View Single Post
Old 09-06-2019, 11:03 AM
Abatis is offline
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Upper Bucks County, PA.
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
The thread topic is what the writers meant, and how it influences current policy. Well, they fucking told us what they meant, didn't they?
Yes they did but you choose to ignore that and take three words, pluck them out and "interpret" them in bias confirming isolation, divorced from the entirety of the framer's explanations.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Your claim was "it has never been inspected to inform or held to direct anything pertaining to militia." Thanks for conceding your error. Thanks also for providing so many other refutations on your own.
And you can not understand that the "object" of the 2nd Amendment, the why the pre-existing, fundamental, never surrendered any aspect of it, right to keep and bear arms is being secured from government interference, speaks to the types of weapons that are held completely immune from government's sticky fingers.

Miller cites Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, at 158,​ directly on this point, Aymette gives us an overview of why the right to arms is secured, the types of arms that are irrevocably protected and some reasoning why some types of arms are not immune from government regulation:

"The object, then, for which the right of keeping and bearing arms is secured is the defence of the public. The free white men may keep arms to protect the public liberty, to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution . . . As the object for which the right to keep and bear arms is secured is of a general and public nature, to be exercised by the people in a body, for their common defence, so the arms the right to keep which is secured are such as are usually employed in civilized warfare, and that constitute the ordinary military equipment. If the citizens have these arms in their hands, they are prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority. They need not, for such a purpose, the use of those weapons which are usually employed in private broils, and which are efficient only in the hands of the robber and the assassin. These weapons would be useless in war. They could not be employed advantageously in the common defence of the citizens. The right to keep and bear them, is not, therefore, secured by the constitution."​

This is why the Miller Court, having only heard the government's arguments because no briefs were filed for Miller's side and there was no appearance at oral arguments explaining any military usefulness for a sawed-off shotgun, said:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."​
The right is not conditioned upon a citizen's militia association, the right is protected in nearly absolute fashion for the types of arms that the citizens would use to "defend the public" -- assuming the government is operating legitimately -- and "to keep in awe those who are in power, and to maintain the supremacy of the laws and the constitution" -- if the government ever begins overstepping its limits. Both of these actions have the people operating in concert (like the right to assemble) but the right is secured individually.

If the government can decree conditions and qualifications on the right as you envision, to the point of saying the right can be restricted, how can the citizens "have these arms in their hands"? How are they "prepared in the best possible manner to repel any encroachments upon their rights by those in authority"?

Sounds to me that what you envision for the right to arms is exactly the kind of "encroachments upon their rights by those in authority" the people should be wary of and be ready to repel.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
"A well-regulated militia ..." Oh, what's the use?
Please explain how the militia (not the people, a distinction you ignore) becomes "well regulated"?

Well, the framers told us, you just refuse to read it, refuse to understand it and refuse to apply it to your consideration on the subject. After explaining what the obligation of having the militia actually be "well regulated" meant to the nation, the conclusion was that requiring the militia to be "well regulated" was unrealistic and "must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable, because (paragraph break added):
"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. 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. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured."
Well, since Hamilton is telling everyone the absurdity for reading the actual militia clauses as demanding the militia be "well regulated", do you see how stupid it is to argue the declaratory clause of the 2nd Amendment, which isn't even a complete sentence, demands it?

The final conclusion on this matter was summed up like this:
"Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
And the people who get to decide that are whom?
Uhhhhh . . . "We the People".

Of course the framers assumed that "We the People" would forever hold the "self-evident truths" as inviolate principles. Now we have people like you energetically arguing that those principles are not only NOT true, but based in kooky BS that has no relevance to your current enlightened condition . . . All in a thread where you present yourself as debating the framers intent. If it wasn't so absurd it would be hilarious.

Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Since you insist on continuing your use of avoidance tactics: Please explain why you distinguish between "the nation" and "the people".
I recognize they can be synonymous in a general sense but I sometimes use "nation" as a moniker for and in the context of the "national authority / national government" and how the interests and desires of the "nation" may not be the same and may even work against the interests and concerns of the "people".

I can see how that might lead to some confusion, noting how it is used in Federalist 29, (which I excerpt above) equating "the nation" with the militia; "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable . . . "

I'll try to avoid conflating these terms in the future and just use, "national government" where I mean national government. Thank you.