HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Alex hamilton on the 2a a...

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 03:28 PM

Alex hamilton on the 2a and the militia

Federalist No. 29 || 

Concerning the Militia
From the Daily Advertiser.
Thursday, January 10, 1788

Author: Alexander Hamilton

To the People of the State of New York:

THE power of regulating the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy.

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."

Of the different grounds which have been taken in opposition to the plan of the convention, there is none that was so little to have been expected, or is so untenable in itself, as the one from which this particular provision has been attacked. If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security. If standing armies are dangerous to liberty, an efficacious power over the militia, in the body to whose care the protection of the State is committed, ought, as far as possible, to take away the inducement and the pretext to such unfriendly institutions. If the federal government can command the aid of the militia in those emergencies which call for the military arm in support of the civil magistrate, it can the better dispense with the employment of a different kind of force. If it cannot avail itself of the former, it will be obliged to recur to the latter. To render an army unnecessary, will be a more certain method of preventing its existence than a thousand prohibitions upon paper.

In order to cast an odium upon the power of calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the Union, it has been remarked that there is nowhere any provision in the proposed Constitution for calling out the POSSE COMITATUS, to assist the magistrate in the execution of his duty, whence it has been inferred, that military force was intended to be his only auxiliary. There is a striking incoherence in the objections which have appeared, and sometimes even from the same quarter, not much calculated to inspire a very favorable opinion of the sincerity or fair dealing of their authors. The same persons who tell us in one breath, that the powers of the federal government will be despotic and unlimited, inform us in the next, that it has not authority sufficient even to call out the POSSE COMITATUS. The latter, fortunately, is as much short of the truth as the former exceeds it. It would be as absurd to doubt, that a right to pass all laws NECESSARY AND PROPER to execute its declared powers, would include that of requiring the assistance of the citizens to the officers who may be intrusted with the execution of those laws, as it would be to believe, that a right to enact laws necessary and proper for the imposition and collection of taxes would involve that of varying the rules of descent and of the alienation of landed property, or of abolishing the trial by jury in cases relating to it. It being therefore evident that the supposition of a want of power to require the aid of the POSSE COMITATUS is entirely destitute of color, it will follow, that the conclusion which has been drawn from it, in its application to the authority of the federal government over the militia, is as uncandid as it is illogical. What reason could there be to infer, that force was intended to be the sole instrument of authority, merely because there is a power to make use of it when necessary? What shall we think of the motives which could induce men of sense to reason in this manner? How shall we prevent a conflict between charity and judgment?

By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government. It is observed that select corps may be formed, composed of the young and ardent, who may be rendered subservient to the views of arbitrary power. What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government, is impossible to be foreseen. But so far from viewing the matter in the same light with those who object to select corps as dangerous, were the Constitution ratified, and were I to deliver my sentiments to a member of the federal legislature from this State on the subject of a militia establishment, I should hold to him, in substance, the following discourse:

"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.

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

Thus differently from the adversaries of the proposed Constitution should I reason on the same subject, deducing arguments of safety from the very sources which they represent as fraught with danger and perdition. But how the national legislature may reason on the point, is a thing which neither they nor I can foresee.

There is something so far-fetched and so extravagant in the idea of danger to liberty from the militia, that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or with raillery; whether to consider it as a mere trial of skill, like the paradoxes of rhetoricians; as a disingenuous artifice to instil prejudices at any price; or as the serious offspring of political fanaticism. Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests? What reasonable cause of apprehension can be inferred from a power in the Union to prescribe regulations for the militia, and to command its services when necessary, while the particular States are to have the SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS? If it were possible seriously to indulge a jealousy of the militia upon any conceivable establishment under the federal government, the circumstance of the officers being in the appointment of the States ought at once to extinguish it. There can be no doubt that this circumstance will always secure to them a preponderating influence over the militia.

In reading many of the publications against the Constitution, a man is apt to imagine that he is perusing some ill-written tale or romance, which instead of natural and agreeable images, exhibits to the mind nothing but frightful and distorted shapes "Gorgons, hydras, and chimeras dire"; discoloring and disfiguring whatever it represents, and transforming everything it touches into a monster.

