Why does the President have armed guards?

[eflatminor]

Ah Matt; you missed the part about why? Whoduh thunk?

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.

So what's a well regulated militia? Maybe what types of weapons they should have? Where and how they might be used? Imagine that. Not the just guvmint regulation. WELL REGULATED!!!

Well regulated means well armed. And this is settled law. You don't have to be in a militia (though it would be easy to form them) to have the right to bear arms. Good gravy you guys couldn't be this thick.

Correct. And in musicology, E flat, means driveling idiot.

BTW,

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[120] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[121]

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:


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."[48]


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.[48]


"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence 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...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48]

Note that Al Hamilton used "armed" as in how-so-armed. (read: Uniformitiy). You sure you want Al's take on that? Hmmm?

Sure. Even Hamilton understood the people should be uniformly armed, just like the standing army. So, you want to make everyone have M16s, be my guest.

 

[Koios]

Every abled male could part of the militia in the days of the founders.

No argument. But then, they should all be WELL REGULATED!!! (pursuant to the 2A)

I doubt you understand what Well Regulated meant in the 1700s. The usage back then meant to properly function or operate - and had nothing to do with the modern "government regulation".

It meant uniformly armed, according to Al Hamilton. Meanwhile, the SCOTUS interp is essentially "imposition of proper discipline and training."

Doubt removed? Or shall I go on?

 

[Koios]

Well regulated means well armed. And this is settled law. You don't have to be in a militia (though it would be easy to form them) to have the right to bear arms. Good gravy you guys couldn't be this thick.

Correct. And in musicology, E flat, means driveling idiot.

BTW,

The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[120] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."[121]

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:


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."[48]


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.[48]


"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence 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...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48]

Note that Al Hamilton used "armed" as in how-so-armed. (read: Uniformitiy). You sure you want Al's take on that? Hmmm?

Sure. Even Hamilton understood the people should be uniformly armed, just like the standing army. So, you want to make everyone have M16s, be my guest.

Sure. Pick a gun. Go hog wild. Then make all others illegal to own.

That work for ya?

 

[eflatminor]

The Religious believe that if you do not accept that they are endowed on us by a creator, that they can easily be taken away. I reject that, out of hand. For obvious reasons to anyone with a lick of sense.

The religious can believe whatever they like. It makes no difference to the Constitution. Even atheists like myself are born with rights that no government official can take away without due process. That's the point.

 

[Barb]

Ford's Theater. Dallas. Washington Hilton Hotel. The Ambassador Hotel . Pick one.

 

[G.T.]

The Religious believe that if you do not accept that they are endowed on us by a creator, that they can easily be taken away. I reject that, out of hand. For obvious reasons to anyone with a lick of sense.

The religious can believe whatever they like. It makes no difference to the Constitution. Even atheists like myself are born with rights that no government official can take away without due process. That's the point.

It makes it more philosophical, and less absolute though.

 

[eflatminor]

Correct. And in musicology, E flat, means driveling idiot.

BTW,



Note that Al Hamilton used "armed" as in how-so-armed. (read: Uniformitiy). You sure you want Al's take on that? Hmmm?

Sure. Even Hamilton understood the people should be uniformly armed, just like the standing army. So, you want to make everyone have M16s, be my guest.

Sure. Pick a gun. Go hog wild. Then make all others illegal to own.

That work for ya?

It would be a lot more than one gun. M16s, Beretta 9mms, 1911 .45s, 50 caliber rifles, etc. Our standing army has LOTS of firearms. By your reasoning, we should all have them...uniformly. So yea, that works for me.

 

[eflatminor]

The Religious believe that if you do not accept that they are endowed on us by a creator, that they can easily be taken away. I reject that, out of hand. For obvious reasons to anyone with a lick of sense.

The religious can believe whatever they like. It makes no difference to the Constitution. Even atheists like myself are born with rights that no government official can take away without due process. That's the point.

It makes it more philosophical, and less absolute though.

The Constitution makes it absolute in practice. Either way, it is the law of the land. You want to argue that in the absence of a Constitution, rights are not inalienable? Go right ahead, it does not matter to me when it's the law we live under.

 

[G.T.]

The religious can believe whatever they like. It makes no difference to the Constitution. Even atheists like myself are born with rights that no government official can take away without due process. That's the point.

It makes it more philosophical, and less absolute though.

The Constitution makes it absolute in practice. Either way, it is the law of the land. You want to argue that in the absence of a Constitution, rights are not inalienable? Go right ahead, it does not matter to me when it's the law we live under.

Oh geez.

Anyhoo, have a good night.

 

[Koios]

Sure. Even Hamilton understood the people should be uniformly armed, just like the standing army. So, you want to make everyone have M16s, be my guest.

Sure. Pick a gun. Go hog wild. Then make all others illegal to own.

That work for ya?

It would be a lot more than one gun. M16s, Beretta 9mms, 1911 .45s, 50 caliber rifles, etc. Our standing army has LOTS of firearms. By your reasoning, we should all have them...uniformly. So yea, that works for me.

Actually; it would bar any of us from having anything everyone else does not have, military included. So no tanks, if M16s and side arms are what we think oughta be.

Meanwhile, since, well, you're a Righty, and thus prone to grabbing snippets that ya'll think is the killer app, only to embarrass yourselves due to abject ignorance of the context, some stuff to think about ...

1. Al was Treas-Sec, and perhaps not the Righties' best choice of whom to worship. He not only replaced state-level bank notes with a federal currency, he invented our first federal tax and made it progressive.

2. You're idiots. So when Rush says "here's a question Libs cannot answer" it's for your consumption and comforting. Don't ask it of an actual Lib. You'll be bitch-slapped.

Just sayin'

 

[eflatminor]

Sure. Pick a gun. Go hog wild. Then make all others illegal to own.

That work for ya?

It would be a lot more than one gun. M16s, Beretta 9mms, 1911 .45s, 50 caliber rifles, etc. Our standing army has LOTS of firearms. By your reasoning, we should all have them...uniformly. So yea, that works for me.

Actually; it would bar any of us from having anything everyone else does not have, military included. So no tanks, if M16s and side arms are what we think oughta be.

Then tanks it is. You dug yourself in this hole. Good luck getting out.

Meanwhile, since, well, you're a Righty

Nope, not even close. There rest of your post was drivel at best...

 

[Koios]

It would be a lot more than one gun. M16s, Beretta 9mms, 1911 .45s, 50 caliber rifles, etc. Our standing army has LOTS of firearms. By your reasoning, we should all have them...uniformly. So yea, that works for me.

Actually; it would bar any of us from having anything everyone else does not have, military included. So no tanks, if M16s and side arms are what we think oughta be.

Then tanks it is. You dug yourself in this hole. Good luck getting out.

Meanwhile, since, well, you're a Righty

Nope, not even close. There rest of your post was drivel at best...

I have no problem with that. Buy any tank you think fits comfortably in your shoulder holster, and then we'll grab up all the guns, rifles, cross-bows, knives, etc, etc.

Where do I go to sign the petition?

 

[eflatminor]

Actually; it would bar any of us from having anything everyone else does not have, military included. So no tanks, if M16s and side arms are what we think oughta be.

Then tanks it is. You dug yourself in this hole. Good luck getting out.

Meanwhile, since, well, you're a Righty

Nope, not even close. There rest of your post was drivel at best...

I have no problem with that. Buy any tank you think fits comfortably in your shoulder holster, and then we'll grab up all the guns, rifles, cross-bow, knives, etc, etc.

Where do I go to sign the petition?

Sorry, we'd get 'em all. Whatever the standing army has, we get. That was YOUR argument. Don't back off it now by suggesting Hamilton was limiting a regulated militia to ONE weapon per citizen. That's bullshit and you know it.

 

[Koios]

Then tanks it is. You dug yourself in this hole. Good luck getting out.



Nope, not even close. There rest of your post was drivel at best...

I have no problem with that. Buy any tank you think fits comfortably in your shoulder holster, and then we'll grab up all the guns, rifles, cross-bow, knives, etc, etc.

Where do I go to sign the petition?

Sorry, we'd get 'em all. Whatever the standing army has, we get. That was YOUR argument. Don't back off it now by suggesting Hamilton was limiting a regulated militia to ONE weapon per citizen. That's bullshit and you know it.

No need to apologize. I can separate Al's thoughts on shit from rulings by the SCOTUS which establish legal precedents.

Just playing along, with, essentially, what if we were all righty retards and Treas-Secs decided what the Con means. Always fun to play "what if" to show just how remarkably ignorant some folks are.

But this is played out. Have a nice New Year.

XO,
-K

 

[uscitizen]

Just wondering

I nominate this for stupit post of the year.

 

[Warrior102]

Just wondering

I nominate this for stupit post of the year.

You get "Fake Vet" of the year honors, asswipe.

 

[Politico]

Just wondering

No you're not. You're trolling.

 

[eflatminor]

I have no problem with that. Buy any tank you think fits comfortably in your shoulder holster, and then we'll grab up all the guns, rifles, cross-bow, knives, etc, etc.

Where do I go to sign the petition?

Sorry, we'd get 'em all. Whatever the standing army has, we get. That was YOUR argument. Don't back off it now by suggesting Hamilton was limiting a regulated militia to ONE weapon per citizen. That's bullshit and you know it.

No need to apologize. I can separate Al's thoughts on shit from rulings by the SCOTUS which establish legal precedents.

Just playing along, with, essentially, what if we were all righty retards and Treas-Secs decided what the Con means. Always fun to play "what if" to show just how remarkably ignorant some folks are.

But this is played out. Have a nice New Year.

XO,
-K

First, it was Hamilton's interpretation. Now, we're back to SCOUTUS rulings.

Played out indeed.

 

[del]

Just wondering

I nominate this for stupit post of the year.

You get "Fake Vet" of the year honors, asswipe.

you're stepping down, warbler?

 

[P@triot]

Just wondering

I nominate this for stupit post of the year.

In other words, he made a point which you have zero counter argument for...