To: Mini-14
I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard.
338 posted on
04/14/2003 10:01:02 PM PDT by
diamond6
("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
To: diamond6
Why would this be an 'group' right when the rest of the BOR were individual rights? Even Ashcroft disagrees with you.
To: diamond6
I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard. Where's your source to back that up? That's not true BTW. Both by Federalist 46 and US code.
347 posted on
04/14/2003 10:05:06 PM PDT by
Dan from Michigan
("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
To: diamond6
What comprised the militia when the Constitution was written? Individuals, just as the rest of our inalienable rights. RKBA is for the individual for the protection of the collective perpetuation of a free people.
You don't know Jack...
348 posted on
04/14/2003 10:05:09 PM PDT by
ApesForEvolution
("The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing" E. Burke)
To: diamond6
Retarded.
The first 2 amendments close with the exact same wording :
...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
So, is "the right of the people" different between the 2 amendments right at the top of the BOR? You're deluded if you think that's the case.
To: diamond6
Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? You are 100 percent wrong. You need to read the Federalist Papers regarding the Second Amendment.
353 posted on
04/14/2003 10:06:52 PM PDT by
ez
(...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.)
To: diamond6
"Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard."
Nope.
The 2nd was several years before the laws organizing the militias. And as defined in the Federalist papers, 'militia' was defined as every able bodied man that could be called up.
The National Guard analogy wouldn't be accurate here. Any organized force, being enlisted and duly sworn in, would have fallen under the definition of the Continental Army. The 'militia' refered to the general non-sworn public.
360 posted on
04/14/2003 10:09:41 PM PDT by
frostbit
(Non Sibi, sed Patriae. "Not self, but country.")
To: diamond6
Not quite accurate. The State's role was in training and unit structure, the people were to supply their own equipment. As for the National Guard, it was formed due to the fact that the States themselves would not meet their requirements. Would you agree that a member of the State Milita should have weapons on par with those normally carried by the average Military person?
370 posted on
04/14/2003 10:13:12 PM PDT by
Kadric
To: diamond6
I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard. ROFL
Tell it to the Founding Fathers. They seem to have a different view.
To: diamond6
Where are you?
376 posted on
04/14/2003 10:14:38 PM PDT by
wardaddy
(Hootie to head EEOC...)
To: diamond6
Read Madison's many letters and written comments on the second amendment.
You absolutely must.
381 posted on
04/14/2003 10:16:52 PM PDT by
wardaddy
(Hootie to head EEOC...)
To: diamond6
I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard. Actually you don't ...
2nd Amendment : 1783 Constitution
Militia Act : 1793
National Guard : 1916
Shall not be infringed means just that. Well regulated in the 1700's meant well-functioning.
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.
Another observation is that the militia component is in the subordinate clause of of this sentence.
551 posted on
04/15/2003 12:54:53 AM PDT by
Centurion2000
(We are crushing our enemies, seeing him driven before us and hearing the lamentations of the liberal)
To: diamond6
Apparently you fell asleep in your Constitution classes. Methinks you need to go back and study a WHOLE lot more. When did "people" change meanings from "the individual" to "the collective?" Also read the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers and the writings of the Founding Dads. If you read for comprehension, I'm sure you might learn something. Otherwise, I'd suggest a change of profession immediately! A lawyer who doesn't know the Constitution is like a doctor who doesn't know anatomy... Both useless and DANGEROUS... but the lawyer is MORE dangerous, as the doctor only kills one patient at a time. Your ilk does it wholesale.
642 posted on
04/15/2003 12:24:28 PM PDT by
dcwusmc
("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
To: diamond6
I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? Clearly, you don't know anywhere near as much about the Consitution, or our country's history, as you think you do. The militia is the body of citizenry at arms. Under the U.S. Constitution, it has NEVER been a state matter; the militia is an agent of the federal government (delegated to it by the people), the only power reserved to the states under the Constitution was the appointing of officers.
That would now fall to our National Guard
It would seem you are as clueless about current law as you are about Constitutional law. The federal code (title 10, section 311 of chapter 13) defines the militia; it is NOT the National Guard, although members of the national guard do make up part of its composition. Under the law:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..., (plus it includes females who are members of the national guard).
Of course, this ignores the fact that the 2nd amendment does not secure the right to bear arms to the militia, it secures "the right of the people", the same phrase used in elsewhere in the Constitution (1st amendment, etc) when refering to the citizenry at large. The writings of the founders are extremely clear on the matter; the right to bear arms is an individual right. The collective right (as if such a thing actually existed) argument is an invention of the 20th century, just like the national guard itself.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson