Why anti gun people are so angry.....

[Abatis]

Yes, Thomas Hartmann. He is not a kook. He actually deeply researches, READS and understands the documents of our founding generation, from the second amendment to the real meaning of the Boston Tea Party.

He has a preconceived belief and while he may read and certainly quotes from original sources, he obviously does not comprehend what he's reading / quoting.

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state.

That perfect scenario assumes of course the governments (federal and state) are acting within their constitutional boundaries. The framers talked at length about what the role of the armed citizenry is when federal government usurps powers and tyrannizes . . . They also speak of the desperate situation if the state governments go off the rails (Federalist 28):

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."​

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Yes, that is the central point of Federalist 46 that I quoted. Hartmann quotes his sources but refuses to recognize / acknowledge the point the founders / framers were making.

Who is in control of this "engine of oppression"?

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.”

Absolutely true.

Does Hartmann understand what "liberty" is? Liberty is the condition of being free from the arbitrary actions of government exercising powers that the people have not granted it. The danger to the liberty of the citizens was and remains usurpation. Hartmann says:

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

And Hartmann answers the question but apparently still arrives at the wrong conclusion. The fear was the standing army being an engine of oppression in the hands of rulers . . . a national government.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. . . .

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations. So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.

What a dishonest misrepresentation of the framers sentiments. The fear was not from a military coup; the fear was a President assuming powers outside his constitutional authority and the remedy is Congress being able to restrain him and his misuse of the military through their control of spending (and the same "purse strings" argument is being posited today to try to restrain Dear Leader on multiple issues, e.g., immigration, Obamacare).

In a coup, where the military takes control over the government -- ALL OF IT -- what control would a powerless Congress have? Typical nonsensical Hartmann reverse "reasoning" to try to support an intellectually bankrupt position.

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?
With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.

Yeah, that's it . . . We defend our "liberty" and resist the rise of an "engine of oppression" by allowing the national government to have a complete monopoly of force, giving it the power to dictate to the people what arms they may keep and bear and oh so ironic, to allow the national government to actually form that hated "engine of oppression", a standing army in time of peace who only answers to the national government.

Please explain how the federal extinguishment of the state militias and the establishment of the National Guard on its ruins, fulfills the object of the 2nd Amendment.

Seems to me that if you are correct, that the 2nd Amendment's sole reason to exist is the protection of the "state" from the feared "engine of oppression", a nationalized standing army, at least one state should have claimed this supposed protection of the 2nd against the federalization of their militias via the Dick Act. That complete "coup" of state militia powers is what your interpretation should have protected against!

Do you realize that by saying today's National Guard is the legitimate representation of constitutional militia, you are citing the violation of your interpretation and holding it up as a proof of your interpretation?

The exhausting mental gymnastics one must perform to try to follow the anti-gunner's theories . . .

 

[Abatis]

The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government.

And that impugns my position how? The Federalist Papers are considered the best explanation of what the extent of federal powers are under the Constitution and that explanation defeats your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The Federalists were adamant that the powers of the federal government were strictly limited to just what was conferred and that rights pre-existed the compact and did not depend on the compact.

Remember the Federalists argued against a bill of rights primarily because they considered it absurd and dangerous to call out things that shall not be done when no power was conveyed to do those things. They argued that no matter how the provisions were worded, those disposed to usurp would misconstruct and misrepresent the words to try to invent powers to restrict the right.

YOU are exactly what the Federalists warned us about.

Federalist 84 (paragraph breaks added):

"I . . . affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted.

For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that [a fundamental right] shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?

I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining [a fundamental right] afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights."
​

 

[Bfgrn]

Yes, Thomas Hartmann. He is not a kook. He actually deeply researches, READS and understands the documents of our founding generation, from the second amendment to the real meaning of the Boston Tea Party.

He has a preconceived belief and while he may read and certainly quotes from original sources, he obviously does not comprehend what he's reading / quoting.

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state.

That perfect scenario assumes of course the governments (federal and state) are acting within their constitutional boundaries. The framers talked at length about what the role of the armed citizenry is when federal government usurps powers and tyrannizes . . . They also speak of the desperate situation if the state governments go off the rails (Federalist 28):

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."​

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Yes, that is the central point of Federalist 46 that I quoted. Hartmann quotes his sources but refuses to recognize / acknowledge the point the founders / framers were making.

Who is in control of this "engine of oppression"?

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.”

Absolutely true.

Does Hartmann understand what "liberty" is? Liberty is the condition of being free from the arbitrary actions of government exercising powers that the people have not granted it. The danger to the liberty of the citizens was and remains usurpation. Hartmann says:

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

And Hartmann answers the question but apparently still arrives at the wrong conclusion. The fear was the standing army being an engine of oppression in the hands of rulers . . . a national government.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. . . .

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations. So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.

What a dishonest misrepresentation of the framers sentiments. The fear was not from a military coup; the fear was a President assuming powers outside his constitutional authority and the remedy is Congress being able to restrain him and his misuse of the military through their control of spending (and the same "purse strings" argument is being posited today to try to restrain Dear Leader on multiple issues, e.g., immigration, Obamacare).

In a coup, where the military takes control over the government -- ALL OF IT -- what control would a powerless Congress have? Typical nonsensical Hartmann reverse "reasoning" to try to support an intellectually bankrupt position.

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?
With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.

Yeah, that's it . . . We defend our "liberty" and resist the rise of an "engine of oppression" by allowing the national government to have a complete monopoly of force, giving it the power to dictate to the people what arms they may keep and bear and oh so ironic, to allow the national government to actually form that hated "engine of oppression", a standing army in time of peace who only answers to the national government.

Please explain how the federal extinguishment of the state militias and the establishment of the National Guard on its ruins, fulfills the object of the 2nd Amendment.

Seems to me that if you are correct, that the 2nd Amendment's sole reason to exist is the protection of the "state" from the feared "engine of oppression", a nationalized standing army, at least one state should have claimed this supposed protection of the 2nd against the federalization of their militias via the Dick Act. That complete "coup" of state militia powers is what your interpretation should have protected against!

Do you realize that by saying today's National Guard is the legitimate representation of constitutional militia, you are citing the violation of your interpretation and holding it up as a proof of your interpretation?

The exhausting mental gymnastics one must perform to try to follow the anti-gunner's theories . . .

AGAIN...

The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government.

Did you READ Federalist 28? Do you COMPREHEND Federalist 28??

Hamilton:


"Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government."

 

[Abatis]

AGAIN...

The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government

AGAIN...

And that impugns my position how? The Federalist Papers are considered the best explanation of what the extent of federal powers are under the Constitution and that explanation defeats your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The Federalists were adamant that the powers of the federal government were strictly limited to just what was conferred and that rights pre-existed the compact and did not depend on the compact.

Did you READ Federalist 28? Do you COMPREHEND Federalist 28??

Yes and many more and the Anti-Federalist Papers too . . .

Hamilton:


"Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government."

And as usual you (or the authorities you post in support) selectively edit and quote chop and introduce terms and conditions intending only to obfuscate.

Yes, insurrection is dangerous to governments but insurrections are only considered wrong, "if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people."

In other words, as I said, acting within the confines of its constitutional authority. A legitimate government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry fully prepared to defend its liberty. Your quote, (when read in its entirety), says that insurrection against a just government will be put down by the citizens from areas not inflamed by the contagion. You again fail to recognize the obverse of the truths you hold out . . . When a government is being a danger to liberty then insurrection is not only permissible it is a duty.

You have zero intellectual integrity. You go from ignorantly discussing fear of a standing army as being a danger to liberty and an engine of oppression to now conflating insurrection against said oppression as if it is condemnable like insurrection against a legitimate government.

Why must you anti's be so duplicitous?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You know, 2Aguy? A better question for your thread would be "Why are anti-gunners SO dishonest?"

Here is a REAL question...you and 2Aguy keep using false characterizations like "anti-gunner"

The TRUTH is you NEED to portray reasonable people as extreme to try to defend YOUR extremism. No one has advocated taking away all guns, or even most guns.

The only extremists on this thread are on the right.... the absolutist mentality just doesn't pass for reasonable or intelligent.

I SUPPORT the right of citizens to bear arms to protect themselves, their family and their property. But it is NOT an absolute right. It does not mean you can possess any weapon you desire, like a weapon that belongs only on a battlefield. And criminals should not have that right afforded to them by laws with loopholes.

Yes, actually it means precisely that. You should take the time to study the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment. Self defense wasn't even mentioned. The only way people would be required to give up their "assault rifles" is if our police and military did too.

It is clear YOU have not read the comments and arguments of the authors of the 2nd Amendment.

http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.txt


Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

The James Madison resolution on the issue clearly stated that the right to bear arms “shall not be infringed” since a “well-regulated militia” is the “best security of a free country.”

Virginia’s support of a right to bear arms was based on the same rationale: “A well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State”

Nothing about self defense.


As I was saying.

Take that up with Scalia...

Held:

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

The Supreme Court is not the Constitution. You Leftists make that mistake frequently.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The Supreme Court is not the Constitution. You Leftists make that mistake frequently.

Usually when the SC makes a decision they do not like.

 

[Bfgrn]

AGAIN...

The Federalist Papers? One must never forget that the Federalist Papers were a series of arguments FOR creating a strong federal government, as opposed to the Articles of Confederation that had intentionally designed a weak federal government

AGAIN...

And that impugns my position how? The Federalist Papers are considered the best explanation of what the extent of federal powers are under the Constitution and that explanation defeats your interpretation of the 2nd Amendment. The Federalists were adamant that the powers of the federal government were strictly limited to just what was conferred and that rights pre-existed the compact and did not depend on the compact.

Did you READ Federalist 28? Do you COMPREHEND Federalist 28??

Yes and many more and the Anti-Federalist Papers too . . .

Hamilton:


"Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government."

And as usual you (or the authorities you post in support) selectively edit and quote chop and introduce terms and conditions intending only to obfuscate.

Yes, insurrection is dangerous to governments but insurrections are only considered wrong, "if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people."

In other words, as I said, acting within the confines of its constitutional authority. A legitimate government has nothing to fear from an armed citizenry fully prepared to defend its liberty. Your quote, (when read in its entirety), says that insurrection against a just government will be put down by the citizens from areas not inflamed by the contagion. You again fail to recognize the obverse of the truths you hold out . . . When a government is being a danger to liberty then insurrection is not only permissible it is a duty.

You have zero intellectual integrity. You go from ignorantly discussing fear of a standing army as being a danger to liberty and an engine of oppression to now conflating insurrection against said oppression as if it is condemnable like insurrection against a legitimate government.

Why must you anti's be so duplicitous?

If you are such an expert on the Federalist Papers, WHY didn't you cite

Federalist No. 29
Concerning the Militia
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."

 

[Abatis]

If you are such an expert on the Federalist Papers, WHY didn't you cite

Federalist No. 29

Since when did we start discussing the regulation of the organized militia?

The organized militia is not the private citizenry.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

You are in for a world of butt-hurt if you want to delve into 29.

 

[LOki]

Poring over the first-hand documents from 1789 that detailed the First Congress’ debate on arms and militia, you’ll see a constant theme: the 2nd Amendment was created to protect the American government.

Thom Hartmann????

What a laughable premise and conclusion written by one of the kookiest left-wing kooks around.

Have you ever read Federalist 46?

The 2nd Amendment was written to forever preserve the 17-20 to 1 advantage that armed citizens enjoyed over members of the nation's standing army.

"The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties,. . . "​

That ratio remains spot-on today . . .300 million "souls", >3 million active duty and reserves and 75 million armed citizens. That ratio is what preserves the "free state", not a despotic government monopoly of arms and a disarmed citizenry as asshat Hartmann would argue . . .

And yeah, it stands at 25+ armed citizens to 1 soldier today but hey, we are a bunch of gun nuts huh?

Yes, Thomas Hartmann. He is not a kook. He actually deeply researches, READS and understands the documents of our founding generation, from the second amendment to the real meaning of the Boston Tea Party.

Intelligence always trumps dogma and doctrinaire which has become ALL the right wing nuts in this country provides today.

I provided a LINK in my post. So I accept your apology.

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state.

Hartmann:

But at the time, our Founding Fathers believed a militia was the one best defense for the nation since a standing army was, to quote Jefferson, “an engine of oppression.”

Our Founding Fathers were scared senseless of standing armies. It was well-accepted among the Members of Congress during that first gun debate that “standing armies in a time of peace are dangerous to liberty.” Those were the exact words used in the state of New York’s amendment to the gun debate.

Later, in an 1814 letter to Thomas Cooper, Jefferson wrote of standing armies: “The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.”

Had the early framers of the Constitution embraced a standing army during times of peace, then there would be no need for a regulated militia, and thus no need for the 2nd Amendment.

Instead, they openly opposed a standing army during times of peace. Want proof? In the entire Constitution, there are no time limits on the power of Congress to raise money and pay for anything – except an Army. We can have a Navy forever. We can have roads or bridges or post offices or pretty much anything else that supports the "general welfare" without limit and in perpetuity. But an Army? That had to be re-evaluated every two years, when all spending for the past two years of army was zeroed out. It's right there in Article 1, Section 8, line twelve reads that Congress has the power: "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years."

The Founders knew, from watching the history of Europe, that military coups by a standing army were a greater threat to a nation that most other nations. So they required us to re-evaluate our army every two years.

But without an army, how would we defend ourselves?

With a locally-based, well-regulated - under the control of local authorities, who answer to national authority - militia. Today, we call this the National Guard.

The armies of States are also the "standing armies" you're in denial about.

Militias, comprised of the body of the people, assembled for their own protection, are comprised of the individuals you are in denial of.

 

[Bfgrn]

If you are such an expert on the Federalist Papers, WHY didn't you cite

Federalist No. 29

Since when did we start discussing the regulation of the organized militia?

The organized militia is not the private citizenry.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

You are in for a world of butt-hurt if you want to delve into 29.

If you are such an expert on the Federalist Papers, WHY didn't you cite

Federalist No. 29

Since when did we start discussing the regulation of the organized militia?

The organized militia is not the private citizenry.

Expressio unius est exclusio alterius

You are in for a world of butt-hurt if you want to delve into 29.

What part of:
"governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"

do you need help with?

 

[Abatis]

What part of:
"governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States"

do you need help with?

I need none at all.

I know that specificity distinguishes organized militia members from private citizens who have no militia enrollment status.

I know that since the clause calls out a class of enrolled militia members who are in service to the nation as the entity that shall fall under the governance of Congress, means that private citizens are excluded from the action of that clause.

I provided the link to multiple explanations of the rule of construction / interpretation, "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius" which governs this situation, did you bother reading any of the definitions?

Why you are exclaiming powers over the organized militia in a discussion of the right to arms of private citizens, is a puzzle of your mind I'm not going to concern myself with any further.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reading Federalist 29 makes me laugh...the liberals of our founder's generation faced the very same right wing fear filled fanatics we see today. Always creating monsters to fear...

Hamilton:

"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."

 

[Abatis]

Reading Federalist 29 makes me laugh...

Not surprising given your profound lack of understanding what you are reading.

 

[Bfgrn]

Reading Federalist 29 makes me laugh...

Not surprising given your profound lack of understanding what you are reading.

Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...

 

[Abatis]

Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...

 

[Bfgrn]

Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

The Federalist Papers and the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia PROVE it...

 

[ChrisL]

Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

The Federalist Papers and the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia PROVE it...

That seems awfully patchy, as if they are leaving things out intentionally.

 

[ChrisL]

Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

The Federalist Papers and the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia PROVE it...

Well, this is interesting . . . .

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

 

[ChrisL]

Experience in America prior to the U.S. Constitution

Ideals that helped to inspire the Second Amendment in part are symbolized by the minutemen.[47]
Early English settlers in America viewed the right to arms and/or the right to bear arms and/or state militias as important for one or more of these purposes (in no particular order):[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55]

• enabling the people to organize a militia system.
• participating in law enforcement;
• deterring tyrannical government;[56]
• repelling invasion;
• suppressing insurrection, allegedly including slave revolts;[57][58][59]
• facilitating a natural right of self-defense.

 

[Bfgrn]

Yea, up is down and black is white. You are flailing pal...

AGAIN, I will restate:

The founding fathers opposed a standing army in time of peace. The role of the militia was to protect the state, not protect the citizens from the state. Our Founding Fathers never imagined a well-armed citizenry to keep the American government itself in check. It was all about protecting the American government from both foreign and domestic threats.

The Federalist Papers and the First Congress Debate on Arms and Militia PROVE it...

Well, this is interesting . . . .

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common-law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8]

"civic duty to act in concert in defense OF the state"...not against the state.

U.S. Constitution
(Article 1 - Legislative)

Article 1, Section 8, line 15: To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

Article 1, Section 8, line 16: 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;


Militia Act of 1792
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia

Section 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That whenever the United States shall be invaded, or be in imminent danger of invasion from any foreign nation or Indian tribe, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, to call forth such number of the militia of the state or states most convenient to the place of danger or scene of action as he may judge necessary to repel such invasion, and to issue his orders for that purpose, to such officer or officers of the militia as he shall think proper; and in case of an insurrection in any state, against the government thereof, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States, on application of the legislature of such state, or of the executive (when the legislature cannot be convened) to call forth such number of the militia of any other state or states, as may be applied for, or as he may judge sufficient to suppress such insurrection.

Sec. 2. And be it further enacted, That whenever the laws of the United States shall be opposed or the execution thereof obstructed, in any state, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals by this act, the same being notified to the President of the United States, by an associate justice or the district judge, it shall be lawful for the President of the United States to call forth the militia of such state to suppress such combinations, and to cause the laws to be duly executed. And if the militia of a state, where such combinations may happen, shall refuse, or be insufficient to suppress the same, it shall be lawful for the President, if the legislature of the United States be not in session, to call forth and employ such numbers of the militia of any other state or states most convenient thereto, as may be necessary, and the use of militia, so to be called forth, may be continued, if necessary, until the expiration of thirty days after the commencement of the ensuing session.