View Single Post
  #208  
Old 09-05-2019, 05:29 PM
Abatis is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
I'd rather not, if it's all the same to you. But you are at least the second person in this thread, who is clearly a gun rights advocate, who has impressed the duty of lobbying for a 'functional citizen militia' on someone who is clearly opposed to the idea of immutable gun rights. So I put the question back to you and yours: Why have you not lobbied the congress to re-instate a well-regulated militia in line with the letter and spirit of the 2nd A of the Constitution?
Why would I do that? I don't need any militia attachment or association to exercise the right to arms. The only entities that are impacted or damaged from the lack of a citizen militia are the state or federal governments. The entities that should have complained are state governments since their self defense and ability to keep civil order during emergencies is what is being impacted.

That there wasn't a huge uproar from the states about the Dick Act, and legal action with them as the plaintiffs claiming the immunities of the 2nd Amendment, sure does belie the "state's right" perversion inserted in the federal courts in 1942, in Cases v U.S. Reality of course is that the "state's right" theory was dead before it was hatched; the Dick Act became law in 1903 and the final nail in state militia powers' coffin was driven in 1916 with the National Defense Act.

When Congress chose to obliterate state militia powers, they did give the states lovely parting gifts of "State Defensive Forces" that the states would fund and organize according to laws and regulations they establish. Neither State Defensive Forces nor the federalized State Guard are Art I, 8, cl's 15 & 16 militia, both are authorized under, and what's now the National Guard is organized and provided for under Art I, 8, cl's 12 & 14.

There is no "letter" of the 2ndA to be obeyed by the people; as SCOTUS has said, "[t]his is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government". It is absurd to argue that the 2nd Amendment creates nebulous government defined demands upon "the People", when "the People" are who the 2ndA was enacted to protect from federal government powers.

The "spirit" of the 2nd Amendment is that it does not really "do" anything at all but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted. It simply reminds government that it can't do what it was never allowed to do . . . IOW, "We the People" don't possess the right to arms because the 2nd Amendment is there; "We the People" possess the right because "We the People" never granted to the federal government, any power that would allow it to infringe, to permit any interest in the personal arms of the private citizen.

The federal and state governments certainly did have an interest in the one gun a citizen who was liable to perform militia duty and enrolled in their militia, chose to muster with when called. That's where the government interest, oversight and control begins, and ends. And that interest existed and was enforceable from powers emanating from Art I, 8, cl's 15 & 16, not the 2nd Amendment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by QuickSilver View Post
As well it should! But since neither thoughts nor prayers are likely to have any effect on bringing about such a fantastic occurrence, that frees us up to continue to lobby for socio-political change with respect to gun laws.
How does the realization that actually following the process set-out in the Constitution (to modify the Constitution to allow government to restrict the right to arms) is a false hope, . . . morph into "freeing you up" to use other means to limit or restrain a pre-existing, fundamental right of the people that is recognized and secured in the Constitution?

.

Last edited by Abatis; 09-05-2019 at 05:33 PM.