Posted on 10/17/2007 11:48:49 AM PDT by Dr.Syn
Other than you, people think “the people” means the people, to wit everyone (save perhaps a few extreme cases of demonstrable/adjudicated incompetents and violent criminals).
You, on the other hand, keep it means something which is unspecified.
To the contrary: methinks the point of such abuse is precisely to discourage others from doing the same. The point is to “chill” exercise of a right: it may be legal, but one will likely suffer such harassment and pain as to convince people in general to not bother.
The same people who's rights are enumerated by the other 9 amendments in the BOR.
That is why I posted the article. Nobody questions the broad application of Amendment I while so many try to pick Amendment II apart.
And the funniest thing is that Amendment I has the potential of being much more destructive to the nation as proven by the propaganda of all totalitarian states.
Who said that? I said only that their rights were protected. It doesn't mean that others weren't allowed to have guns.
"Even during the Revolutionary War, freed slaves fought in the Militia."
Doesn't mean their right to keep and bears arms was protected.
I totally agree that is the obvious strategy. Such has been going on across the country for quite some time. The second part of the posters statement is that I see more people getting fed up. Something will be done about these petty tyrants in my lifetime. I am convinced of that.
"especially since its ultimate leadership comes from DC)????"
The state militia had officers appointed by the state. The state militia was under the authority of the governor.
You are right Joe ~ don’t waste your time on those who refuse get it!
Be Ever Vigilant!
Until you have your own personal epiphany on this topic, you are pointless to try and converse with. Either start accepting facts, or shut the f*ck up...
I see. Then what militia is it referring to if not the well organized militia of each state with officers appointed by the state?
"the militia was everyone who was capable of bearing arms and were expected to report with their own weapons."
Pfffft! Tribe doesn't have a clue. Congress has the constitutional power to organize the militia and they did so in the Militia Act of 1792. That Act stated that militia members were to be white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age. They has six months to acquire a weapon, that being a musket, used by the militia.
If they already had a gun, it was more than likely a rifle -- accurate, but useless for rapid and sustained volley fire.
"The same scholars point out that any other interpretation of the word "people"
Then you tell me -- who were "the people", referred to in the second amendment?
"I have said it before, you are either a moron or a shill for big government, anti-individual rights groups."
Oh, stop it with your juvenile name calling. You want your posts deleted, that's fine by me.
I see. Then what militia is it referring to if not the well organized militia of each state with officers appointed by the state?
"the militia was everyone who was capable of bearing arms and were expected to report with their own weapons."
Pfffft! Tribe doesn't have a clue. Congress has the constitutional power to organize the militia and they did so in the Militia Act of 1792. That Act stated that militia members were to be white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age. They has six months to acquire a weapon, that being a musket, used by the militia.
If they already had a gun, it was more than likely a rifle -- accurate, but useless for rapid and sustained volley fire.
"The same scholars point out that any other interpretation of the word "people"
Then you tell me -- who were "the people", referred to in the second amendment?
"I have said it before, you are either a moron or a shill for big government, anti-individual rights groups."
Oh, stop it with your juvenile name calling. You want your posts deleted, that's fine by me.
So does mine. And, as I said, it refers to the state Militia.
"which does not in any way indicate that the State is the topmost controlling authority of the Militia being referred to."
Well, it's "well regulated". And its officers are appointed by the state. I give up -- what militia is the second amendment referring to?
The second amendment says it's well regulated. Article I, Section 8 says the officers are appointed by the state. Artile I, Section 8 says the state is to train the militia. Article I, Section 8 says Congress has the power to organize, arm, and discipline the militia.
Seems pretty narrow to me.
True enough but the official state militia by statute (see below) is ceremonial and under the control of the National Guard which is under the control of the Governor who must yield to the President. Thus, it is an extension of the US military. Again, Amendment II does not say "State" militia.
Section 27-8 of the General Statues of Connecticut states that the "Governor's Guards --- shall be the organized militia."
Section 27-6a provides for the organization of the First and Second Companies of the Governor's Foot Guards and Section 27-7 authorizes the organizational structure of the First and Second Companies of the Governor's Horse Guards. These units trace their heritage to Colonial times and in the case of the First Company Governor's Foot Guards it has the longest continuous record of service of any military unit in the United States while the First Company Governor's Horse Guards shares that same honor for a military cavalry unit. Today these units are available to the Governor for service in state natural disaster operations and response to civil emergencies. Their combined strength as of July 1, 1999 is 325 officers and enlisted members. Annually they perform civic service at hundreds of official state, local community and private functions and at various historical and military celebrations throughout Connecticut and the nation.
Well, then, in that case you are correct. They do enjoy second amendment protection. I thought you were talking about something else.
You two maybe want to get together and figure out where the State Guard fits in?
"Incidentally the 2nd makes no reference to just organized and addresses both classes defined as militia"
Well, it does say "well regulated" -- and "unorganized" doesn't sound well regulated.
Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, however, isn't referring to some armed, unorganized, neighborhood watch. It's referring to an official state militia.
Everyone? Even non-citizens? Illegals? You're saying that illegal aliens have the U.S. Constitutional right to keep and bear arms?
You forgot to ping me. An oversight I'm sure.
I bring up thoughtful arguments that cannot be countered by the mental midgets that hang out on these gun threads. If it goes against what they've thought to be true, they end up calling names, living up to their 40 IQ.
"and a whole lotta people pointing out numerous flaws in the argument"
Pointing them out, yes. Rebutting them, not a chance. Your most powerful argument to date? "But ... but ... it's unconstitutional!"
Pathetic.
"I have repeatedly tried to draw this problem to the attention of Moderators, who have apparently done nothing."
I'll be long gone before that -- leaving because of boredom.
The accused (in the 6th amendment)? The owner (in the 3rd amendment)?
Only homeowners accused of a crime have the right to keep and bear arms? Are you sure?
Maybe you can stop dodging my question and tell me who "the people" are in the second amendment. If you don't know, then say so.
Sure. And the one thing you haven't done is relate any of those to the second amendment.
I agree, the Founders went on at length about the right to keep and bear arms. So? What does that have to do with the second amendment?
Until you start tying the two together, you're just wasting my time and FR's bandwidth.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.