Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article

To: robertpaulsen
But the second amendment refers to a "well regulated state Militia" and the U.S. Constitution says that officers are to be appointed by the state.

Liar.

The Second Amendment at no point refers to any descriptor identifying what militia is being discussed in the preamble.

Further, and more important, even Liberal legal scholars, Lawrence Tribe chief among them, have conceded that when the document was drafted, the militia was everyone who was capable of bearing arms and were expected to report with their own weapons.

The same scholars point out that any other interpretation of the word "people" in the second amendment is impossible given the basic precepts of constitutional interpretation. (you can't or won't understand them, so I'm not going to bother explaining them to you)

Get off your militia kick, and just admit you don't like anyone owning guns unless your Federal Goverment gives them permission to do so.

I have said it before, you are either a moron or a shill for big government, anti-individual rights groups.

83 posted on 10/18/2007 11:00:20 AM PDT by Abundy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies ]


To: Abundy
"The Second Amendment at no point refers to any descriptor identifying what militia is being discussed in the preamble."

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.

110 posted on 10/18/2007 12:27:53 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

To: Abundy
"The Second Amendment at no point refers to any descriptor identifying what militia is being discussed in the preamble."

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.

111 posted on 10/18/2007 12:28:13 PM PDT by robertpaulsen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 83 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Smoky Backroom
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson