quade 3
Recommended Posts
DanG 1
QuoteFrom the Militia Act of 1792:
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack.
Back to the books for you!
Hmm, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were making the argument that the 2nd relates to the establishment of militias, not an individual right to bear arms. Are you making that argument? If not, I fail to see where the Militia Act has any bearing on the 2nd.
QuoteLame troll attempt is lame.
I'll admit it was trollish. On the other hand, I think it's an interesting question. Kallend seems to favor limiting who can have weapons, and you seem to favor limiting what weapons they can have. What's the difference? The 2nd says the right shall not be infringed. Why is your infringement okay, but not his?
- Dan G
mnealtx 0
QuoteIf not, I fail to see where the Militia Act has any bearing on the 2nd.
The act in an of itself does not - the description of arms to be provided by the militiaman *does* provide an idea of what was considered personal arms at the time.
QuoteI'll admit it was trollish.
So, we're done with the silliness? Good.
QuoteOn the other hand, I think it's an interesting question.
Not really, since it's based on a false premise.
QuoteKallend seems to favor limiting who can have weapons, and you seem to favor limiting what weapons they can have.
Nope. What I am saying is that your 'missile, tank, nuke' argument of personal weapons is bogus.
QuoteWhat's the difference? The 2nd says the right shall not be infringed. Why is your infringement okay, but not his?
It's not an infringement - that's the part you *STILL* don't get, and won't until you throw away the red herring and actually do some research.
Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706
DanG 1
QuoteThe act in an of itself does not - the description of arms to be provided by the militiaman *does* provide an idea of what was considered personal arms at the time.
Again, my copy of the Constitution must be a misprint. The word "personal" does not appear. You've given no justification that it is implied except for a Jefferson letter on sports.
QuoteWhat I am saying is that your 'missile, tank, nuke' argument of personal weapons is bogus.
You keep assuming the conclusion. GeogiaDon's question was why should the 2nd be limited to personal weapons.
QuoteIt's not an infringement - that's the part you *STILL* don't get, and won't until you throw away the red herring and actually do some research.
Please re-read the OP. This "red herring" is the whole point of the discussion.
- Dan G
Quote
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be your constant companion of your walks.
--- Thomas Jefferson to Peter Carr, 1785. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors.
Note the mention of "gun" vs. cannon. The document isn't faulty, just your comprehension/interpretation of it.
Peter Carr was a little slow witted, I think Jefferson dumbed down his advice to his nephew and it shouldn't be viewed as universally applicable.
"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"
JohnRich 4
QuoteHmm, if I didn't know better, I'd think you were making the argument that the 2nd relates to the establishment of militias, not an individual right to bear arms. Are you making that argument? If not, I fail to see where the Militia Act has any bearing on the 2nd.
You really need to do more historical reading on this subject. Where you're going wrong on the above statement is to believe, apparently, that the mliilitia and the people are separate entities. They aren't. The people ARE the militia. They are one and the same. Even now in modern times, most state constitutions define a citizen militia, consisting of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45, and are subject to call-up in the event of threats or disasters.
The next argument usually put forth is that the state National Guard units have replaced the militia these days. Not so. There are two classes of militia; one is the Guard, and the other is the "unorganized militia" consisting of the citizenry. They are both militia, and are both comprised of the common citizens.
YOU are probably a member of your own state's militia, and don't even realize it.
Fortunately, the Brits gave up on invading and occupying us, so they haven't had to call up the militia's in a while, but the concept is still valid.
JohnRich 4
QuoteAgain, my copy of the Constitution must be a misprint. The word "personal" does not appear.
You have to read more than just the Constitution to understand how those words came to be that way, and how they were intended to be interpreted. Start with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, available in any college bookstore.
The gun-o-phobes like to make hay out of the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right until just a few years ago. The explanation for that is that past generations have always understood it to be that way, and thus there wasn't any argument over it. It only became an issue because gun-o-phobes tried to rewrite history and claim that it was different from what everyone had always understood. Fortunately, they didn't get away with it.
