Replies

Seems to me that the Militia Act of 1792 covers who’s in the militia; and, that would be every male in the country between 18 and 45.

The Militia Act of 1792, Passed May 8, 1792, providing federal standards for the organization of the Militia.

An ACT more effectually to provide for the National Defence, by establishing an Uniform Militia throughout the United States.

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 powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

This is nothing short of great, but I think it leaves out a very important element.

One cannot fully understand the intentions, thoughts and meanings of the Constitution and the Amendments without reading their other writings on the same subjects.

I believe these, even more than the logical, lucent thoughts of this great journalist, tell us what the founders real intentions were.

They must be added to the above, and are even more important than an analysis of the words and structure.

It is by omitting the other writings and words of our founders and using the Constitution’s words alone that the Marxists succeed in re-interpreting our Constitution for their own warped goals.

Most of the arguments about the Second Amendment made by both sides revolve around a single assumption - that the Second Amendment grants a citizen the right to bear arms. What both sides fail to understand is that the Second Amendment grants no such right, in fact, the Constitution grants no rights at all!

What the Constitution does do is identify what powers the people grant to the government. This is the whole purpose of the Constitution - to tell the government what it can and cannot do, our Constitution is a limit on government.

That is why Marxists, Socialist, Progressive Democrats like Obama hate our Constitution because it is a limitation on Government not a limitation on We The People.....

Read the Second Amendment closely, it doesn’t say the people have a right to bear arms but rather that the
government cannot infringe on that right. The framers of our Constitution believed that our right ot bear arms is a natural right,not a right to be given to us by government.

Amendment II

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.

Thet’s it, that is the whole 2nd Amendment...where does it say that the government gives us any right? It doesn’t, it only says that the government cannot infringe on our rights.

Today, when a concerted effort is made to obliterate this point, it cannot be repeated too often that the Constitution is a limitation on the government, not on private individuals- that it does not prescribe the conduct of private individuals, only the conduct of the government- that it is not a charter for government power, but a charter of the citizen’s protection against the government. — Ayn Rand

What I luv about the Libtards when they 'give in' on guns / 'assault rifles' and say something like:

"Okay, you can have your 'rifle', the same type the colonists had."

I do love that replay as by that they show their complete ignorance of firearms and American History. Because many of the Colonists had the 'assault rile' of their time - the 'Rifled Musket' , aka Kentucky Rifle, etc (rifled being the operative word). While the Brit Army still used Smooth Bore Muskets.

It was thanks to that rifled barrel that the first Snipers came about. Thanks to the accuracy and distance which the 'rifling' added to the bullet while in flight we were able to pick off Brit Officers from a distance that their smooth bore muskets were incapable of (yes, very unsporting I know).

So technically, by their own argument we should not only have what our Military does, but the LATEST of weapons off a factory floor! Explain that to a Libtard that'll keep his yap shut for a minute and then watch his head explode.