Posted on 02/21/2018 9:27:12 PM PST by Kaslin
One does not necessarily follow the other.
And assuming for the sake of argument that an attorney does know what he is talking about, that does not mean his communication is frank or intellectually honest. I'm not saying Schlicter is intentionally misleading in this article, by the way. I am just making the point that "attorney" and "know" are independent of each other; and the point that "know" and "honest" are likewise independent.
These TV kids should be asked this question:
Should the shooter be executed?
My guess is that many would say no. That would be indicative of rejecting common sense laws to prevent shootings.
No, it wasn't. Those were called "standing armies" in peacetime (or just "armies" in wartime), and the Founders generally didn't think much of them.
The "militia" was the able-bodied males of a town or district, who would be the first line of defense against an attacker, whether they were Indians, Spanish, or anyone else, including a tyrannical government. "Well-regulated" means that they drilled and trained on a regular basis, and drilling and training implied that they had functional infantry weapons of their own with which to train.
Good Read!
This is NOT what the Constitution says, and it is a consistent propaganda move by liberals to try to re-frame the amendment as to only relating to militias.
Here is what the Constitution actually says:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Notice the ONE comma in the actual 2nd amendment, and the two extra commas in the liberal revision. This changes the meaning to imply that they are talking only about militias, not the general citizenry.
That is what the Heller case was all about, and Townhall still tried to push that bogus version past us.
The template of the 2nd Amendment
was written in the blood of the
Patriots of Concord and Lexington
when the British used Force to
Disarm the Civilian Population.
Picture this scenario; a state governor senses the need to call for a militia and unarmed folks show up. Now all he has to do is to request funding from the state legislators to arm, train, and organize a militia.
Or
A well educated Public being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Books shall not be infringed.
A well regulated Internet being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Modems shall not be infringed.
“A well educated Elite being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to become Educated shall not be infringed”.
Ultima Ratio Regum And The Second Amendment
This is the reason why the final argument of kings in America rests in the hands of citizens, not because of some slavish devotion to violence and gun culture, but because the final argument does not and should never rest in the hands of either government’s enforcers or our self-determined superiors, but ourselves alone.
As used in the 2nd Amendment, it was referring to an army of the state or nation.
Read it.
Both are true.
I'm not trying to convince you, just other readers. The 2nd A and the Constitution were contemporaneous.
If you are using "an army" in a vernacular form, not referring to a formal organ of a government, then yes, a group of armed able-bodied citizens is an army.
The below blockquote is Justice Scalia, expressing his thoughts and observation in the context of the Heller case.
Note that the "organized militia" is a subset of "militia," and "well-regulated militia" is also a subset of "militia."
Note too the opening statement "militia" in Article I means the same thing as "militia" in the second amendment.
Although we agree with petitioners' interpretive assumption that "militia" means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment, we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, 8, cls. 12-13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," 8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it--and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men. From that pool, Congress has plenary power to organize the units that will make up an effective fighting force. That is what Congress did in the first militia Act, which specified that "each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective states, resident therein, who is or shall be of the 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." Act of May 8, 1792, 1 Stat. 271. To be sure, Congress need not conscript every able-bodied man into the militia, because nothing in Article I suggests that in exercising its power to organize, discipline, and arm the militia, Congress must focus upon the entire body. Although the militia consists of all able-bodied men, the federally organized militia may consist of a subset of them.Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 ("Regulate": "To adjust by rule or method"); Rawle 121-122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights 13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to "a well- regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms").
yeah. I knew that.
But it didn’t come up on their page when I went there until about an hour after you posted.
Your link was dead when I tried it. don’t know why.
Oh well. all good now
I copied the article at 11:01 and posted it at 11:27. I have no idea why the link was dead.
Back in the day you would have. And in some locations, with a firearm issued to you if you didn’t have one. And the “well regulated” also meant that the militia needed to be organized. Which they were. That is the one thing lacking today - the people are not organized against a force of action by the government.
http://www.davekopel.org/2A/LawRev/american-revolution-against-british-gun-control.html
excerpts:
The [town’s] powder house would hold merchants’ reserves, large quantities stored by individuals, as well as powder for use by the local militia. Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied “public arms” and powder to individual militiamen. Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house....
Five days after the Powder Alarm, on September 6, the militia of the towns of Worcester County a...took over the reins of government, and ordered the resignations of all militia officers, who had received their commissions from the Royal Governor. The officers promptly resigned and then received new commissions from the Worcester Convention. [GREAT!!]
That same day, the people of Suffolk County (which includes Boston) assembled and adopted the Suffolk Resolves. The 19-point Resolves ...took control of the local militia away from the Royal Governor (by replacing the Governor’s appointed officers with officers elected by the militia) and resolved to engage in group practice with arms at least weekly.
The First Continental Congress, which had just assembled in Philadelphia, unanimously endorsed the Suffolk Resolves and urged all the other colonies to send supplies to help the Bostonians.
“Well-regulated” means that they drilled and trained on a regular basis, and drilling and training implied that they had functional infantry weapons of their own with which to train.
———
THAT is the correct answer. Functional and trained.
I call my reps, state and federal, every day on this. Eventually it will hit the news. They can’t hide this much longer.
I’ve also sent an email with it to all my buds, asked to forward to everyone they know.
It’s spreading!
My argument against “gun control?”
Molon labe.
5.56mm
My favorite argument to use on anti gun morons is GFY.
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.