncontrol posters on another thread thusly: ExcopLS: .. those who wish to take away our choice to defend ourselves, our families, and our homes are growing more and more insignificant. They don't like that, so instead of debating on the issues, resort to inaccurate, skewed data and casting aspersions on those who disagree with them .http://sync.democraticunderground.com/1172127713
So what has Mr LawStudent done on THIS thread? posted 7 posts, barely touching on militia concerns in two of them with a couple sentences, then 2 irrelevant about zimmerman or 'crank presses', & 3 'casting aspersions on those who disagree with' him - his very whine on the other thread.
excopLS, repeated: Still here JTO? None of your blather matters. SCOTUS has ruled. Thanks for playing... TLDR Plus it doesn't make sense, so why bother?
Uh, mr student, the OP by DWC contended tench coxe supporting an individual right to private arms - your juvenile remark about scotus ruling has nowt to do with this historical discussion. The original meaning & intent of 2ndA & coxes remarks are what are under review here, not how scalia & a republican rightwing court subverted history - we all know how it went.
You havent' debated much of anything here - which was your whine on the other thread, tho you've cast aspersions against myself & another poster - which was your complaint on the other thread.
If you want to contribute try to grow up & graduate & stop acting like a student, & stop preaching righteous indignation elsewhere then coming to another thread & committing the same sins you preached about.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)I responded to you when I first got here, and you and the BansALot crew told me to leave, that I was someone else, an NRA shill, etc.
You say the same thing every time, and are not on the RKBA group to have a discussion, but to pontificate. So I'll do the same I would do with anyone else that doesn't really want to discuss the issue - ignore them.
If you change your mind and actually want to discuss this, let me know.
Otherwise, thanks for playing.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excopLS: You say the same thing every time, and are not on the RKBA group to have a discussion, but to pontificate.
Pot kettle black, almost the whole gun gang here pontificates on the correctness of guns galore. Almost all guncontrol talk gets 'tread upon', usually with the same weird logic & 2ndAmendment mythological talking turkeys.
Whether you call it discussion or not I don't care, I attack & parry with posters quite often & don't give out cheap shots. What did you expect here, some kumbaya nicey nicey? C'c'c'can't we j'j'j'jes get along?
excop: If you change your mind and actually want to discuss this, let me know.
I've posted about a dozen in depth posts on this thread almost all relating to the issue developed from the OP, while you've contributed such insightful one sentence gems as the age range to belong to a militia.
Here's about the only salient contribution, one post 2 sentences, you've made here, about in it's entirety:
excop: Coxe was speaking of the fact that all (as in every citizen) of us were the militia and as such, entitled to military weapons.. that the general public should have access to regular military-grade weapons ("and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American..." .
Right, because those were needed for militia functionality. And the predominant military weapon was a single shot flintlock musket with a bayonet attached ~80%, & then lesser so a single shot flintlock rifle ~20% - both comprising 98% of national gunstock. The other 'terrible implements of the soldier' were predominantly the cannon, which was predominantly in militia governance. Oh yes, edged weapons. Pitchforks too. But most farmers & conscientious objectors even had them those.
Otherwise, thanks for playing.
You got something right, I have been playing; you however, half the time sitting in the peanut gallery mocking.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)A Thanksgiving Tale
It was the dinner rush at the Hungry Pilgrim, but the stock market was crashing and the chef just had to speak to his broker. With cell phone in hand, he sped for the walk-in cooler, because that's the best place to keep and talk turkey.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)and the arms that citizens were able to possess.
"The word "arms" in the connection we find it in the Constitution of the United States, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms." English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1872).
In other words, any arm that the soldier is allowed to possess, the citizen is allowed to possess.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)lawstudent: .. what courts have said about the "militia.. In other words, any arm that the soldier is allowed to possess, the citizen is allowed to possess.
.. the typical rightwing spin, this time you're citing a ruling from a state court in texas 80 yrs after the 2ndA was written; not that it really did in this case (vague), but state's lesser courts indeed rendered individual rights points of view depending on the jurists, but disabuse yourselves from thinking the general opinion of higher courts held for an individual rkba - have you not read that emerson ct was the first to do so circa 2000?
texas court: It is furthermore claimed that this is a law in violation of 13th section, first article, of our own {texas} constitution, which reads thus: "Every person shall have the right to keep and bear arms in the lawful defense of himself or the state, under such regulations as the legislature may prescribe." We understand the word "arms," when used in this connection, as having the same import and meaning which it has when used in the amendment of the federal constitution..
It's a state constitution's rkba, not the 2ndA, & I doubt texas interpreted it as you do anyway, or especially as it is today. And there were laws attached.
I believe court refers to carrying concealed here &/or the lesser wpns: .. The {texas} act makes all necessary exceptions, and points out the place, the time and the manner in which certain deadly weapons may be carried as means of self-defense, and these exceptional cases, in our judgment, fully cover all the wants of society. There is no abridgement of the personal rights, such as may be regarded as inherent and inalienable to man, nor do we think his political rights are in the least infringed by any part of this law.
The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols and carbine; of the artillery, the field piece, siege gun, and mortar, with side arms
Texas still bound by musquette & bayo in 1872? hardly; I'd'a thunk they'd had henrys & colts by then. Maybe thinking of revwar they were.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)That Scalia cited this exact case in Dist. of Columbia v. Heller means that you're wrong, again.
The furthermore comment means that in addition to the U.S. Constitution, there was a provision in the Texas Constitution that also covered the issue.
Call me back when you figure out how to read case law.
Thanks for playing.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excop: Gee, I guess the fact That Scalia cited this exact case in Dist. of Columbia v. Heller means that you're wrong, again.
I think you have as much depth in this as a sophomore high school student, I'm not concerned that you think I'm wrong. Scalia could've cited hundreds of lesser court cases, cherry picked out of context to magically create the 'crystal clear an individual right' illusion.
But since you seem to think it's some 'ace in the hole' you've got there, amicus curiae for the militia side in the emerson case ALSO cited this texas case. Howzat grabya student?
{see English v. State, 35 Tex. (1872)} http://www.potowmack.org/yass.html
Any other deuces you got up your sleeves thinking they're aces?
excop: The furthermore comment means that in addition to the U.S. Constitution, there was a provision in the Texas Constitution that also covered the issue.
How many times do you need be informed that state rkbas after the early 1800's can not (necessarily) be considered applicable to the intent of the 2ndA? Some states morphed into individual interpretations & rkbas, certainly. Even prior to 1791 they should be considered contributorily.
Here's a Ga Superior Ct ruling, 1874: Upon its very front, as we have said, the object of the clause is declared to be to secure to the state a well regulated militia. Has this declaration no significance? Is the clause to be interpreted without reference to it? On the contrary, by the well settled rules for the interpretation of laws, as well as by the dictates of common sense, the object and intent of the law is the prime key to its meaning. A well regulated militia may fairly mean--"the arms-bearing population of the state, organized under the law, in possession of weapons for defending the state, and accustomed to their use." The constitution declares that as such a militia is necessary to the existence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To effect this end, the right to have arms would seem to be absolute, since without this right, it would not be possible to attain the end contemplated, to-wit: an armed militia, organized and ready for the public exigencies. http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndcourt/state/140st.htm
same Ga court: It is insisted that the act .. is an infringement of the right of citizens of this state as guaranteed by the constitution of the {US} and of this state. It is now well settled that the amendments to the constitution of the {US}, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the {US}. therefore, if this act be unconstitutional it must be because it is in conflict with our state constitution.
"No person in said state shall be permitted or allowed to carry about his or her person any dirk, Bowie-knife, pistol or revolver, or any kind of deadly weapon, to any court of justice of any election ground or precinct, or any place of public worship, or any other public gathering in this state, except to militia muster grounds.
..the language of the constitution of this state, as well as that of the {US}, guarantees only the right to keep and bear the "arms" necessary for a militiaman. It is to secure the existence of a well regulated militia; that, by the express words of the clause, was the object of it.." The "arms bearing" part of a people, were its men fit for service on the field of battle. That country was "armed" that had an army ready for fight.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)The thread title: "Who are the Militia?"
You'll note the present tense usage as opposed to, "Who were the Miltita?"
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)dscntnt: Who were the Miltita?"
Whoa, along with tench coxe, the dick act, we skatin' on thin ice.
(I tried to temper by changing avatar from alfred hitchcock).
DU is having a sale on star memberships, evidently anything you want to pay gets you one - usually was $5 per month, I joined for a year for $11 total. (I think should at least give $5 for a year, don't you all?). So if you wanna become a star member for a song now's a good time.
I just unleased a pandora's box of complaints from star members paying full price, dint I?
I stumbled onto this when I tried to start the UN arms treaty post with poll but you needed be star member to create poll, then wondered if I could just join for a month & as I said stumbled upon the sale. Not a bad deal imo. $60 a month a bit much for my wallet, but eleven if no problemo.
.. I also stumbled upon that you can 'ignore yourself', that is put yourself on ignore! Strongly recommend this for many adversarial posters here! Click on 'my journal' then click on the tab 'ignore' - tho I didn't do it, maybe it doesn't go all the way there.
And isn't there a way to see how many are ignoring 'you'? last I saw it was 5, likely up by now - said unabashedly.
.. & bonus for my $11 I got to switch alfred hitchcock to my regular avatar elsewhere, grouchy marxist. I have more hair like grouchos, but love alfredH as much, tho I did get sicka lookin' at him.
If it walks like a duck but with a limp, if it talks like a duck but with a hiccup, if it quacks like a duck but softer.... it's still a duck. (Within reason).
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,476 posts)Coxe, Dick, ice, Hitchcock, stars and ducks.
Thanks, I think!? 
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)From Same GA court:
Upon its very front, as we have said, the object of the clause is declared to be to secure to the state a well regulated militia. Has this declaration no significance? Is the clause to be interpreted without reference to it? On the contrary, by the well settled rules for the interpretation of laws, as well as by the dictates of common sense, the object and intent of the law is the prime key to its meaning. A well regulated militia may fairly mean--"the arms-bearing population of the state, organized under the law, in possession of weapons for defending the state, and accustomed to their use." The constitution declares that as such a militia is necessary to the existence of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. To effect this end, the right to have arms would (p.476)seem to be absolute, since without this right, it would not be possible to attain the end contemplated, to-wit: an armed militia, organized and ready for the public exigencies. But it is obvious that the right to bear or carry arms about the person at all times and places and under all circumstances, is not a necessity for the declared object of the guarantee; nay, that it does not even tend to secure the great purpose sought for, to-wit: that the people shall be familiar with the use of arms and capable from their habits of life, of becoming efficient militiamen. If the general right to carry and to use them exist; if they may at pleasure be borne and used in the fields, and in the woods, on the highways and byeways, at home and abroad, the whole declared purpose of the provision is fulfilled. The right to keep and to bear arms so that the state may be secured in the existence of a well regulated militia, is fully attained. The people have, or may have the arms the public exigencies require, and being unrestricted in the bearing and using of them, except under special and peculiar circumstances, there is no infringement of the constitutional guarantee. The right to bear arms in order that the state may, when its exigencies demand, have at call a body of men, having arms at their command, belonging to themselves and habituated to the use of them, is in no fair sense a guarantee that the owners of these arms may bear them at concerts, and prayer-meetings, and elections. At such places, the bearing of arms of any sort, is an eye-sore to good citizens, offensive to peaceable people, an indication of a want of a proper respect for the majesty of the laws, and a marked breach of good manners. If borne at all under the law, they must be borne openly and plainly exposed to view, and under the circumstances we allude to, the very act is not only a provocation to a breach of the peace, but dangerous to human life. The constitution is to be construed as a whole. One part of it is not to be understood in such a sense as will militate against another. It is as well the duty of the general assembly to pass laws for the protection of the person and property of the citizen as it is to abstain from any infringement (p.477)of the right to bear arms. The preservation of the public peace, and the protection of the people against violence, are constitutional duties of the legislature, and the guarantee of the right to keep and bear arms is to be understood and construed in connection and in harmony with these constitutional duties
(my emphasis in bold)
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)And yet the view of this amicus brief did not prevail in Emerson, any more than it did in Heller.
Obviously you still need help understanding how the law works. It is an adversarial system, which means there are two sides, each presenting its arguments. Then the justices (or judges in the lower courts) make a decision, which becomes law.
You keep arguing for a point that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.
Of course arguing a losing side during the adversarial isn't necessarily a sign of a lack of understanding - but arguing a losing side after the case or cases have been decided definitely show a lack of understanding in the law.
Again, thanks for playing.
CokeMachine
(1,018 posts)I am glad at least someone takes the time to read his word salads. I've tried but can't figure out who he is talking to or what he's saying most of the time.
Thanks for taking the time to read that stuff and reply!!!
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)He keeps posting points that have been considered and rejected by the courts, but he thinks that the briefs are holy writ.
On top of that, his analytical ability is not what he thinks it is.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)jimmy said: the OP by DWC contended tench coxe supporting an individual right to private arms
And does jimmy contend Coxe was supporting a collective right to private arms? Seriously?
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excop: .. the view of this amicus brief did not prevail in Emerson,.. Heller.
Of course it didn't, the nra prevailed via a rightwing supreme court which ruled against historical precedent. You continue to be a genius for the obvious thinking you're a full graduate rather than a student (how are classes going btw? you a frosh, soph, jr or sr now?). Fact remains the very link you cited for scalia was used by militia side in emerson, showing ambiguity therein.
.. how the law works. It is an adversarial system, which means there are two sides, each presenting its arguments. Then the justices (or judges in the lower courts) make a decision, which becomes law.
Gee, and here I thought it was the legislatures which made the laws & the courts generally ruled on the constitutionality or legality thereof. Reread chapter 1, basic law. And those judges & courts, they're always 100% correct aren't they? OJ innocent as a babe, dred scott proper, jim crow judges & juries tossing people in jail on skincolor, the 5-4 heller decision just what the rightwing manipulated past 30yrs!
You keep arguing for a point that has been repeatedly rejected by the courts.
Can't stop laughing; ruled once in appelate in emerson, twice in scotus, & on those 3 you use the word 'repeatedly'? hahaha, what duplicity! prior to emerson, it had never been ruled for the individual rkba (in higher courts).
excop: .. arguing a losing side after the case or cases have been decided definitely show a lack of understanding in the law.
You should notify marcia clark, vince bugliosi (his post verdict book) & chris darden et al, their lack of understanding in the law. You adhere to some really weird science there, student.
hans posts regarding rights granted by texas rkba, not 2ndA: .. that the people shall be familiar with the use of arms and capable from their habits of life, of becoming efficient militiamen. If the general right to carry and to use them exist; if they may at pleasure be borne and used in the fields, and in the woods, on the highways and byeways, at home and abroad, the whole declared purpose of the provision is fulfilled. The right to keep and to bear arms so that the state may be secured in the existence of a well regulated militia, is fully attained. The people have, or may have the arms the public exigencies require, and being unrestricted in the bearing and using of them, except under special and peculiar circumstances, there is no infringement of the constitutional guarantee. The right to bear arms in order that the state may, when its exigencies demand, have at call a body of men, having arms at their command, belonging to themselves and habituated to the use of them, is in no fair sense a guarantee that the owners of these arms may bear them at concerts, and prayer-meetings, and elections.. The constitution is to be construed as a whole. One part of it is not to be understood in such a sense as will militate against another. It is as well the duty of the general assembly to pass law..
>>> It is now well settled that the amendments to the constitution of the {US}, are all restrictions, not upon the states, but upon the {US}. therefore, if this act be unconstitutional it must be because it is in conflict with our state constitution
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)Here's your first lesson.
There are four sources of law in the United States and each individual State, with the exception of Louisiana (see note below). Constitutional law, the foundation of all law in the American system; statutory law, enacted by the legislative branch and agreed to by the executive branch; regulatory law, regulations created by the executive branch, normally under the authority of statute; and the common law, which are the decisions of the judiciary. A good PowerPoint primer for you is here. Come back when you have gone over the presentation and we will go over it for you, including more detail on the sources of law and the differences, but concentrating on the common law.
We'll also go over the difference between binding and non-binding decisions, holdings v. dicta, primary v. secondary authority, and mandatory v. persuasive authority. Be prepared to discuss each in turn.
Note: Louisiana is not a common law jurisdiction, but is a code law jurisdiction. Louisiana courts are not bound under the principles of stare decisis, but they do have a similar principle called jurisprudence constante. For extra credit, you can explain the difference.
jimmy the one
(2,708 posts)excop: Here's your first lesson. >>> I graduated university decades ago, don't need no first lesson from a professional student.
excop: There are four sources of law in the United States and each individual State.. Constitutional law, the foundation of all law in the American system; statutory law, enacted by the legislative branch and agreed to by the executive branch; regulatory law, regulations created by the executive branch, normally under the authority of statute; and the common law, which are the decisions of the judiciary
Take it up with wiki: The judiciary is the system of courts that interprets and applies the law in the name of the state.. the judiciary generally does not make law (that is, in a plenary fashion, which is the responsibility of the legislature) or enforce law, but rather interprets law and applies it to the facts of each case.. It usually consists of a court of final appeal (called the "Supreme court" or "Constitutional court" , together with lower courts.
In many jurisdictions the judicial branch has the power to change laws through the process of judicial review. Courts with judicial review power may annul the laws and rules of the state when it finds them incompatible with a higher norm, such as primary legislation, the provisions of the constitution or international law. Judges constitute a critical force for interpretation and implementation of a constitution, thus de facto in common law countries creating the body of constitutional law.
what excop first said, you decide: It is an adversarial system, which means there are two sides, each presenting its arguments. Then the justices (or judges in the lower courts) make a decision, which becomes law.
SCOTUS ruled on the constitutionality of DC's handgun ban in heller & ruled it unconstitutional, any subsequent law was changed & in that vein was it 'created'.
ExCop-LawStudent
(147 posts)At least in grammar.
hansberrym
(1,571 posts)ileus
(15,396 posts)And we should fight back to assure the 2A regressives don't take that ability away.
era veteran
(4,069 posts)A cell of one, the militia, nevertheless.
DWC
(911 posts)The best definition yet!
Semper Fi,
era veteran
(4,069 posts)Stay on the tank.
