Posted on 07/06/2007 4:34:01 PM PDT by fight_truth_decay
From the Militia Act of 1792 to the Dick Act of 1903, the United States lacked a uniformly enforced militia policy. The modern National Guard began with the Dick Act, which divided the militia into the organized militia, or National Guard, and the unorganized militia.
"The people" were the enfranchised body politic. By definition, it excluded certain persons.
"You believe that the only rights we have are the ones approved of by the judiciary. “Incorporated” you call it."
Starting in the 1900's, the process of "incorporation" selectively applied the Bill of Rights to the states. As written and as intended by the Founding Fathers, the Bill of Rights were only a restriction on the federal government.
"I keep pointing you toward Article VI para 2."
That says the U.S. Constitution (as a contract) supercedes all other contracts (eg, the Articles of Confederation), and is the Supreme Law. Article VI, Section 2, does not say that everything in the contract also applies to the states. That would be silly.
"And your wordplay doesn’t change the fact that the right to keep and bear arms pre-dates the Founding."
The right is inherent. But I'm talking about the protection of that right, not the right itself.
What you mean is that since militias are the foundation of securing the State, the right of all citizens Militia members to own and carry arms can't be screwed with in any way.
Come on. If Militias are indeed the foundation of securing the State, why protect that right for an 85-year old woman? That makes sense to you?
Yes, we protect her RKBA today. But for different reasons. Not because she's the foundation of our security.
Blacks didn't have the right to vote until 1870.
You can’t point out where it says what you claim, once again. Its not there. So your whole argument is based upon a fallacy.
You had better re-read Article VI para 2 again. It specifically says what you claim it doesn’t.
Just so we are clear here, this is the ENTIRE text of what I speak of:
“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”
So yes, it DOES say what you said it doesn’t. The States are bound by it, your beloved black-robed tyrants are bound by it; it is the Law of the Land.
Any ruling made by the BRTs contrary to it has no force of law. They broke their oath of office when they made the ruling contrary to. Of course, they have been enforcing each others rulings for so long that that principal has been lost.
Time to remind them of it.
I'm sure the families of those 160 murder victims will rejoice over how "successful" the DC gun control laws were.
Come on. If Militias are indeed the foundation of securing the State, why protect that right for an 85-year old woman? That makes sense to you?
It sure does. If her son is off forming up with other citizens from his town, she may well have to "hold down the fort" at home in his absence. During WW2 a good many older guys formed local security watches with arms provided by themselves while most of the young men from their towns were over seas.
Besides, the point is your multiple definitions for "the people" comes straight from your arse. In your world, "the people" has a new meaning for every use of the phrase.
Of course the states are bound by it. But you're trying to tell me that Article VI, Section 2 applies everything in the U.S. Constitution to the states.
No? You're not? You're saying Article VI, Section 2 applies the Bill of Rights to the states, are you not?
Gosh, does that mean states can print money? Hey, that's in the U.S. Constitution. Doesn't it also apply to the states, as per your convoluted logic?
Or are you willing to admit that parts of the U.S. Constitution apply to the federal government and parts to the states and that Article VI, Section 2 says that the contract (the U.S. Constitution) is binding on both and supreme over every other contract?
You need to think a little and not simply parrot something you saw.
If you need more proof than that, I suggest you use Google.
Even better, today he might say “How strangely will the pervert tyrranize the plain meaning of words..”
My point is that you’ve asserted something that you not only can’t back up, but that isn’t true. And go bluster to someone else about Google, please.
What is your personal opinion about the right of self-defense? Do you think it should be prohbited, and how do you think the framers would respond to that today?
A completely hysterical argument on your part...
The US Constitution lays out what the duties of government are. Can a State print money? No, (and neither can the Federal government, as they may only MINT money) but they may issue gold and silver Coin for payment of debts. The document lays out some things very specifically. Some things it says only the Federal government can do, and reserves other things for the States or the People. But the States are bound to it as a whole, not that the State may ACT as the Federal government. That argument is specious, as are most of your assertions.
If the Federal government is prohibited from an action bearing upon the rights of the People, so are the several States. Hence the word ‘inherent’ our Founders were wont to use. We have inherent rights that may not be infringed, by any governmental authority, be it Federal or State. Or by your beloved BRTs. I get the impression that you work in the ‘legal’ profession. You have a tendency to bastardize words and concepts, warp clear meaning, and try to obfuscate the meaning of the word ‘is’.
Willian Jefferson Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and Charles Schumer do the same thing.
Clearly that is the direction that this particular brouhaha over the Second is trending and is one reason why some of us are a little concerned about intervention on this issue on the restriction side by the federal government, should that be the way the decision goes. How much latitude the states really have on the matter will almost certainly undergo some change out of this, and call me paranoid if you like, but it seems that gun control advocates would find it much easier to pass one draconian law nationwide than attempt to address the issue in the various states. In fact, they've tried that and with the AWB succeeded, at least partially.
Still, it would be interesting to get a definitive view, however narrow. The entire body of gun control law isn't likely to shatter because of it, however much I'd prefer that personally.
That's true. Lots of gray area but very little gray matter on the left.
I don't see 4 commas in that image. I see perhaps the three that are commonly accepted today but the 3rd one, the one that really makes no sense, is highly questionable to me. It does not look like any of the other commas in the document being much smaller and not elongated. It looks like a foreign object or an accidental touch of the pen to me.
robertpaulson: Some rights are individual. Some are of the whole people (or the people at large). So I agree.
Sophistry befitting a third grade squabble over a PB&J.
Again I ask; where? This must make over a half dozen times on this thread that you've been asked to document that claim. It's telling how assiduously you avoid doing so.
It was certainly not limited to only the people engaged in militia activities, nor was it limited to only people who would be required to engage in such activities.
I see no reason to believe that it was not the same people who were guaranteed their freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion in the First Amendment.
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.