Posted on 04/03/2019 3:01:09 AM PDT by PigRigger
Thanks & marked
Your willingness to facilitate a fraud is reprehensible.
2A is inalienable, it grants nothing. It simply recognizes a right inherent in citizens.
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Hamilton's definition of "well regulated militia" was simply to mean that they had working arms appropriate to the task, that they knew how to use them, and that they were assembled periodically to be inspected.
-PJ
If you see my post #44 below, Alexander Hamilton was willing to settle for just demonstrating that people had working arms appropriate to the task, that they knew how to use them, and that they were assembled periodically to be inspected.
He felt that "well trained" would be too much of a drain on productive society for a citizen militia.
-PJ
Thanks for that listing.... will be very helpful...
The teacher in this case is a far left wing supporter... she says he spends half his class tearing down Trump...
He had lot’s of hope in Mueller... was very saddened by the report but still holds out for the complete report.
My daughter is not political... so she doesn’t really know what to make of the guy... I made him in one minute after speaking to her...
So she will need be factual with lot’s of footnotes because he will be driven by emotion... her reasoning must be sound.
Your assumption is remiss... I am asking for references... not for people to do the work... or for me either in that case.
She asked me where she might find some assistance in understanding this right... I thought of Free Republic, the NRA and some other groups... which she will be using to better understand.
Please don’t assume...
To the others who are giving some thoughts... as my daughter will be reviewing this thread... thanks!
Attacking this persons argument (from the book authored by Steven’s) based on a few assertions we talked about seems doable...
> The Bill of rights can not be changed; one can propose a new amendment but can not change an existing guaranteed right
> Rights are individual in nature and meant to be protective not restrictive
> A militia is not meant to be a government regulated unit... but was inferred to as individuals of the country when the right was enumerated
> Even if one introduced a new amendment... if it further restricted the bill of rights, it would likely be found unlawful...
She will be putting together her argument after reviewing several references... and perhaps even speaking to some legal scholars....
Keep the thoughts coming... they are very helpful....
“...shall not be infringed.”
Makes for kind of a short paper, but there it is.
I always liked the point that it also meant regulated, as a clock. As in timing your firing and reloading so as not to be shooting sparks everywhere when powder might be exposed.
Yeah. The one time they tried that they had to repeal the Amendment.
Wrong. That would leave the door open to the executive and the courts. The Second Amendment states "shall not be infringed." Period.
People who want to further limit the right to defend your life are embracing the ideas of Hobbes, that our rights stem from government and can be changed at any time. The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution clearly reject that concept. People who want to limit your natural rights do not believe that those rights are inherent to life itself. They are therefore opposed to the fundamental ideas upon which our republic and our government are based.
Read this recent legal decision rendered by a federal district court judge. While the specifics relate to the state of California banning magazines holding more than ten rounds, the judge makes some very cogent points relating to the second amendment and the right to bear arms. He specifically addresses the issues of mass murders, liberty, and the rights of people who defend their own lives with firearms.
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.