Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Gun Ownership vs Healthcare
http://www.minnpost.com ^ | Robert Franklin | 03/28/12

Posted on 04/15/2012 7:25:57 PM PDT by Bronzy

http://www.minnpost.com/community-voices/2012/03/if-mandatory-gun-ownership-why-not-mandatory-insurance

A 1792 federal law called for "every free able-bodied white male citizen" ages 18 through 44 to be enrolled in a state militia and to "provide himself with a good musket or firelock," along with a bayonet and ammunition.

(Excerpt) Read more at minnpost.com ...


TOPICS:
KEYWORDS: banglist
http://www.minnpost.com

Some are saying mandatory health insurance is law as evidenced by this law.

1 posted on 04/15/2012 7:26:01 PM PDT by Bronzy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

Militia powers are enumerated. See Article 1 Section 8 and the 2nd Amendment. Nothing in the Constitution about buying insurance for health care or otherwise. Not much about a number of things the gov does today, which are unconstitutional as all get out. And the “general welfare” clause the commies like to drag out, doesn’t mean what they attempt to infer it does. Madison and others of the founding generation interpreted it to mean limited and enumerated powers, not the leviathan that the Supes have created since the 1930s.


2 posted on 04/15/2012 7:36:27 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Oh, and by the way, a gov that can order you to possess a military grade rifle, is certainly NOT the government that can prohibit you from owning a military grade rifle - and mean full auto, baby.


3 posted on 04/15/2012 7:38:17 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy
I am not a Constitutional Law Instructor (nor am I a community organizer), however it is my understanding that the Constitution authorizes the Federal Government:

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;

So, organizing the militia is specifically authorized, however it does not authorize the Federal Government to require all citizens to buy health insurance.

4 posted on 04/15/2012 7:39:38 PM PDT by Zeppo ("Happy Pony is on - and I'm NOT missing Happy Pony")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

The military body was defined, then given orders (to wit “a well regulated militia...” and “power to call out the militia...”).
That is quite different from ordering private purchase of an unwanted service (to wit “creating commerce to regulate it”).


5 posted on 04/15/2012 7:40:16 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

That law is racist, sexist, and ageist, and there is no way it would be allowed to pass or pass scrutiny today.

Why come only young white males have to have a gun?

So they can just shoot happy go lucky skittlers any time they want to right?


6 posted on 04/15/2012 7:41:15 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

You have no idea what you are talking about. Or you forgot the /s tag. Which is it? See also 10 USC 311.


7 posted on 04/15/2012 7:50:48 PM PDT by RKV (He who has the guns makes the rules)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

Today we would just draft people, if needed. We would not require gun purchases because the Army is well stocked and our transit system cab quickly move munitions to where they are needed. Back then, this was not the case, which justified the government imposing this in order to fulfill its duties under Article I


8 posted on 04/15/2012 7:55:42 PM PDT by zencycler
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

Right to have is one thing.
Compelled to have is another.

That law was repealed decades ago.

Nothing is stopping your happy go lucky skittler from arming himself.
And, nowadays, nothing formally defines the militia as “white”; your “skittler” is part of the militia too.

And if you think the laws in question are just “So they can just shoot happy go lucky skittlers any time they want to” you’re a blithering idiot racist.


9 posted on 04/15/2012 8:02:15 PM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RKV

Actually, the law is racist, sexist, and ageist.

It would not be allowed to pass today.

And I didn’t forget the sarcasm tag so much as I purposely left it off, because I am being sarcastic, but not really.

It’s a bit beyond me how any law can affect young white males between the ages of 18 and 44 and young white males between the ages of 18 and 44 only...I mean, seriously, that’s like saying self defense laws don’t apply to anyone defending themselves from black criminals.

I mean, such a thing would be utter nonsense, would it not?

A society of laws whose laws have lost meaning and application is no longer a society at all.

Can you see my dilemma?

/s-/s


10 posted on 04/15/2012 8:05:13 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2
"And if you think the laws in question are just “So they can just shoot happy go lucky skittlers any time they want to” you’re a blithering idiot racist."

Lol! Why's that? Something racist about skittles? Skittlers? Skillets? I thought skittles came in all sorts of colors, like the rainbow, man, and now I'm being called racialistic just for pointing out a racialistic law. DOES THIS THING WORK!?

11 posted on 04/15/2012 8:12:41 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

Gun ownership => Longer and healthier life


12 posted on 04/15/2012 8:13:01 PM PDT by Ken H (Austerity is the irresistible force. Entitlements are the immovable object.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37
Seems, someone had me here as a troll. I found and heard this said. I just wanted to post it. If I am not wanted here, I will leave.
13 posted on 04/15/2012 8:23:13 PM PDT by Bronzy (Send a NEWTron to Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy
So, using their "logic" in which the "every free able-bodied white male citizen" ages 18 through 44 to be enrolled in a state militia" allegedly proves that interpretation of such laws (Second Militia Act of 1792) can go beyond their original intent then so can the actual Constitution itself.

Here is the law that is being referred to.

Second Militia Act of 1792

The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.

Ok, but the Constitution goes beyond that with Art. 1, Sec. 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;

So, according to the Second Militia Act of 1792, the individual is instructed to "arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt."

It does not say how.

Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution clearly says "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia...



So, time for all the congress critters to cut the crap.

