Posted on 03/17/2008 10:45:40 AM PDT by EdReform
The 2nd Amend doesn't protect any militia's right, it protects the people's right. Those are the same people mentioned in the other 10 Amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.
If I had a source that said the second amendment protected individuals as part of a well regulated Militia, there would be no Heller case, now would there? You're asking for something that doesn't exist.
The second amendment does not say unorganized militia or even just militia. It says "a well regulated Militia".
The U.S. Constitution refers to a militia with officers appointed by the state.
I'm now repeating myself with you. If you can't understand something this basic and straightforward, I'm sorry. Read Federalist 29 where Hamilton scoffs at disciplining "all the militia".
You are the one claiming that only some (those with state appointed officers) well regulated militias are covered by the second. Cite your source.
I assert that individuals (the commonly used and well documented meaning of ‘the people’) have a right to keep and bear arms.
Ah. The "living, breathing" interpretation. So you're one of those types, huh? I figured as much.
You are absolutely WRONG (as usual).
The 2nd Amendment protects (not grants) the RKBA from federal government infringement (at least the feds, but let's leave that aside for the moment). Letters of Marque and Reprisal have to do with the USE of those arms protected by the 2nd. The 2nd only addresses the "keeping" and "bearing" of arms. USING arms against a foreign power is something that only Congress can authorize, either via a declaration of war or issuing Letters of M&R.
“Ah. The “living, breathing” interpretation. So you’re one of those types, huh? I figured as much.” - RP
Nice diversion - Address the clear comment above.
“the people” has a well documented meaning as used by the founders, even in the particular context of arms and the bill of rights.
You are the one claiming that only some (those with state appointed officers) well regulated militias are covered by the second amendment. Cite your source.
We can read their writings. Such as:
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 29
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed29.htm
Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped
James Madison in Federalist No. 46
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed46.htm
Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments,to which the people are attached, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist, No. 28
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/federal/fed28.htm
If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual State. In a single State, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.
The intent was not limited to members of the militia.
Madison, in Federalist 46, is disussing the Militia. Read the paragraph preceeding your quote.
Hamilton, in Federalist 28, is again discussing the state Militia, and how it could be used against usurpations of the national rulers. He compared this to the difficulty in overcoming usurpations by the state.
Madison, in Federalist 46, is discussing the Militia. Read the paragraph preceding your quote.
Hamilton, in Federalist 28, is again discussing the state Militia, and how it could be used against usurpations of the national rulers. He compared this to the difficulty in overcoming usurpations by the state.
LOL!
"If I had a source that said the second amendment protected individuals as part of a well regulated Militia, there would be no Heller case, now would there? You're asking for something that doesn't exist."
Your argument is based on that which does not exist and is in opposion to the volumes written by those who wrote the 2nd Amendment. They wrote that it was the people's right, not any state's right and identified those people as the people referred to in the other 10 Amendments that comprise the Bill of Rights. The "living, breathing" Constitution belongs to you and exists in your mind and the likes of all others that are intent on denying the rights recognized and honored by those who created the country as a Free Republic.
The subject of the 2nd Amendment is the right of the people. The right is identified as the right to keep and bear arms. The command contained in that sentence is that the right of the people shall not be infringed and the command is to the govm't. The idea that is given to govm't and refers to one of their bodies of armed forces is ridiculous on it's face.
No, when they were talking about the Militia they used the word Militia. They both used a different word when refering to those with arms.
Yes. And in 1792, who exactly were "the people"? Everyone?
Once you figure that out, compare your answer to those who qualified to be in a Militia in 1792. They should match. If they don't, go back and start over.
Try reading post number 96 or is that not simple enough for you? Or is it just to inconvenient to your arguments.
Ravenstar
No as I said above read post 96.
Ravenstar
Read the Paragraph after that.
"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable
This was not a concern of only the militia being armed but the nation. Following that he wrote:
The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need.
The militia was to be select group of the nation able to respond quickly in time of need. The militia is created by drawing on the ranks of previously armed citizens as the need increased.
Madison wrote in the same document:
The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms.
Do you claim that 25 percent of the entire population was in the militia? Or was it intended for citizens outside of the militia?
"The people" means all the people.
Men, women and children. Citizens, non-citizens and foreign visitors. The Indian tribes, prisoners and the insane. Illegal aliens and terrorists.
All the people. Do I understand you correctly, or would you like to modify your inane, thoughtless, and ignorant statement?
Hamilton also wrote in 28:
All candid and intelligent men must, upon due consideration, acknowledge that the principle of the objection is equally applicable to either of the two cases; and that whether we have one government for all the States, or different governments for different parcels of them, or even if there should be an entire separation of the States, there might sometimes be a necessity to make use of a force constituted differently from the militia, to preserve the peace of the community and to maintain the just authority of the laws against those violent invasions of them which amount to insurrections and rebellions.
Where are the arms for those constituted differently from the militia coming from?
WHAT? Now you're just making thing up.
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Requiring the citizenry to "be under arms" would be a real grievance. Besides, even if every man woman and child HAD a weapon, Hamilton admits that, "A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it."
So what's the point of being armed? When called into service, a Militia member had SIX MONTHS to acquire a smooth-bore musket. If he already had a weapon at home for self defense and hunting, more than likely it was a rifle. Accurate, but useless for the rapid volley fire that the Militia used.
"The militia was to be select group of the nation able to respond quickly in time of need."
The well regulated Militia. That's who the second amendment protected because they were necessary to the security of a free state..
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.