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 ...
Some are saying mandatory health insurance is law as evidenced by this law.
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.
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.
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.
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”).
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?
You have no idea what you are talking about. Or you forgot the /s tag. Which is it? See also 10 USC 311.
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
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.
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
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!?
Gun ownership => Longer and healthier life
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,
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.