Posted on 11/27/2007 2:58:46 PM PST by neverdem
FWIW, the detachable-magazine machinegun was effectively invented in 1717.
Not useless, just less effective than with formal training. Just because someone hasn't been officially drilled in military discipline doesn't mean they don't have a good idea how & when to shoot an enemy. 18,000,000 deer hunters are not easily overrun.
Well, duh.
HOORAY!
He gets it! Twice in a day even!
Plenty. And they're not God-given either.
"And why are guns excluded from my G-d given right to self defense and preservation of liberty?"
Because God hates you.
If there existed an armed citizenry, then it would be pointless for the Militia Act to tell members they had 6 months to acquire a weapon. You're trying to play some "what came first -- the chicken or the egg" game, and I'm not interested.
"Before 1792, there was no militia act, but there were well regulated militias."
Yep. And their right to keep and bear arms was protected from federal infringement by the second amendment. What's your point?
"it is apparent that the Founders understood that there did not have to be government oversight in order for militias to be “well regulated”."
Just the opposite. The U.S. Constitution, Article I, Section 8, stated that Congress had the power to organize, arm, and discipline the Militia. It also stated that Militia officers were to be appointed by each state.
"The 1200 men of the Massachusetts 4th Division under Shepard were a militia. Since that was five years before the Militia Act of 1792, how in the world could they have been “well regulated”?
If they were organized, armed, accoutered, and trained, with officers appointed by the state, they were "well regulated".
Because a number of state Militia weren't well regulated, Congress passed the Militia Act of 1792 to organize the state Militias, set minimal standards, and standardize arms.
As it relates to "disciplining" the active duty militia or in providing punishments for actual crimes committed while in possession of "arms". It says nothing about regulating private firearms ownership for non-criminal uses.
In fact, the entire case is that RKBA is an individual Right and that legal uses of firearms are protected from blatant infringement by localities like DC.
Now you're just making things up.
Was there a problem with the first amendment where people were saying, "Oh, that doesn't protect political speech", so the Founders addressed that problem by writing the second amendment differently?
"is specifically detailed that an armed citizenry, which can organize itself without restriction, is necessary for a free State"
My copy does not say an armed citizenry is necessary for a free state. My copy says a well regulated Militia is necesary to the security of a free state.
(By the way. If civilians were armed, they were armed with rifles -- expensive, but accurate for hunting and self defense. The Militia used smooth bore muskets -- cheap, fast loading, and effective in short-range volley fire. An "armed" citizenry, not trained in musket volley fire, was not much use.)
You just defeated your own argument here. The nail in the coffin as it were. Since you admit that Congress already had the right of funding the militias and passing laws regarding their organization and training, then why pass the second amendment? To restate what Article I, Section 8 stated?
You walked dead into this little trap you set for yourself.
Since the Constitution, before the second amendment, already established Congress as being responsible for "organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia", the need to provide in an amendment for "a well regulated militia" is moot.
A well regulated militia was already established by Article I, Section 8. Since that portion of the Amendment was a given, it is only the second section that provides new protection. That is, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Even if found to be an individual right, Washington, DC may regulate their use -- for example, children under 6 may not keep and bear handguns. Or do you have a problem with a law like that because it infringes the right of the people to keep and bear arms?
True but you keep forgetting this as to who composed the militia:
I. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That 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, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle,
I thought "the people" were those defined as having the right to vote? I am pretty sure that was one of your earliest arguments to who "the people" are, wasn't it?
You must be worn out moving the goal posts all over the field.
That WAS the reason.
The U.S. Constitution gave Congress the power to arm the state Militias. The question arose, "What if Congres refuses?"
Since the power was concurrent, the states themselves could arm their Militia. The second amendment protected their ability to do so.
According to James Madison, less than 20% of the population. Not everyone. Not even close.
We can see by the description you provided that it was limited to able-bodied, white, male citizens, 18-45 years of age.
Their RKBA was protected by the second amendment.
They are. But that poster thinks they're everyone.
I'm expecting his response to be that a law like that infringes on the right of a six-year-old to keep and bear arms.
Always looking for the "loophole" to allow "infringement" aren't you... Even if you have to go to absurd lengths to do so.
Who rose the question of "What if Congress refuses?" Who?
This is laughable. Congress is not obligated to provide for a militia? They are required by Article I, Section 8:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
The requirement phrase "To provide for" is used in reference to punishing counterfieters, to raise and maintain a Navy, and to call forth the militia to repel invasion. Were these issues also questioned "What if Congress refuses?"
What is Congress refuses to maintain a Navy? We need an amendment telling them they have to!
Stupidest argument on Freerepublic ever. Tell Murrymom she needs to hand her crown over.
Er... no. As has been pointed out, that it only a limit on who may serve in the active militia. There is no such limitation in the text of the Second Amendment itself.
Legal "reasoning" like yours is paternalistic at best, treating us all like children. Or tyrannical at worst, thinking we are all wards of the State.
Sorry... we gave up on that kind of illogic about the same time we gave up the Monarchy...
So you'll admit that "the people" in the second amendment does not mean everyone? Not even every citizen (children are citizens)?
That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States,
For lack of a better word this is the "pool" to be chosen from. Now granted slavery existed at that time but that has been addressed along with womens rights.
Also note the individual called for service was to supply his own arms. If one didn't already have said weapons there were to be acquired by that individual. Not given to him by the state of federal govt.
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.