A sample of this is to be observed in the exaggerated and improbable suggestions which have taken place respecting the power of calling for the services of the militia. That of New Hampshire is to be marched to Georgia, of Georgia to New Hampshire, of New York to Kentucky, and of Kentucky to Lake Champlain. Nay, the debts due to the French and Dutch are to be paid in militiamen instead of louis d'ors and ducats. At one moment there is to be a large army to lay prostrate the liberties of the people; at another moment the militia of Virginia are to be dragged from their homes five or six hundred miles, to tame the republican contumacy of Massachusetts; and that of Massachusetts is to be transported an equal distance to subdue the refractory haughtiness of the aristocratic Virginians. Do the persons who rave at this rate imagine that their art or their eloquence can impose any conceits or absurdities upon the people of America for infallible truths?

If there should be an army to be made use of as the engine of despotism, what need of the militia? If there should be no army, whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon to undertake a distant and hopeless expedition, for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined intrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people? Is this the way in which usurpers stride to dominion over a numerous and enlightened nation? Do they begin by exciting the detestation of the very instruments of their intended usurpations? Do they usually commence their career by wanton and disgustful acts of power, calculated to answer no end, but to draw upon themselves universal hatred and execration? Are suppositions of this sort the sober admonitions of discerning patriots to a discerning people? Or are they the inflammatory ravings of incendiaries or distempered enthusiasts? If we were even to suppose the national rulers actuated by the most ungovernable ambition, it is impossible to believe that they would employ such preposterous means to accomplish their designs.

In times of insurrection, or invasion, it would be natural and proper that the militia of a neighboring State should be marched into another, to resist a common enemy, or to guard the republic against the violence of faction or sedition. This was frequently the case, in respect to the first object, in the course of the late war; and this mutual succor is, indeed, a principal end of our political association. If the power of affording it be placed under the direction of the Union, there will be no danger of a supine and listless inattention to the dangers of a neighbor, till its near approach had superadded the incitements of selfpreservation to the too feeble impulses of duty and sympathy.

PUBLIUS.

↑ Back to Top

43 replies, 1746 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 43 replies Author Time Post
Reply Alex hamilton on the 2a and the militia (Original post)
Fullduplexxx Sep 2019 OP
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #1
Fullduplexxx Sep 2019 #2
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #8
Hortensis Sep 2019 #15
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #17
Hortensis Sep 2019 #21
elleng Sep 2019 #27
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #31
elleng Sep 2019 #32
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #34
PoliticAverse Sep 2019 #37
X_Digger Sep 2019 #10
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #18
X_Digger Sep 2019 #25
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #30
X_Digger Sep 2019 #43
Paladin Sep 2019 #5
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #35
Paladin Sep 2019 #38
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #42
HAB911 Sep 2019 #39
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #41
albacore Sep 2019 #6
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #9
albacore Sep 2019 #13
guillaumeb Sep 2019 #14
elocs Sep 2019 #3
Hoyt Sep 2019 #4
Initech Sep 2019 #7
NickB79 Sep 2019 #11
Volaris Sep 2019 #22
aikoaiko Sep 2019 #12
Fullduplexxx Sep 2019 #19
aikoaiko Sep 2019 #20
Docreed2003 Sep 2019 #26
aikoaiko Sep 2019 #29
hack89 Sep 2019 #16
denbot Sep 2019 #23
hack89 Sep 2019 #28
denbot Sep 2019 #33
FakeNoose Sep 2019 #24
kentuck Sep 2019 #36
HAB911 Sep 2019 #40

Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 03:32 PM

1. For many gun owners,

the supposed individual right to keep and bear arms has a twofold aim.

One, to defend against a slave uprising, as happened in Haiti.

Two, to defend against a tyrannical Government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 03:35 PM

2. People claiming rights they dont have

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 05:08 PM

8. Enabled by Antonin Scalia, the self proclaimed originalist

who effectively deleted parts of the Constitution with which he disagreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 06:15 PM

15. Yes. Clever with words, but with the judicial temperament of McConnell.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hortensis (Reply #15)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 06:20 PM

17. And the integrity of McConnell. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #17)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 06:35 PM

21. And of Justices Thomas, Gorsuch and Kavanaugh. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #8)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:47 PM

27. right, ignore

'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State . .'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:59 PM

31. Merely prefatory.

Merely prefatory. And with that bit of linguistic nonsense, the meaning became what the NRA wanted it to mean.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #31)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 08:03 PM

32. Zacly.

'When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.'

Merely prefatory.







Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #32)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 08:07 PM

34. Making the US actually a part of the Commonwealth?

So would the President be replaced by a Governor General?

At least former US citizens would receive universal health care.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to elleng (Reply #27)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 08:49 PM

37. "the right of _the people_" not the right of the members of the militia. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #2)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 05:22 PM

10. You mean the right that the same framers ensconced in their respective state constitutions?

The present-day Pennsylvania Constitution, using language adopted in 1790, declares: "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."

Vermont: Adopted in 1777, the Vermont Constitution closely tracks the Pennsylvania Constitution. It states "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State.."

Kentucky: The 1792 Kentucky constitution was nearly contemporaneous with the Second Amendment, which was ratified in 1791. Kentucky declared: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State, shall not be questioned."

Alabama: The Alabama Constitution, adopted in 1819, guarantees "that every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state".


Funny how this 'militia only' nonsense ignores the states' founding documents, some even ratified before the federal amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #10)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 06:21 PM

18. The US Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

Many of these state constitutions also legalized slavery.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #18)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:34 PM

25. Kind of clear what they meant, though, when you look at the states.

It's fucking ludicrous to assert that they meant the right to apply only to militias, in the context of what the same guys said in their state constitutions. Or even what they said in them *before* the federal protection.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to X_Digger (Reply #25)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:57 PM

30. What is so difficult to understand about the phrase "well regulated militia" in a Federal

context?

Given that the founders made no provision for a standing army, only a navy foe defensive purposes, it is obvious that this well regulated militia would serve as needed. But with an enormous standing army, the well regulated militia became the National Guard in the states.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #30)

Fri Sep 6, 2019, 10:47 AM

43. Pizza being important for study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes is protected.

Does that mean tomatoes are only to be used for pizza?

Of course not, that'd be fucking stupid.

You can't have a militia if the people can't keep and bear arms. One is a prerequisite of the other, but in no way limits it to that purpose.



Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 03:50 PM

5. Hell of a job, up against the most tyranical government we've ever had.

Rather than rising up against the sick and dangerous excesses of the trump regime, the perennially right-wing RKBA crowd has christened trump their lord and savior. Completely predictable.

[Pro-gunners: Insert standard "It's All The Democrats' Fault" response HERE.]

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #5)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 08:08 PM

35. Equally foolish is the idea that these mostly untrained gun owners might

rise up and battle the US Army.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 09:12 AM

38. That is PRECISELY what I've been hearing from pro-gunners, for decades.

2nd Amendment=Safeguard against tyrannical government. Over and over and over again. Right here at DU.

I knew it was bullshit before, and I damn sure know it's bullshit, now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #38)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 03:00 PM

42. And what they really mean is,

they are opposed to the idea of a multi-party government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #35)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 09:29 AM

39. 2nd enables fighting FOR the government, not against

Against the government remains Treason and Sedition regardless of what they say.

TOO FUNNY

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to HAB911 (Reply #39)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 02:59 PM

41. Ironic that many of these people are apparently afraid of their own

Government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #1)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 03:57 PM

6. The gun-humpers conveniently forget...

.. that we have elections. Every two years. You don't get to take up arms against the Federal government because your side lost an election. That makes you a traitor...by Constitutional definition.
We settled all that with the Civil War. 600,000 dead Americans. And certain parts of the country...and certain people in the country...wan to revisit that disaster.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Reply #6)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 05:09 PM

9. Some US citizens have never accepted that the slave faction lost that civil war. eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to guillaumeb (Reply #9)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 08:12 PM

13. Even more...

... those people have never accepted that they simply cannot ignore the laws of the land because they disagree with it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to albacore (Reply #13)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 06:14 PM

14. The self described "sovereign citizens"?

Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 03:36 PM

3. Oh, THAT Alex Hamilton. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 03:37 PM

4. Most gunners only read "shall not be infringed." They are too stupid, or attracted to guns, to admit

that the Constitution does not say they HAVE TO own guns and carry them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hoyt (Reply #4)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 04:13 PM

7. They're the same people who read articles on illegal immigration...

And stop at the word "illegal". Really they're idiots.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 05:38 PM

11. Which confirms that "well-regulated" is synonymous with "well-trained" in today's syntax

And while I feel most gun owners are woefully under-trained for anything other than shooting empty cans and deer, it doesn't alter the current stance the USSC had held with regard to individual gun ownership.

If anything, it argues for annual training and fitness events for all members of the organized and unorganized militia, ie all US men age 18-45. Now THAT would be fun to see, sweaty cursing Bubbas hiking in the Georgia heat, beer bellies jiggling as far as the eye can see 😂

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NickB79 (Reply #11)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:15 PM

22. And that argument, precisely, is why we have a national guard, administered by the several States...

If you wanna own, and keep, an assault rifle, then you can goddamnwell buy it from the state national guard and be trained in its proper use for doing so, instead of from the local sporting goods department (killing other humans is NOT A SPORT).

and if the state national guard tells you you can't have one of these because we've determined you're a crazy fucker, you can dam well find another hobby.