I want my,

I want my,





I want my M-16






.
14 posted on 04/15/2012 8:35:55 PM PDT by TLI ( ITINERIS IMPENDEO VALHALLA)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: RKV
"The construction applied... to those parts of the Constitution of the United States which delegate to Congress a power "to lay and collect taxes, duties, imports, and excises, to pay the debts, and provide for the common defence and general welfare of the United States," and "to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into execution the powers vested by the Constitution in the government of the United States, or in any department or officer thereof," goes to the destruction of all limits prescribed to [the General Government's] power by the Constitution... Words meant by the instrument to be subsidiary only to the execution of limited powers ought not to be construed as themselves to give unlimited powers, nor a part to be so taken as to destroy the whole residue of that instrument." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Kentucky Resolutions, 1798.
15 posted on 04/15/2012 8:36:09 PM PDT by Sgt_Schultze (A half-truth is a complete lie)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Ken H
Gun...the equalizer.
16 posted on 04/15/2012 8:42:13 PM PDT by Bronzy (Send a NEWTron to Obama!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

Once we’re pinned down with 0bamascare, they’ll have to go for the guns because that will be detrimental to everyones health in their eyes.

Believe me, they are coming!


17 posted on 04/15/2012 8:42:57 PM PDT by TribalPrincess2U (Anyone not wanting an ID or purple thumb to vote isn't worthy of voting privilege.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

In all honesty, I am not trying to troll you or anyone else.

I was sort of being sarcastic, but not really.

It’s hard to describe, Bronzy, because here lately I find that the world I live in has no meaning, no reason, no sanity...nothing.

I do in fact believe that the 1792 law being referred to here is in fact racist, sexist, and ageist, because it in fact refers specifically to race, sex and age.

I was being sort of sarcastic when I said it would not pass today, because actually I do believe it could pass today, or at least something similar to it i.e. a law that applies only to a specific race, sex and age of people and no one else, because we are seeing right before our very eyes that self defense laws do NOT apply to white hispanics that defend their lives via legal deadly force against a black black violent criminal thug, no that is not a typo.

My problem, Bronzy, is that if I seem a little crazy, it’s because I can no longer make sense of the world I live in.


18 posted on 04/15/2012 8:52:31 PM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

This is to all reading and posting to this article.

“A 1792 federal law called for “every free able-bodied white male citizen” ages 18 through 44 to be enrolled in a state militia and to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock,” along with a bayonet and ammunition.”

This law does not state that other citizens,old or young, male or female,nor of any race, creed or culture may not arm themselves in the same fashion as those mentioned in the law.
It only states that those described in the law, “able-bodied white male citizens ages 18 through 44” should be compelled to do so.
There is no discrimination made, implied or inferred here.

Remember your history please, a person 44 years of age at that time was considered an elderly person.

Thankyou for hearing me.


19 posted on 04/15/2012 9:50:06 PM PDT by RAWGUY
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chris37

That law doesn’t work because it was repealed a century ago.
You’re a racist idiot for trying to make derogatory comments about one group based on skin color over current application of a law which nobody alive ever lived under.


20 posted on 04/16/2012 4:09:44 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: chris37

In 1792, that was the description of who was expected to submit to military service on short notice. It was not about privilege, it was about obligation. They were required to arm themselves so that when the militia was called out they would already be equipped and ready to fight; the army did not have a multibillion dollar budget. Of course we changed the definition of obligated militia members since. And, BTW, anyone of any color can arm themselves. Remember, it was about obligation back then.

(see, write a sensible post, get a sensible response)


21 posted on 04/16/2012 4:20:50 AM PDT by ctdonath2 ($1 meals: http://abuckaplate.blogspot.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

No, America is a racist idiot for placing a greater value on black skin than say -white hispanic skin-.

It is also a racist idiot for passing this racist, sexist, ageist law in 1792, but that doesn’t surprise me, because people are racist all over, everywhere and have been for their entire existence, haven’t you noticed?

I would also like to point out to you that people, as well as certain animals, are in fact prejudiced, because once a pattern repeats itself often enough, then it becomes possible to -pre-judge-that the pattern will likely repeat itself again. This is actually evidence of a working brain, not easily seen in such agencies as the TSA for instance, who insist on searching people who have never committted terrorist attacks and never searching those who always do.

But hey, at least they aren’t prejudiced right? Dirka dirka.

It really seems to me that if anyone here is a racist idiot, it is likely you, because you cannot even discuss issues of race without calling people racist idiots.

But you know what, race exists, and people are racist, and some people deserve the prejudice that they have earned, and I don’t really care if it offends you or not.

I’ve made no deragatory comments whatsoever, what I have said is the truth, deal with it.


22 posted on 04/16/2012 8:37:52 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: ctdonath2

My post was sensible!

It was written with a touch of false/ true sarcasm, but it was both sensible and accurate IMO.

That was definitely a racist law, it was passed by a racist country, we are still a racist country, and people are racist. I’m sticking by my guns!


23 posted on 04/16/2012 8:52:53 AM PDT by chris37 (Heartless.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Bronzy

You’ll love this:

Guns in America
http://legallyeasy.rocketlawyer.com/guns-in-america-94909


24 posted on 04/16/2012 12:15:17 PM PDT by 2ndDivisionVet (Ich habe keinen Konig aber Gott)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson