Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Who are the Militia? [View all]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'.