|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Today's Posts | Search |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
December 29, 2009, 12:26 AM | #51 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
December 29, 2009, 01:32 AM | #52 |
Member
Join Date: January 30, 2000
Posts: 43
|
Originally Posted by Don Randall
The framers chose the term "well regulated militia" because, to them, that term applied specifically to armed men, not under the control of government. I disagree. That is not what well-regulated means. Okay. Disagree all you want. Did you bother to read the document to which I posted a link? If you read that document, you would have discovered that the term "well regulated militia" was shown to be a reference -- Not to the King's professional standing army, not to the King's part time "militia", not to any form of militia under the authority of any prince or any other lesser royal or other government authority -- The term "well regulated militia" is ONLY used in reference to armed individuals who are not sponsored by, or commanded by government. The "well regulated militia" is people who come together in time of emergency to protect their country from invasion or from tyranny at home. Why do I say that? Is it only my opinion? NO - It is not. I say that because that is precisely what is stated in that historical document authored by Parliamentarian Andrew Fletcher. Now you can say that I am all wrong if you like. That's okay. But, if you tell me I am wrong, it would be helpful to your effort to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, if you provide me with some evidence that my understanding of that article and my conclusions have no reasonable or rational basis. I am simply offering information found in an historical document which indicates the term "well regulated militia" had a known and accepted meaning and the term was known to the Framers of our constitution and used by them to communicate that particular long established and accepted meaning. I stated in my note that the Framers of our constitution were Englishmen before the became the first Americans. I say they understood the English language and it's terminology of that day as men of that day would have understood it. I say they appear to have chosen that term intending to communicate one particular thought: That the individual people do have a right to keep and bear arms, meaning to own and carry weapons. |
December 29, 2009, 01:54 AM | #53 | |
Member
Join Date: January 30, 2000
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
|
|
December 29, 2009, 08:39 AM | #54 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
|
|
December 29, 2009, 09:13 AM | #55 |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
|
I live in Virginia. I wasn't born here, though. I'm an immigrant. My father was born in Carroll County. I was the first one in my line not born in Carroll County since before 1800.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands! Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag, and return us to our own beloved homes! Buy War Bonds. |
December 29, 2009, 09:18 AM | #56 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
An advocate of an expansion of government and a trimming of citizens' rights (expansion of one is always at the expense of the other) can be expected to decry a right he would shrink as old fashioned, but that is a naked plea to ignore the COTUS and our laws. Tennessee Gentleman, you've often written about your fear of an armed population existing beyond a command structure. Isn't it at least as rational to regret a public and government "armed" with a disregard for the dangers of too much government control, or "armed" with a disregard for law? In the US, I would suggest that the "mob with guns" for which you have expressed fear have done much less damage historically than "mobs with votes" who have a higher regard for their own anxieties than they have for the COTUS.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php Last edited by zukiphile; December 29, 2009 at 10:22 AM. |
|
December 29, 2009, 10:43 AM | #57 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Don, a lot of people post these commentaries (like yours and I did read it) about the miltia from time to time but they really aren't relevant. Why? Because some political leader from the 18th century talking about what a militia should or might be is not as helpful as looking at what the militia was. One is opinion, the other is historical fact. I prefer the facts and not opinions from 200 years ago that may not have context today. Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; December 29, 2009 at 10:51 AM. |
||
December 29, 2009, 11:19 AM | #58 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Tennessee, why should I hold the ADL as an expert on Militias?
You do know that they are an anti-gun organization, yes? They filed an amicus brief in Heller for the District of Columbia, where they specifically held the view that the 2A should not be incorporated and that the method of Judicial Scrutiny should be the Rational Basis test - A level of scrutiny wherein most every law passes. (side note: expect to see an amicus brief for Chicago, next week, filed either directly by the ADL or in concert with other like-minded groups) From their own website: ADL To Supreme Court: States Should Regulate FirearmsUsing the ADL as an authority on 2A matters, is similar to using the ACLU for the same, and only slightly less smelly than using the Brady Campaign as your "expert." |
December 29, 2009, 11:26 AM | #59 | ||||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
By the way, Tanner is also the author a very good article in the 1990s entitled The Fascist Epithet. I recommend it. The ADL continues: Quote:
The article persistently fails to distinguish THE militia from A militia, and regularly conflates the two for the convenience of its own conclusions. Moreover, the article denigrates the term "unorganised militia" as an "invention". However it reasonably flows from the language of federal statute that the existence of an organised milita that encompasses a population less the THE militia will necessarily leave the unorganised militia. There is no other reasonable conclusion. Quote:
The ADL does some fine work. This isn't any of it.
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||||
December 29, 2009, 11:32 AM | #60 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Al, please, you are above broad brushing and I challenge you to debate their facts as presented not their reptutation within the gun world. Intelligent debate looks for truth whereever it is found, ideologues only look where it suits their arguments.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; December 29, 2009 at 11:43 AM. |
|||
December 29, 2009, 11:51 AM | #61 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||
December 29, 2009, 01:14 PM | #62 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
TN Gent,
The problem with your source is that you are trying to support this original argument: Quote:
|
|
December 29, 2009, 02:06 PM | #63 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Do you believe that every single person in those states eligible for the militia owned a private firearm? My source provides that indeed those laws were impractical and problematic. In fact even after the Militia Law of 1792 states did not comply with that act either in toto. What the real issue was in my post was whether the COTUS established that private ownership of firearms was the only way a militia could be armed. Do you think the COTUS says that a militia may only be armed by privately owned weapons? Did you know that during the first real test of the militia, The Whiskey Rebellion, that the Fed had to provide more than 2/3's of the weapons used by the 13,000 rank and file who owned no weapons? I must ask then what is your point is bringing up those laws which have all been repealed today? I agree that in that time (1789) arms were scarce and expensive and the young governments didn't want to have to pay for them so they tried to "pass" that burden on to the public at large but as we have seen it didn't work and in fact is one of the reasons the militia failed.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. Last edited by Tennessee Gentleman; December 29, 2009 at 04:26 PM. Reason: clarity |
|
December 29, 2009, 02:22 PM | #64 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
December 29, 2009, 02:25 PM | #65 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
|
December 29, 2009, 02:42 PM | #66 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
|
December 29, 2009, 02:56 PM | #67 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: December 13, 2005
Posts: 4,450
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I challenge you to respond without using the word "mob".
__________________
http://www.npboards.com/index.php |
||||
December 29, 2009, 05:15 PM | #68 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 5, 2004
Posts: 611
|
Quote:
|
|
December 29, 2009, 05:40 PM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 11, 1999
Location: One of the original 13 Colonies
Posts: 2,281
|
Well Regulated, means they drill and practice and are well trained in the use of arms and military tactics.
|
December 29, 2009, 06:55 PM | #70 | |
Member
Join Date: January 30, 2000
Posts: 43
|
Tennessee -
Thanks for the note. I didn't have to go far into your linked article before finding a rather obvious and glaring flaw: Quote:
1) There is no shortage of examples of purely civilian militias throughout history that were not supported by or under the authority of any government. Even today, you will occasionally read of this militia or that militia fighting government troops in this or that country. 2) Parliamentarian, Andrew Fletcher, the author of A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias makes it very clear, very plain and very obvious that he refers to only armed individuals apart from govenment sponsorship or command as being a "well regulated militia". He does so after a rather thorough discussion of standing armies, government sponsored militias and mercenary troops. Do you deny that Fletcher used that term in only that one very limited and specific meaning? Do you deny that the framers were literate men of their time and had an understanding of the language and terminology as used and as understood in that time? Do you say the framers used the phrase "well regulated militia" in a manner that was something other than the long accepted understanding of people of that time? If so, why the hell would they do that? |
|
December 29, 2009, 06:56 PM | #71 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||
December 29, 2009, 07:12 PM | #72 | ||||
Senior Member
Join Date: March 31, 2005
Location: Tennessee
Posts: 1,775
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
I recommend you continue to read the other parts of the source. Lots of good info and references.
__________________
"God and the Soldier we adore, in time of trouble but not before. When the danger's past and the wrong been righted, God is forgotten and the Soldier slighted." Anonymous Soldier. |
||||
December 29, 2009, 07:13 PM | #73 | |
Member
Join Date: January 30, 2000
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
In Article 1, Section 8, the framers discuss "Militia" and it is mentioned exclusively as an organ of each individual state. In the 2nd Amendment, the framers discuss the "Well Regulated Militia" which is linked directly to "The People" and not the state. As the supreme court has stated, the term "the people" always means the same thing in every instance it is used. I would rather doubt you believe that, under the 1st amendment, that it is the militia which has a right to free speech, to worship freely or to publish without censorship. I am sure you would agree that the term "the people" assigned those rights to people as individuals. |
|
December 29, 2009, 07:22 PM | #74 | |
Member
Join Date: January 30, 2000
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
Do you have anything to refute that or are you going to hold stubbornly to what you believe simply because you wanna believe it in the face of evidence to the contrary? |
|
December 29, 2009, 07:25 PM | #75 | |
Member
Join Date: January 30, 2000
Posts: 43
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|