'A WELL REGULATED militia...'---very true...
What we have now, is an UN regulated militia, which is another word for an armed mob.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Tue Sep 3, 2019, 06:05 PM

12. All well and good, but the militia was based on the people keeping and bearing arms.


The people's right to keep and bear arms is constitutionally protected so that a militia could be formed and trained.

Whether the state trains the militia is a separate matter from that right.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 06:23 PM

19. No it is not it's a gift from the supreme court . The militia was based on putting down insurrection

s and invasions . IF it is neccessary to the protection of a free state ONLY THEN will the right to bare arms not be .... . But you have to be part of a well regulated militia and that means mustering ... no guns in the home .. etc.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Reply #19)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 06:35 PM

20. No. No guns at home was never part of the deal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to aikoaiko (Reply #12)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:43 PM

26. So when, prior to Heller

Has the Supreme Court ever supported the idea of "individual gun ownership"? Even with Heller, it allows for limitations on individual ownership.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Docreed2003 (Reply #26)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:55 PM

29. Prior to Heller it was ambiguous.


A lot of people assumed different things.

But yes there can be limitations even with an individual right interpreation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 06:16 PM

16. So citizens owning guns is not a danger to the country?

Who would have thought.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #16)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:24 PM

23. Dipshits shooting up schools, churches, theaters, are a danger to this country.

You would have to be a fucking brain dead idiot to think otherwise.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to denbot (Reply #23)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:51 PM

28. Just commenting on the OP

I happen to agree with Hamilton.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #28)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 08:06 PM

33. Exactly n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 07:34 PM

24. K & R bookmarked for future reference

Thanks Fullduplexx!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Wed Sep 4, 2019, 08:29 PM

36. What I gleaned from Federalist Paper #29

That militias should be under the control of the states and that they should be well-trained in the use of their weapon and skilled in military maneuvers. Also that the militias should not be moved from state to state, except in times of insurrection or invasions.

That the States would have control over the militias and "SOLE AND EXCLUSIVE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS".

Also, "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."


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Fullduplexxx (Original post)

Thu Sep 5, 2019, 09:33 AM

40. How is Meatloaf's 'Id Do Anything for Love' like the 2nd Amendment?

(But I won't do that)

So what is “that”? “It’s the line before every chorus,” explained Loaf. “There’s nine of them, I think.

The problem lies because Jimmy likes to write, so you forget what the line was before you get to ‘I won’t do that.'”

(Some of the things the song says he won’t do: forget the way you feel right now; forgive himself if you don’t go all the way tonight; do it better than he does it with you, so long; and stop dreaming of you every night of his life.)

On the other hand.....................

“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.”

What happened to the first part?!

The 2nd amendment is one of, if not the most, debated Amendments in the United States Constitution. Most noteworthy, until the late 1960s, restrictions on the 2nd Amendment were not questioned. The NRA itself, in the early 20th Century, not only favored restrictions they publicly announced them. The completely changed their tune in the late 1960s.

The Amendment has actually been changed in the past 20 years. Those that fully support the Amendment have erased the first part from the collective memory.

Think about it, when you hear someone (that fully supports this right) quote the Amendment, they only include “… the right of the people to keep and bear Arms…” Every so often they will throw in the last part about infringed when they are trying to make a point. They rarely, if ever, mention the very first part that includes the very important phrase “A well regulated Militia.” They do this for a very good reason. It completely destroys their argument that every man and woman in the United States has a right to own a gun.

The simple reason for this is because the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms. The 2nd Amendment guarantees a citizen the right to bear arms if they serve in a militia. It is right there in the Amendment.

Take a look at the Bill of Rights for a moment. One theme that should pop out to you is that the language in the Bill of Rights and the rest of the Amendments is not vague. To put it another way the wording is not confusing. Every part of the Amendments is laid out in such a way that is easy to understand. Except, somehow, the 2nd Amendment.

This is the main reason why I do not believe that the Amendment is left vague or confusing. It is really simple and straightforward.

Let me re-arrange the wording to help out:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms for a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed.

Does it make more sense now? Despite the NRA’s attempts, the two sections of the Amendment are not meant to be separated, 'cause linguistics. If the Founder’s had wanted the two sections to work independently of each other they would have included a very important word. And. Take a look.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, AND, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread