Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
"Whereas civil-rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as 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 article in their right to keep and bear their private arms."
— Tench Coxe, in Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution
"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed."
— Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188
It was to be regularized, distributed, ubiquitous, everywhere, ever vigilant. Its framers had just fought a war against despots who--like all authoritarians--restricted effective self defense (as Commonwealth nations still do today).
The guns are the first items that tyrants historically attempt to grab.
You and other federalists, past and present, can later call a state guard a "militia" all you want, co-opting and usurping the original meaning.
It remains that a state guard is a fully military component, whereas a militia is not. There were no statist military farm leagues in the Framers' time anyway. There certainly was not a standing army, which the Founders warned against.
You and other federalists, then as now, can call a state guard a "militia" all you want, co-opting and usurping the original meaning.
What an idiotic, uninformed interpretation of the Militia Act of 1792. Do you really believe the 2nd Congress of the United States was somehow attempting to "usurp the original meaning" of the Second Amendment by passing it? Have you any understanding of the circumstances which prompted its passage?
More to the point, do you think I was arguing with you by posting that link? You titled this thread " The 2nd's drafters said militia "is the whole people, except for a few public officials." It means 'like the military.' Okay then: what, if anything in the Militia Act of 1792 do you find that conflicts with that?
What an idiotic, uninformed interpretation of the Militia Act of 1792. Do you really believe the 2nd Congress of the United States was somehow attempting to "usurp the original meaning" of the Second Amendment by passing it? Have you any understanding of the circumstances which prompted its passage?
More to the point, do you think I was arguing with you by posting that link? You titled this thread " The 2nd's drafters said militia "is the whole people, except for a few public officials." It means 'like the military.' Okay then: what, if anything in the Militia Act of 1792 do you find that conflicts with that?
If the president is the state entity's Commander in Chief, then it's not militia. That's the intention of the Amendment's drafters.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What an idiotic, uninformed interpretation of the Militia Act of 1792. Do you really believe the 2nd Congress of the United States was somehow attempting to "usurp the original meaning" of the Second Amendment by passing it? Have you any understanding of the circumstances which prompted its passage?