If you're not going to bother doing some research to answer your questions, then folks here are just going to quit listening to repeating the same complaint over and over again.
DanG 1
QuoteWhere you're going wrong on the above statement is to believe, apparently, that the mliilitia and the people are separate entities. They aren't.
I never said I believed that the 2nd was intended to be about the establishment of militias. I don't. I was merely commenting on the use of the Militia Act to show that the 2nd was intended to only apply to personal weapons. I don't believe that you can mke the "personal" weapons argument by citing the Militia Act, that is all.
- Dan G
DanG 1
QuoteIf you're not going to bother doing some research to answer your questions, then folks here are just going to quit listening to repeating the same complaint over and over again.
I'm not complaining, nor making "the same argument". Please read the thread, and try to avoid the knee-jerking.
GeorgiaDon asked an interesting question, and so far no one has really tried to answer it. "Go read the Federalist Papers," is not an answer. Rehashing the individual vs. collective rights argument is similarly non-responsive. This discussion is about the apparently accepted limitation to personal weapons. Do you have anything to add to that discussion? If not, allow me to give you some advice:
QuoteIf you're not going to bother doing some research to answer your questions, then folks here are just going to quit listening to repeating the same complaint over and over again.
- Dan G
SkyDekker 1,121
QuoteThe gun-o-phobes like
Why is anybody who would have questions about the 2nd amendment a gun-o-phobe?
GeorgiaDon 340
It seems as if people are arguing that the 2nd has nothing to do with militias out of one side of their mouth, and that it's all about militias out the other side at the same time. I can certainly see how the Militia Act, state militias, etc are applicable if the purpose of the 2nd amendment was related to maintaining a well-organized militia, but I though we had agreed that it does not. Maybe the fact that in the 18th century the average citizen only had access to muskets is nothing but a historical curiosity, sort of like 18th century doctors having a fondness for leeching. We wouldn't expect 21st century doctors to restrict themselves to 18th century technology. Why do we expect 21st century citizens to defend themselves using essentially the same weapons [considerably updated of course, but qualitatively the same technology] as their 18th century counterparts?QuoteWhere you're going wrong on the above statement is to believe, apparently, that the mliilitia and the people are separate entities. They aren't. The people ARE the militia. They are one and the same. Even now in modern times, most state constitutions define a citizen militia, consisting of all able-bodied males between the ages of 18 and 45, and are subject to call-up in the event of threats or disasters.
The next argument usually put forth is that the state National Guard units have replaced the militia these days. Not so. There are two classes of militia; one is the Guard, and the other is the "unorganized militia" consisting of the citizenry. They are both militia, and are both comprised of the common citizens.
YOU are probably a member of your own state's militia, and don't even realize it.
So it has been argued that the 2nd applies only to personal arms, and the nature of those arms is constrained by what was available to 19th century militias. Yet "personal" arms appears no-where in the 2nd amendment, although the writers were certainly aware of guns vs cannons and could have specified guns, had they so wished. To divine "original intent" we turn to laws and writings regarding militias, although we agree that the 2nd amendment in no way, shape, or form was ever intended to limit the right to bear arms to participation in any militia. Surely it can be argued that the reference to militias is the red herring? Even though the reference has deep historical roots, that doesn't mean it is correct. Many bad ideas have surprisingly long lifetimes, especially when they favor the status quo.
I though that a right was a right. No-one says I am free to speak only those ideas that were acceptable in the 18th century. No-one says I am free to belong only to any of the religions that were practiced in the 18th century. "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Seems pretty cut-and-dried to me.
I really wonder what would happen if a determined (and well financed) citizen went all the way to the Supreme Court to argue that the uninfringible right to keep and bear arms allows them access to Stinger missiles, based on the plain words of the 2nd amendment.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
QuoteQuoteAgain, my copy of the Constitution must be a misprint. The word "personal" does not appear.
You have to read more than just the Constitution to understand how those words came to be that way, and how they were intended to be interpreted. Start with the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, available in any college bookstore.
