What if a Hollyweird director instructed a script writer to pen the same words and then had actor Leonardo DiCaprio read them in front of a camera during the filming of another fictional movie?
Would you belive it then?
Your dismissal of Hartmann solely because he makes a contemporary reference in his article is much more of a dismissal of your argument than his.
Try a substantive argument instead. Respond to this.
Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution reads:
Article II, Section 2 reads:
This is the background against which the BoR was issued. This clearly sets the federal government - the President and Congress - over the militia. The states are given a subsidiary role.
We know this was the intent from the Federalist Papers, especially #29 by Hamilton.
So that’s where the phrase comes from!
Jay’s #4 makes the same point.
It is not the case that “It’s obvious that any state or the federal government can form and arm it’s own militia/army.” In fact, the Constitution expressly forbids any state from doing so. That power is solely reserved to the federal government. Everybody understood that. In fact, Hartmann quotes George Mason as saying “Congress has an exclusive right to arm them [under this proposed Constitution].”
The rest of Hartmann’s conclusions constitute an argument. They may be true or he may be overstating the case. However, it is undoubtedly true that the discussion of the militia prior to the adoption of the Constitution was virtually entirely about federal control over the states, not about individuals. The 2nd Amendment acknowledges the need for a well-regulated militia, but one that is to be a defense force for the country, not a private army to be set upon unfavored individuals.
That’s my argument. Care to respond?
I didn’t dismiss Hartmann’s horse poop “solely” because he made a contemporary reference. Hartman made many mistakes. Too many for anyone to take him seriously.
The BOR was created to reach yet another compromise among the 13 colonies that would enable the colonies to agree to form a single government of UNITED states.
The government could form an army. A navy was already considered a done deal. The first ten Amendments were limits on the government. “The people” were exactly that, the people - NOT the state or government.
One of the four questions before the court in Heller v. DC was whether the D.C. gun ban laws violated the 2nd Amendment rights of individuals who weren’t affiliated with any state-regulated militia(s).
Justice Scalia’s majority view was that the text and history of the 2nd Amendment’s operative clause (i.e. the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed) was controlling. “The people” referred to all members of the community and not to an unspecified group such as the militia. The phrase to “keep and bear arms” meant for individuals to own weapons and carry them and not just in a government military. The term, “the right of the people” referred to a preexisting right of the individual.
The end result was that the DC gun ban was struck down and Heller could own a firearm.
It’s been decided that the 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from denying your individual right to use a firearm for self-defense.
I always defer to current Supreme Court decisions about what the current state of the law is.
But that has nothing whatsoever to do with my questions. So let me lay them out for you.
-
You claimed “It’s obvious that any state … can form and arm it’s own militia/army.” I say that the Constitution expressly forbids this. Agree or disagree? If disagree, please cite evidence.
-
Hartmann’s argument is that the genesis of the 2nd Amendment wording came from a compromise intended as a loophole to allow state militias despite the Constitution’s wording. Agree or disagree? If disagree, please cite evidence.
-
What is the meaning of well-regulated in the term well-regulated militia? Who legally can decide this?
-
Can the government provide restrictions on personal ownership of any weapons at all, including atomic bombs, tanks, missiles, and WMDs?
-
If the government can restrict certain classes of military-grade weapons, then isn’t the sole argument before us ***where ***the government can draw the line, not ***if ***a line can be drawn?
-
If we all agree that lines can be drawn, of what relevance is Heller?
He’s referencing an idea that was mentioned in a recent pop culture reference. Pop culture can make ideas proliferate. So even though the idea was stated in a movie by an actor reading a script, it nevertheless is the expression of an idea that can now circulate in the public’s mind. It doesn’t matter where people get their ideas, it matters what the ideas are. In this case, he’s using the pop culture reference to illuminate his historical point of the slave militias.
Frankly, there are problems with his essay, but this isn’t one of them.
Illinois has a National Guard. If the U.S. Constitution “expressly” forbids this, then the Illinois National Guard has no authorisation or legal justification for it’s existence. Except Illinois didn’t need Federal permission to form a National Guard.
Hartmann’s story has too many mistakes for his version to be taken seriously unless we use the “Even a blind pig can find a truffle” standard.
When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers believed that the “militia” included the all of the people capable of bearing arms. The 2nd Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms was expressly retained by “the people,” not the states. All of the first ten Amendments were the rights of “the people” and not the rights of any state.
Article VI of the Articles of Confederation said, “…every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of filed pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage." The articles of Confederation provided for the former colonies to maintain (equip, train, shelter, and feed) their own government militias.”
Government militias were a subset of “the people”. The State could form a militia. The State wasn’t in control of every militia.
The Framers were well aware that the British government believed it could disarm “the people” at will. The first shots of the Revelutionary War began over the British government’s attempt to confiscate the British subject’s arms stored at Lexington and Concord. Over 700 British soldiers began the march but required another 900 British soldiers in order to return to Boston without being shot to pieces. The militiamen who engaged the British soldiers were not a government militia. They were farmers, farriers, shopkeepers, tinsmiths, and anyone else who owned their own firearm, powder, ball, and flint. “Come on boys. Grab your guns and head for the road to Concord. The Redcoats are coming and there’s plenty of targets for everyone. Good shootin’ and best of luck.”
Now we come to the relevence of Heller. The events that ended in a decision in favor of Heller began when DC decided that the 2nd only applied to a government militia or military. DC residents couldn’t own unregistered handguns and DC refused to register newly owned handguns. Shelly Parker, Dick Heller, and several others filed suit against DC’s law. Parker V. DC was decided in favor of the 2nd amendment being a right of individuals and the case was remanded back to the lower court.
