Posted on 05/09/2002 7:02:38 AM PDT by ethical
For a minute there I thought I read: the Algore "living concentration camp.
Believe in the first; get the latter.
The Constitution can only be amended by the States, not Congress. Congress only ratifies the amendment after a majority of the states pass it. Alcohol prohibition pre-dates FDR's New Deal Commerce Clause. That's why it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, but not for marijuana prohibition, which was done under FDR's Commerce Clause.
The Constitution can only be amended by the States, not Congress. Congress only ratifies the amendment after a majority of the states pass it. Alcohol prohibition pre-dates FDR's New Deal Commerce Clause. That's why it took a constitutional amendment to prohibit alcohol, but not for marijuana prohibition, which was done under FDR's Commerce Clause.
This idiot has no clue as to what the 2nd Amendment is for. How disgusting!!
Unfortunately, that is the mindset among the power-drunk politicians.
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as
futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried
into execution. 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. 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. It would form an annual deduction from the
productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon
the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole
expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a
thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so
considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made,
could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can
reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to
have them properly armed and equipped...
-Hamilton, The Federalist No. 29
Miller and his accomplice might very well have presented evidence that the shotgun bore a reasonable relationship to the effectiveness of a militia, which would have led to the district judge tossing the conviction yet again.
But Miller was dead, and the Feds, terrified of having their precedent overthrown, let Miller's accomplice go free.
The way I understand it, the word "regulated" has a significantly different meaning in present day interpretation from that of the late 18th century. Today's definition of the word "regulated" would tend to bring joy the heart of any bureaucratic leftist, in other words, "burdensome rules, laws, restrictions, and red tape." This interpretation of meaning is born of two centuries of governmental detritus, the sedimentary concretions known to us as "governmental regulation". Though certainly the concept of bureaucratic burden was clearly known and a part of life in the late 18th century, that is not what was mean by "well regulated militia". What was meant was "well organized and equipped". This was an answer to the argument for the establishment of of a standing, professional army. This debate was a point of serious controversy at that time, largely forgotten today. In the light of this fact, the reading of
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.
becomes clear, the second clause supports the first, as a "people's" militia logically requires that the "people", made up of individuals and not of the State, each own their own form of "arms", be it swords, pistols, rifles, or particle beam weapons. This very open concept of a militia, meaning able bodied citizens, has remained to this day, regardless of the establishment of the professional military and the national guard. There can be no doubt as to what the final clause was meant to ensure, the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This paper advocates that right's infringement by the government. Therefore, this paper advocates opposition to and the dismantling of the United States Constitution. I recommend that local Freepers write this paper in volume, and make this fact absolutely clear to it's readers, in case there is or has ever been any doubt.
Agree. But I choose to not take the responsibility quite often because I am too lazy to carry my gun responsibly. However, I don't kid myself and think that anyone else is going to magically appear to save me.Unlike gun grabbers I admit that I am choosing to NOT be prepared.
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.