NO CHARGES after Mother accidentally shoots son in the head while hugging.

LOL Good post! Made me laugh out loud!

 

That's true, it's not the Constitution... It's the words of the founding fathers explaining exactly what they meant when the used the term "well regulated militia" in the Constitution.

- - - Updated - - -

Me too!

 

You should do some more reading and really understand what they meant about the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Umm, correct me if wrong but the Militia Act of 1792 enabled the President to assume control of any existing militias for an array of circumstances, basically like like a draft of sorts. In no way did it have anything to do with the 2nd Amendment and did not have anything to do with reiterating what "well regulated" meant.

 

By all means, feel free to highlight exactly which publication is better at explaining the intent of the founding fathers than the writings of the founding fathers.

 

You're partially correct. The exact wording is linked below.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

The first 3 sections (as passed on 5/2/1792) highlight the purpose of the militia and the ability of the President to control the militia.
The remaining 7 sections deal with the regulation and structure of the militia.

The additional standards passed on 5/8/1792 give further information on the "draft" (as you put it) in the first 2 sections. The remaining 8 sections detail regulation and structure.

 

Exactly. You should do some reading.

 

Let me get this straight...
You seem to be saying that I should stop focusing on what the actual founding fathers said, and focus more on what other people (with agendas) believe the founding fathers said... but at the same time, you can't (or won't) highlight anyone more credible than the founding fathers when it comes to this topic of discussion...

In what universe does that make sense?
Clearly, in your attempted to (a) be dismissive of any rational position that you don't want to hear while (b) sounding well-read; you're just managing to come across as illogical.

 

You seem to want to pick and choose what sayings of the Founders you wish to accept.

 

Which of their "sayings" have I rejected in relation to the formation of a 'well regulated militia'?

 

LOL, no you should focus on what the Framers actually said instead of focusing on your interpretation of what you want them to say.

 

It seems only one of us has actually taken the time to read what they said about the militia, despite my having provided the link numerous times... Here it is again: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

I wonder why you're choosing not to read it...?

Clearly, the Framers established a clear chain of command, required regular training, had an "individual mandate" requiring members to have specific arms, etc... None of which is adhered to in today's "militia".

Additionally, how many pro-gun "militia members" today seem to believe the purpose of the militia is to allow for overthrow of the government (simply because they don't like the President or his policies), whereas the Framers clearly indicated their purpose was to combat exactly that type of insurrection.

 

You certainly failed to comment on the quote I provided by Tench Coxe.

BTW, the militia was not the primary reason for the yoemanry to be armed. The soonest you come to grips with that, you will be better off.

 

It seems only one of us has actually taken the time to read what they said about keeping and bearing arms. Just sayin.

 

Quoting the thoughts of one individual - and ignoring the structure collaboratively put in place by the Framers - is not rational.

If someone in 200 years quotes Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" comments as evidence of the beliefs of ALL politicians in the early 21st century, they would clearly be wrong. Looking at today's legislation is a far better source of the issues supported by today's politicians as a whole.

Similarly, looking at the what the Founders put in place is a better source of their priorities as a whole than quoting any one individual, especially since so many people tend to make false quotes.
http://edition.cnn.com/2013/01/11/opinion/jefferson-fake-gun-quotation/

You're right, there were many reasons for people to be armed in those days... Dealings with native americans, controlling slave labor, etc.

 

People are still dealing with Native Americans, which I would guess you are one of as opposed to indigenous peoples.

 

Yeah, that "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."

I can understand why some simple minded folks only pay attention to the part after the comma... much less fail to find out what the first part actually means.

 

I don't think people deal with Native Americans (or indigenous people, or whatever term you choose) in the same way they used to. After all, it's been awhile now since any biological weapons were used against them.
http://academic.udayton.edu/health/syllabi/bioterrorism/00intro02.htm

 

Like I said, you should do some reading.

I understand that some people do not understand the reason it was written the way it was and only focus on the first clause and ignore the second for their own agenda in spite of the history of bearing arms in defense of the people. For instance, the New Hampshire’s convention requested the following addition to the Constitution:

“Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.”

Antifederalists in Pennsylvania’s wanted an amendment to, requesting the following be agreed upon:

“That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals…”

Three different states, New York, Rhode Island, and Virginia, each required similar proposals and their requests included these exact words: “That the people have a right to keep and bear arms”.

That the founding fathers wanted the right to keep and bear arms protected was obvious. They believed that the militia was the only real defense against liberty. They didn’t trust standing armies or their government — they wanted a country that really was just “the people” with the power, in the end.

It was Richard Henry Lee who wrote the following in The Pennsylvania Gazette in 1788:

“To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.”

Patrick Henry, the man who spoke fire for the cause of liberty, said in the constitutional debates:

“The great object is that every man be armed.”

Alexander Hamilton, the “liberal” of the day, wrote in The Federalist Papers at 184-188 that:

“The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.”

Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to William Smith in 1787:

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.”

Statesman Zachariah Johnson, at the Virginia convention in 1788, explained in no uncertain terms what the Second Amendment protects:

“The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full possession of them.”

The Philadelphia Federal Gazette published the following discussing the Second Amendment:

“… the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.”

Sam Adams on the Second Amendment:

“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms…”

James Madison, who is known as the “Father of the Constitution” wrote the following in the Federalist Papers, No. 46:

“[The Constitution preserves] the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation…[where] the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.”

John Adams wrote in “A Defence of the Constitutions of the United States” that the right to keep and bear arms was an individual right, but that military action had to be sanctioned by the laws, of course — not just any “revolution” would be legal, of course. He explains explicitly:

To suppose arms in the hands of citizens, to be used at individual discretion, except in private self-defense, or by partial orders of towns, countries or districts of a state, is to demolish every constitution, and lay the laws prostrate, so that liberty can be enjoyed by no man; it is a dissolution of the government. The fundamental law of the militia is, that it be created, directed and commanded by the laws, and ever for the support of the laws.”

This is a limit on the militia — not a limit on gun ownership itself. In other words, you have the right to own firearms, but not to just shoot anyone you want or start a coup because you’re restless. This is just common sense, and even the most radical pro-gun thinkers would agree with such a limit. Your right to shoot guns ends where the property of others begins — that’s just how it works.

 

The militia act of 1792 and the 2nd Amendment are mutually exclusive. The militia act's powers are granted from Article 1, Section 8.

The use of the term "regulate" in the 18th century meant for something to be in proper working order, fine tuned--which comes from an18th century dictionary. You cannot make an argument about the 2nd Amendment without addressing the prefatory clause and the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment.

An example of the use of the term "regulated" in the 18th century in the context of guns and the militia by George Washington:

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.​

- - - Updated - - -

The militia act of 1792 and the 2nd Amendment are mutually exclusive. The militia act's powers are granted from Article 1, Section 8.

The use of the term "regulate" in the 18th century meant for something to be in proper working order, fine tuned--which comes from an18th century dictionary. You cannot make an argument about the 2nd Amendment without addressing the prefatory clause and the operative clause of the 2nd Amendment.

An example of the use of the term "regulated" in the 18th century in the context of guns and the militia by George Washington:

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.​

 

Don't like one Founder, try several;

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress have no
power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible
implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . .
the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either
the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will
ever remain, in the hands of the people." --- Tench Coxe-The
Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before
them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which
must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert
their power to the injury of their fellow-citizens, the people are
confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear
their private arms." --- Tench Coxe (1755–1824), writing as
"A Pennsylvanian," in "Remarks On The First Part Of The
Amendments To The Federal Constitution," in the Philadelphia
Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789, p. 2 col. 1


"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every
one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will
preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force,
you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to
punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!"

- Patrick Henry
"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing
degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own
defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under
our own possession and under our own direction, and having them
under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real
object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted
with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

-- Patrick Henry [3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State
conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836]

"The great object is, that every man be armed."

-- Patrick Henry

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a
well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained
to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..."

-- George Mason

"To disarm the people (is) the best and most effectual way to
enslave them."

-- George Mason 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

"... who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country...
? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole
people, except a few public officers."

-- George Mason Elliot, Debates at 425-426:


George Mason was the father of the Bill of Rights, first publishing them in June of 1776 in the Virginia Bill of Rights. I propose if anyone knew what our rights were, it was George Mason, who, BTW, was considered the premier constitutionalists of his day and one of the premier statesman.

 

Logician, I would strongly suggest you are wrapped up in your interpretation of The Second Amendment to the exclusion of conflicting opinions such as this;

"The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon.... f the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order." [emphasis added]
-- Thomas M. Cooley (1824-189,
Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court and author of the leading nineteenth-century works on constitutional law.

The above pretty much agrees with my opinion, expressed here, that because the people were already armed, the militias could exist. The were not first a member of the militia before they could be armed.

 

I also take this opportunity to direct you to an acclaimed expert on language. It might be enlightening to you.

The Unabridged Second Amendment

http://hematite.com/dragon/Schulman.html

 

Given that none of those quotes indicates the milita should not be "well regulated", and most of these people were exempt from militia service, I fail to see your point. Please clarify.

While you're at it, please decide whether you believe people convicted of violent felonies should be allowed to be armed.

 

You're right that there are several possible meanings for the term "well regulated".
It could mean "well trained". It could mean "well administered". It could mean "fully functional, suited to fulfill it's purpose". That quote from George Washington doesn't provide any additional clarity.

The Militia Act of 1792 clearly outlined what a "well regulated" militia looks like, in the eyes of the founding fathers. What we have doday isn't "well regulated" by any resonable definition.
In the 2A, the founding fathers referred to a well regulated militia. In the Militia Act, they spelled out what a well regulated militia consisted of. I don't understand what makes you believe that these could be unrelated "mutually exclusive" concepts.