Federal Ban on Fully Automatic Assault rifles, and Sub- Machine guns, unconstitutional. And anti 2nd Amendment. Must be overturned by Supreme Court.!

Yes, because the state militias can do this because EVERYONE is automatically in the "unorganized militia".
Note -your- emphasis on "EVERYONE".

False.
Your own post says so.

"I propose to state briefly the provisions of this Act. The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes?the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia."

If you are older than 45 you are not in the unorganized militia.
Thus, not "EVERYONE".

But there is a right to be in the militia. The Founding Fathers literally spoke about it.
"but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
Mr Gerry said: "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."
So, they worried the govt would say "you're a Catholic, Catholics are religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, therefore you can't bear them" if they kept this clause.
Why would stopping individuals carrying guns around in their daily life give the people in power the chance "to destroy the constitution itself"?
Nothing here demonstrates --anyone-- believed there is a right to be a member of the militia.

You cannot prove your claim; I have demonstrated your claim to be wrong -- you simply choose to be wrong.

You're dismissing what the Founding Fathers said when discussing the language that was to go into the Second Amendment. This conversation was IN THE HOUSE. We don't have Senate conversations because they're secret.
This has been addressed.
Yes. Because it did not make it into the amendment.
These conversations between certain groups of people do not quality as rational, factual or legal basis.
An "alternate amendment" that did not make it into law does not quality as rational, factual or legal basis.
Thus, you have no rational factual or legal basis

That is you, choose to be wrong.

I cannot prevent you from choosing to be wrong -- you'll do it just because you don't want the truth, you want what's convenient.



 
Note -your- emphasis on "EVERYONE".

False.
Your own post says so.

"I propose to state briefly the provisions of this Act. The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes?the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia."

If you are older than 45 you are not in the unorganized militia.
Thus, not "EVERYONE".


Nothing here demonstrates --anyone-- believed there is a right to be a member of the militia.

You cannot prove your claim; I have demonstrated your claim to be wrong -- you simply choose to be wrong.


This has been addressed.
Yes. Because it did not make it into the amendment.
These conversations between certain groups of people do not quality as rational, factual or legal basis.
An "alternate amendment" that did not make it into law does not quality as rational, factual or legal basis.
Thus, you have no rational factual or legal basis

That is you, choose to be wrong.

I cannot prevent you from choosing to be wrong -- you'll do it just because you don't want the truth, you want what's convenient.


Conversation over.
 
In a Nation of the People, for the People, and by the People; said People should never be outgunned, by those who were bestowed the honor, and privilege of serving said people...
 

Forum List

Back
Top