Posted on 03/16/2008 2:51:10 PM PDT by kiriath_jearim
Article I, Section 8 gave Congress the authority to arm the militia, but it didn’t say that the only arms the militia could use would be those provided by Congress, now, did it? The law was that the militia, the People, were to provide their own arms, powder and ball; but, if they couldn’t, Congress was authorized to provide them.
"The people" doesn't mean everyone. When the Founders meant everyone they wrote "persons".
If you had read US v Heller, the DC Circuit Court defined who "the people" were. And it wasn't everyone. It wasn't even every citizen.
You need to get yourself on firmer ground before you start throwing around words like "stupid".
Bump!
This does not erase the fact that the "militias" proscribed therein were comprised of average, everyday Americans...not soldiers. They brought their own personal firearms to war, REGARDLESS of Article I, Section 8. All that rhetoric sounds nice on paper, but it does not account for the total REALITY behind the composition of early militias.
Any country which denies its individual citizens the right to keep and bear arms is rife for tyrannical dictatorships. or worse.
Correct. And the second amendment was written to protect the right of the people to do that.
In a nutshell.
Your individual gun rights outside of a Militia are secured by your state constitution. Two different issues.
Yes, that's right. The Militia Act stipulated that they must have acquire a military arm, at that time a single shot smoothbore musket, which is not to be confused with a "civilian" smoothbore fowling piece, which most militias where armed with during the Revolution.
“Our Founding Fathers knew very well what an oppressive government could do, and they also knew that the only security The People had against such tyranny was to be armed.”
You make a good point, but things have changed considerably since the early days of our republic. Back then, a man could buy the same weaponry as the soldiers used—a musket or a rifle—and a citizenry so equipped would be in a position to put up a stout defense against a tyrannical government. But not anymore. Hunting rifles don’t let you effectively engage tanks and F-18’s. I think if a major purpose of the Second Amendment is to protect against a tyrannical government (which appears to be the case), then, logically, we should have the right to similar arms.
It's meaning would be the same.
I was pleased to see in one of the briefs filed in Heller that the topic of prefatory language has been addressed quite thoroughly by the courts. It has been recognized that such language does not limit the scope of the operative clause.
Congrats!
The kids and I went out this afternoon and went through over 400 rounds of .22LR.
You've done yourself proud with this post.
In your mind, only libraries would be protected. But the actual grammatical structure only establishes that there is a relationship between the two; presumably that the protection will accomplish the end. But there is no implication whatever that the protection can be limited to only books kept in a library.
Nor is there any implication that the government is responsible for creating libraries. The expectation would be that people, left undisturbed by the government, will create libraries using the books that they have a protected freedom to keep and read.
He's not espousing the formation of government militias in this quote.
No, they did not. They determined that a well regulated Miltia was necessary to the security of a free state. Not an armed populace.
It’s right there in the second amendment.
But Paulsen, you are leaving out.. The right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It’s right there in the second amendment......:)
Yep. And if state governments can disarm the people, then they can eliminate a resource specifically allocated to the Congress in Article 1 Section 8 - Powers of Congress (”To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions”). Which is why the 2nd Amendment applies to the states even without the 14th Amendment. Let me repeat - if the states can disarm the people, then the Congress and the President (as commander in chief) can be denied the services of the militia to perform their three Constitutionally defined missions - no way that’s what was intended. Certain persons who are posting on this thread just want to dodge that fact. Why? Simple - they want to continue to maintain various classes of citizenship - one for whites and one for “colored.” For instance, historically a number of states had laws against concealed carry of handguns, which would never be enforced against a white person by juries. That’s what RP wants. BS sez me.
Outstanding! Thanks.
What protects individuals' rights from the federal government?
In what parts of the Constitution does the phrase "the people" not include all free citizens who are eligible to vote?
Did you mean to add "shall not be infringed"? Absent the "militia" phrase, a tyrant could reasonably argue that it only protected, say, hunting or sporting weapons. As it is, however, it protects at minimum those weapons which could be usefully taken up as arms in a well-functioning group of citizens joined together to defend their community.
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.