- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: 2nd amdt spinn off, "well regulated militia"
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:14 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:14 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Contrary to popular belief, the Militia was not just a bunch of farmers with guns who showed up on the scene at any given time. They had to actually enroll (conscripted) and be trained in the militia
could be done at any instant. Are you saying they were on a list PRIOR to a potential militia call?
eta: no, they would be called and then trained
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 4:16 pm
2
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:17 pm to Mr.Perfect
The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:19 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
i think you are wrong.
militia is in there because the militia was the individuals within the states.
they needed arms in the event they were ever called
That STILL doesn't answer my question:
"Why doesn't the Second Amendment simply read: 'The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'?"
You say:
quote:
militia is in there because the militia was the individuals within the states.
Well, what do you think "The People" are? All of what you responded with could just as easily be covered with simply:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It's clear, concise, and without qualifications.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:21 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia
no, i agree.
My reason for the statement i made is that there has been a lot of reference to the militia act. My statements were intended to state that you can not have a militia at all if there are no individuals with arms
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:23 pm to Mr.Perfect
WT is ASSUMING that militia in the 1792 act is referring to militia in the amendment. I don't see the connection, but then again I am not an urban liberal obsessed with government controlling my life.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:26 pm to Bard
quote:
"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe."
That's curious as they certainly weren't disarmed in England until 1953.
quote:
to serve as "further guards for private rights." With that, the first ten Amendments to the Constitution were designed to be a series of "shall nots," telling the new national government, in no uncertain terms, where it could not tread.
Then all they needed for the 2A was:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
...but that's not what they wrote down. They put in a qualifying phrase. It shouldn't matter to the Federal government WHY the People maintain that right, simply that they do - UNQUALIFIED.
quote:
With that in mind, postulating that the 2nd Amendment applied only to a militia that many today claim (erroneously) was to be under some form of government regulation, flies completely contrary to the very existence of the Bill of Rights.
I'm not so sure of that after reading the Militia Act of 1792:
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 [Militia Act, 1792].
...
That the rules of discipline, approved and established by Congress, in their resolution of the twenty-ninth of March, 1779, shall be the rules of discipline so be observed by the militia throughout the United States, except such deviations from the said rules, as may be rendered necessary by the requisitions of the Act, or by some other unavoidable circumstances. It shall be the duty of the Commanding Officer as every muster, whether by battalion, regiment, or single company, to cause the militia to be exercised and trained, agreeably to the said rules of said discipline.[Militia Act, 1792].
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:30 pm to Mr.Perfect
quote:
Are you saying they were on a list PRIOR to a potential militia call?
YES.
Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.
Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.
LINK
Keep in mind that the Federal government was also tasked with relieving the People from tyrannical STATE governments. That is, the Feds would control that state's militia against that state's own government.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:30 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
I'm not so sure of that after reading the Militia Act of 1792:
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 [Militia Act, 1792].
Non sequitur.
Constitutional authority supercedes legislative authority - otherwise, the legislature would be free to define away any and all "rights" in amendments.
Now, if they passed a Constitutional Amendment, which defined militia - you might have an argument there.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:31 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
dude... you realize you are using a document written AFTER the bill of rights was written?
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:33 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Then why do they have any language AT ALL regarding the Militia in the 2A?
One of the chief arguing points between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the potential for domestic tyranny. (not so much from a despotic President (most considered that almost impossible) but from an over-reaching Congress) To assuage that, the language of "militia" was included as the body that would be mustered against a federal army run by a despotic government, not as a pre-requisite for keeping and bearing arms.
To that, while you can have a right to bear arms without there being a militia, you cannot have a militia without there first being the condition that the citizenry has the right to keep and bear private arms. Thus, it's the militia that is dependent on the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear arms being dependent on there being a militia.
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 4:35 pm
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:33 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence.
While I keep reading this, I have yet to see it explained logically.
If the inclusion of the Militia language in the 2A is not a qualifying statement, WHY IS IT IN THERE?
This statement is clear and unambiguous:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
There is no reason to have any other information there - unless it qualifies the above.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:35 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
There is no reason to have any other information there - unless it qualifies the above.
and if it does qualify the "above", that too is referring to the average joe that could be called into the militia.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:41 pm to Ace Midnight
quote:
Non sequitur.
Wha...?
Section 8:
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
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;
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.
Amendment 2: 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.
quote:
Now, if they passed a Constitutional Amendment, which defined militia - you might have an argument there.
No, if they simply left out any language regarding "Militia" in the 2A, the the Congress would have no authority to make [any] Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.
quote:
...otherwise, the legislature would be free to define away any and all "rights" in amendments.
I'm assuming you mean legislative acts here.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:49 pm to Bard
quote:
One of the chief arguing points between the Federalists and Anti-Federalists was the potential for domestic tyranny. (not so much from a despotic President (most considered that almost impossible) but from an over-reaching Congress) To assuage that, the language of "militia" was included as the body that would be mustered against a federal army run by a despotic government, not as a pre-requisite for keeping and bearing arms.
Actually, in reading the Militia Act of 1792, it explicitly states the use BY THE FEDERAL GOV'T of the Militia against a TYRANNICAL STATE GOV'T.
quote:
To that, while you can have a right to bear arms without there being a militia, you cannot have a militia without there first being the condition that the citizenry has the right to keep and bear private arms. Thus, it's the militia that is dependent on the right to keep and bear arms, not the right to keep and bear arms being dependent on there being a militia.
But again, everything you typed would be solved by simply stating:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
It shouldn't matter why - whether to provide for the common defence with a militia, or to shoot wild game, or to ward off indian attack - or to participate in the overthrow of a tyrannical state or federal government. If the People maintain that right, then they can form a militia.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:54 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Actually, in reading the Militia Act of 1792
I'm really curious why you continue to to say an ACT, written after the bill of rights, somehow trumps a constitutional amendment?
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 4:55 pm
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:57 pm to WildTchoupitoulas
quote:
Actually, in reading the Militia Act of 1792, it explicitly states the use BY THE FEDERAL GOV'T of the Militia against a TYRANNICAL STATE GOV'T.
Do you agree that the 2nd Amendment was included as a means to foil an over-reaching federal and/or state government as well as to defend against foreign invaders?
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:58 pm to Mr.Perfect
your cherry-picked quotes fly in the face of a hundred years of supreme court thinking.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 4:59 pm to Tigah in the ATL
And Scalia's ruling was for handguns for self defense, seemingly not part of the amendment anyway.
Posted on 5/30/14 at 5:09 pm to Tigah in the ATL
you talking to me ATL?
Posted on 5/30/14 at 5:30 pm to Mr.Perfect
The "well regulated" part means drill or practice.
Note that this part is not a command, it's just good advice.
The command part is in the "shall not" part.
Note that this part is not a command, it's just good advice.
The command part is in the "shall not" part.
This post was edited on 5/30/14 at 5:31 pm
Page 3 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News