WRONG!!!It's up to the individual, to decide whether or not, to tolerate tyranny or to arm themselves.
From my cold dead fingers....
Posted on 03/17/2008 10:45:40 AM PDT by EdReform
The United States Supreme Court has decided only one significant case involving the Second Amendment, and that was almost 70 years ago. Next week, the Court will return to the issue when it hears arguments in District of Columbia v. Heller. This is a test case brought by a D.C. special police officer who carries a gun while on duty. Under D.C.'s extremely restrictive gun control laws, he is forbidden to keep a handgun, or an operable rifle or shotgun, in his home.
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit held that these laws violate the Second Amendment. The court concluded that handguns are lineal descendants of founding-era weapons and are still in common use today, so they may not be banned; the court also held that D.C.'s requirement that guns be stored in a mechanically disabled condition is unconstitutional because it prevents them from being used for self-defense.1 The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.
The parties presenting arguments next week offer three different interpretations of the meaning of the Second Amendment. D.C.'s argument--that the Second Amendment protects a right to arms only in service of a government-organized militia--does not stand up to historical analysis or textual scrutiny. Heller's position--that the Amendment establishes an individual right to keep ordinary weapons for self protection--is sound but not persuasively argued. And the Bush Administration's position--recognizing an individual right but leaving the government with some large and undefined power to curtail the right--is dangerously vague and legally weak.
Careful textual analysis, along with the relevant historical context, yields a remarkably clear, sensible, and workable answer to the question presented in this case. The Amendment protects an individual right to keep operable firearms for self-defense, which cannot be taken away by federal law...
(Excerpt) Read more at heritage.org ...
Do you have a source for this? I'm not doubting it; I just have not found a decent source for the size of the militia at the time. Thank you.
...or the b@lls, I expect.
It doesn't take any balls for a bunch of brutish thugs to kill someone for simply exercising their right to an effective self defense. It takes a callous disregard for the rights and life of their fellows and a strong sense of unwarranted and corrupt superiorty.
It’s in Federalist 46, right after your Madison quote: 500,000. The United States population in 1788 was 3 million. You can do the math.
Small children are human beings. The insane are human beings. The mentally ill, illegal aliens, foreign visitors, and terrorists in our country are human beings.
It is up to the citizens of each state to decide who may use a weapon for self defense, what those weapons are, and under what conditions they may be used.
And who are they? Everyone?
Or are you going to say they are the same people that are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment? I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that you have no idea. I wish you'd just say that.
I see your having serious trouble admitting who your fellows are that are covered by the Bill of Rights. That's in addition to arguing a position that has no evidence in fact, only the bogus load generated by a bunch of authoritarian clowns in the govm't and at the helm of their unions, who likewise refused to honor their fellow's rights. Only their good buddies' in the brotherhood's rights count, everyone else is just a f'n civilian.
Thank you for playing.
If you are saying that “the people” is equal to “the members of the militia” (a big IF because you have skirted and danced around whatever it is you are trying to say), but if you are, you are PLAINLY WRONG.
It has already been well established that the members of the militia we males between the age of 18 and 45. These laws go back farther than the document I quoted (which you FAILED to address), all the way back to regulations passed by the continental Congress, and were in before the ratification, and soon after the ratification, promulgated by a newly formed Congress of the United States.
According to your theory (which I am still trying to figure out), then here is someone who is NOT one of “the people”.
Benjamin Franklin, who was already many years older than 45 at the time of the signing.
Here is another group that I doubt you would say were part of “the people”. I suspect that some folks back then would argue about that:
the female spouses of the founders
“THE PEOPLE” are the body politic. And that in itself DOES NOT HAVE TO EQUAL those who have military service. Neither does it HAVE TO EQUAL those who are enfranchised.
It is “the people” who are encompassed by the protection of the law, and the rights and responsibilities of being citizens of the state.
The founders knew what they wrote, and they knew what they meant. “the people” is much more expansive than “the militia”.
WRONG!!!It's up to the individual, to decide whether or not, to tolerate tyranny or to arm themselves.
From my cold dead fingers....
Looks the same to me. You see a difference?
"The founders knew what they wrote, and they knew what they meant. “the people” is much more expansive than “the militia”."
Much more expansive? Whew! Well then, this should be an easy one for you -- What group is considered to be among "the people" but do not qualify for the Militia?
Women? Were women considered to be among "the people"? Children? Slaves?
Well, that's pretty clear to me.
So, since human persons have a right to possess handguns for self defense, the following human persons may do so because it's up to them to decide whether or not to tolerate tyranny or to arm themselves:
Prisoners, small children, the insane, the mentally ill, illegal aliens, foreign visitors, and terrorists in our country.
Well, look. I'd love to stay and talk but I really gotta go. Nurse Ratched wants to see you now.
I ALREADY ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
MILITIA MEMBERS WERE MALES BETWEEN 18 AND 45.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT BENJAMIN FRANKLIN WAS NOT ONE OF “THE PEOPLE”???
ARE YOU SAYING HE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO SERVE IN THE MILITIA????
GEORGE WASHINGTON COMMANDED THE MILITIA WHEN HE WAS OVER 50 YEARS OLD!!!!
Hey, dude, you are the one that has said over and over that “the people” is the same as “the members of the militia”.
In fact, you made this statement:
“those who qualified to be in a well regulated Militia (acording to the Militia Act of 1792) were adult, white, male citizens”
which is WRONG, because here is what it says:
“each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia”
Numerous attempts have been made by me and others to explain to you that “the people” is bigger than “the militia”.
Your interpretation has been totally discredited. You have subtly twisted the meanings of words and left some out when it was convenient. You have refused to say exactly what you mean.
Yur punked, dude. And totally lack credibility.
Obviously, but some people see themselves as more special and worthy than others, so they fight to deny the rights and Freedom of their fellows.
More pure BS.
"Thank you for playing.
Whatever...
I didn't write the web-log I posted. I just referenced it. However, if you trust the law to defend your life, you'll wind up another statistic. Government can do nothing unless we give it the power to do so.From my cold dead fingers....
You said I'm WRONG.
You say that those qualified to be in a well regulated Militia were 18-45, white, male citizens.
I'm not in the mood to play games. Go away, lightweight. I got better things to do than argue semantics with you.
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.