The gun-o-phobes like to make hay out of the fact that the Supreme Court didn't rule that the 2nd Amendment was an individual right until just a few years ago. The explanation for that is that past generations have always understood it to be that way, and thus there wasn't any argument over it. It only became an issue because gun-o-phobes tried to rewrite history and claim that it was different from what everyone had always understood. Fortunately, they didn't get away with it.
If you're not going to bother doing some research to answer your questions, then folks here are just going to quit listening to repeating the same complaint over and over again.
Did you expect anti-gun believers to be anything other than purposefully obtuse, narrow minded and shallow in any gun discussion? That the subject has been hashed over many times before must be lost on them. Back in the day, those types were classified as *sore losers.* Let them sulk and pout. Unless some future court case rescinds the 2nd Amendment, the pro gun faction today remains the winner.
Quote
The next argument usually put forth is that the state National Guard units have replaced the militia these days. Not so. There are two classes of militia; one is the Guard, and the other is the "unorganized militia" consisting of the citizenry. They are both militia, and are both comprised of the common citizens.
The US militia is all males who are or intend to become citizens aged 17-44 plus older former regular armed services members in the National Guard and Naval Militia, and female citizens serving in the National guard National Guard members.
10 USC 311
(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.
32 USC 313
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
quade 3
QuoteThe US militia is all males who are or intend to become citizens aged 17-44 plus older former regular armed services members in the National Guard and Naval Militia, and female citizens serving in the National guard National Guard members.
10 USC 311
(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.
32 USC 313
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
So, what you're saying then is . . . people outside that group have no Constitutional right to own a gun. So, no men under 17 or over 45 or any women unless they belong to the National Guard.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
GeorgiaDon 340
Thanks for your completely useless contribution to an otherwise interesting thread. No-one has suggested anything about restricting gun rights, in fact quite the opposite. Wait, let me write that in words you might understand:QuoteDid you expect anti-gun believers to be anything other than purposefully obtuse, narrow minded and shallow in any gun discussion? That the subject has been hashed over many times before must be lost on them. Back in the day, those types were classified as *sore losers.* Let them sulk and pout. Unless some future court case rescinds the 2nd Amendment, the pro gun faction today remains the winner.
No one say guns bad.
Only ask why not really big guns OK?
To everyone else, thanks for the spirited discussion.
Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)
kallend 1,621
QuoteThanks for your completely useless contribution to an otherwise interesting thread. No-one has suggested anything about restricting gun rights, in fact quite the opposite. Wait, let me write that in words you might understand:QuoteDid you expect anti-gun believers to be anything other than purposefully obtuse, narrow minded and shallow in any gun discussion? That the subject has been hashed over many times before must be lost on them. Back in the day, those types were classified as *sore losers.* Let them sulk and pout. Unless some future court case rescinds the 2nd Amendment, the pro gun faction today remains the winner.
No one say guns bad.
Only ask why not really big guns OK?
To everyone else, thanks for the spirited discussion.
Don
What did you expect?
Fernjack:
Registered Jan 23, 2012, 4:20 PM
Posts: 28 (0.7 per day)
Personal Profile
Name:
Email: No email entered.
Country:
City:
Location Map
fernjack455 did not set a location yet.
Jump Profile
Home DZ: No home dropzone entered.
If it waddles and quacks...
...
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.
QuoteQuoteThe US militia is all males who are or intend to become citizens aged 17-44 plus older former regular armed services members in the National Guard and Naval Militia, and female citizens serving in the National guard National Guard members.
10 USC 311
(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.
32 USC 313
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
So, what you're saying then is . . . people outside that group have no Constitutional right to own a gun. So, no men under 17 or over 45 or any women unless they belong to the National Guard.
In order for me to say that the second amendment would need to be
"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It doesn't.
quade 3
QuoteQuoteQuoteThe US militia is all males who are or intend to become citizens aged 17-44 plus older former regular armed services members in the National Guard and Naval Militia, and female citizens serving in the National guard National Guard members.
10 USC 311
(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.
32 USC 313
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
So, what you're saying then is . . . people outside that group have no Constitutional right to own a gun. So, no men under 17 or over 45 or any women unless they belong to the National Guard.
In order for me to say that the second amendment would need to be
"The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"
It doesn't.
So then, what you're saying is all of the arguments that use the "militia" as part of their justification, either pro or con, are irrelevant.
Which would seem to include the Second Amendment itself.
Ya, can't have it all three ways.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Andy9o8 0
QuoteQuoteThe US militia is all males who are or intend to become citizens aged 17-44 plus older former regular armed services members in the National Guard and Naval Militia, and female citizens serving in the National guard National Guard members.
10 USC 311
(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.
32 USC 313
(a) To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.
So, what you're saying then is . . . people outside that group have no Constitutional right to own a gun. So, no men under 17 or over 45 or any women unless they belong to the National Guard.
No, Congress has said, by statute, that men under 17 or over 45 or any women unless they belong to the National Guard are not deemed to be members of the national militia. Nothing more, nothing less. Where an apparent conflict, inconsistency or gap exists between a statute enacted by Congress and a Constitutional provision, the Constitutional provision always prevails.
Congress does not have the authority to interpret or define the Constitution; only the federal courts have that authority. Likewise, Congress may not validly pass any statute that results in a restriction of rights accorded by the Constitution. From occasional time to time, some federal laws (passed by Congress) have been invalidated by the Federal courts on this ground.
This leaves the question: Can Congress, as a practical matter, restrict the 2nd Amendment by statutorily defining "militia" very narrowly? In my opinion, no, because the preamble to the 2nd Amendment expressly refers to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms", and not to the right only of adult males to do so.
quade 3
Then why all those words about a militia?
You don't see justifications like that on any of the other rights; do you?
You don't see justifications like that on any of the other rights; do you?
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Andy9o8 0
QuoteThen why all those words about a militia?
You don't see justifications like that on any of the other rights; do you?
It's hard to answer in enough of a nutshell to fit in here. Suffice it to say that the 2nd Amendment does not say "militia as it shall be defined by Congress from time to time", it simply refers to "a well regulated militia", without further definition of the term. (In the English language usage of the day then, the term "well regulated" generally (but only) meant "properly functioning".) But it does expressly specify "the people", which back then pretty much meant all US citizens who were neither slaves nor aboriginals.
quade 3
QuoteBut it does expressly specify "the people", which back then pretty much meant all US citizens who were neither slaves nor aboriginals.
And by "pretty much" meant only male, white, land owners old enough to vote.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
JohnRich 4
QuoteThen why all those words about a militia?
The Second Amendment:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."The "militia" is a subset of "the people". The militia was referenced as an example of why the people should be allowed to bear arms, because without an armed populace, you can't have a militia which is drawn from that populace. So "the militia" was just an example, and "the people" are the subject to whom the Amendment is directed.
Try this:
"Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed."Would you interpret this phrase to mean that only libraries should be allowed to own books?
Of course you know all this because we've been through it all with you before. But you never want to miss an opportunity to confuse people.
quade 3
QuoteTry this:
"Well stocked libraries, being necessary to the maintenance of an educated electorate, the right of the People to keep and read books shall not be infringed."Would you interpret this phrase to mean that only libraries should be allowed to own books?
Oh, heavens no. I would interpret it for what it is; grasping at straws.
The REASON is the militia. People on the pro-gun side keeping bringing up the militia so clearly that MUST be the reason.
Unless, of course, you're willing to admit militias have NOTHING to do with the Second Amendment, including the often touted overthrow of the government by "the people" who need to "water the tree of liberty" from time to time.
Admit it. It's all bullshit. Just say you like guns and it has nothing to do with the reasons people keep spouting to justify it. Just say you like guns and the Second Amendment itself doesn't matter.
OR . . . admit it ALL matters AND the militia is the reason.
Ya can't have it both ways.
quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Whoa, whoa, whoa! Don't get ahead of yourself there, future boy.
It doesn't say anything about clips and mags! You have to carry individual round balls and gun powder.
The World's Most Boring Skydiver
Share this post
Link to post
Share on other sites