Appellants contest the district court’s dismissal of their complaint alleging that the District of Columbia’s gun control laws violate their Second Amendment rights. The court held that the Second Amendment (“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”) does not bestow any rights on individuals except, perhaps, when an individual serves in an organized militia such as today’s National Guard. WE REVERSE.
After Parker was remanded back to the lower court, Parker v. DC became Heller v. DC.
Heller asked the SCOTUS to address four questions. One of those questions concerned the right of the individual to own firearms. Can the government force firearm owners to lock up their firearms or make manditory the use of trigger locks was another. Heller won. The 2nd guarenteed the right of the indivdual to own firearms and the government can’t force you to disable a firearm that was intended for self defense.
National Guard units are organized pursuant to the federal Militia Act of 1903, as amended.
- Am I surprised that none of my direct questions were answered?
And Han Solo shot at Greedo first. It’s Hollyweird. Hollyweird is not know for being historically accurate. Why bother with the Hollyweird version of anything when there are documented histories available? Hollyweird’s priority is “entertainment” not facts.
Did Paul Revere warn the British soldiers that they would be facing armed resistance on their way to Lexington and Concord? According to the movies, the answer is no. According to Revere’s written statement, he did. Decisions, decisions. Which one should I believe?
*Letter from Paul Revere to Jeremy Belknap, circa 1798
[Page 4]
I observed a Wood at a Small distance, & made for that.
When I got there, out Started Six officers, on Horse back,
and orderd me to dismount;-one of them, who appeared
to have the command, examined me, where I came from,
& what my Name Was? I told him. it was Revere, he as-
ked if it was Paul? I told him yes He asked me if
I was an express? I answered in the afirmative. He
demanded what time I left Boston? I told him; and
aded, that their troops had catched aground in passing the River,
and that There would be five hundred Americans there
in a short time, for I had alarmed the Country all the way up.
…Thus, Sir, I have endeavoured to give you a
Short detail of some matters, of which perhaps no person but
my self have have documents, or knowledge. I have men
tioned some names which you are aquainted with: I wish
you would Ask them, if they can remember the Circumstances
I alude to.
I am, Sir, with every Sentment
of esteem,
Your Humble Servant,
Paul Revere*
Hahahaha. They were answered but I suppose I could find a Hollyweird script writer to rephase my post for ya.
6) If we all agree that lines can be drawn, of what relevance is Heller?
The SCOTUS addressed the 2nd Amendment right of the individual to own firearms. The SCOTUS had considered the original intention and meaning of the 2nd. The SCOTUS found that the 2nd is an individual right. The federal enclave of DC had unconstitutionally banned handguns. The SCOTUS reaffirmed and incorporated that ruling in McDonald v. the City of Chicago.
Random aside: the version of the amendment passed by House, Senate and States prevents infringing on the right to bear arms of the “People” (same usage as in the preamble to the constitution). The version preserved by Lambert describes the right of the “people”.
You’re apparently as bad at bolding as with history. I’ve corrected it for you. Do you agree that the government can determine what weapons are acceptable?
And you could try answering the other five questions as well.
Hint. You need to do some research on the Militia Act of 1903 and subsequent laws before you post more talking points about militias.
I believe it’s frowned upon to modify a quote altering it’s original intention. I highlighted “of what relevance is Heller?” because that was what I was addressing.
“Subsequent laws”? Subsequent to the Declaration of Independence or to the ratification of the U.S. Constitution?
Was the 2nd Amendment originally established as an individual right? Are the first ten Amendments individual rights? Do you consider the first ten Amendments to be rights of the State/government? Do you believe that the 1st and 3rd thru 10th are individual rights but the 2nd is a right of the State?
Since the 2nd is considered an individual right, why should the government decide what “arms” (knives, clubs, tomahawks, bow and arrows, slingshot, slingshot, spear, shotguns, pistols, rifles) are acceptable, assuming you’re not a felon or crazy person, for you to use to defend yourself or your family?
However, HOW did the colonies cast off their own government in the Revolution? Did they do so as a bunch of unorganized individuals? NO. The colonists formed shadow governments called “Committees of Public Safety”. THESE were in control of the local militia. The men and boys who stood on Lexington green were under control of the local Committee of Public Safety. The redcoats were on their way to Concord to get the local government’s weapons – specifically cannon and gunpowder. During the Revolutionary War, the state governments – NOT the Continental Congress – would call out the state militias. These would be officered by men given officer’s commissions by that state government. The militia would serve for a day – like Lexington and Concord – or for up to 3 months – like the New York, Mass., and New Hampshire militias that showed up at Saratoga. Then the men would go home. I like the way Cecil phrased the 2nd Ammendment:
“Since we as a nation have found it necessary to organize citizen militias to defend against tyranny and may be compelled to do so again, and since these militias are necessarily composed of volunteers supplying their own weapons, the right of individuals to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This is more, IMO, what the framers of the Constitution meant when they wrote the Ammendment. This is their experience. The citizen militias were organized by local governments. So there was government organization. Just not the national government. When the Civil War started, the first units were state militia regiments – equipped by the states – that were sent off to federal service.
The closest equivalent we have today is the National Guard. The guard in individual states can be called out by the governor of that state. However, it is more integrated with the national army than the militias in 1778 and 1861. This is because military technology has changed and individuals cannot anymore afford to own real military grade weapons. Yes, some individuals can afford assault rifles, but only the extremely rich can afford artillery, machine guns, tanks, APCs, fighter jets, jet bombers, antiaircraft missiles anti-tank missiles etc. Therefore the day of the Minutemen standing up to a professional army like Lexington is gone. Any of our “patriots” trying to use their assault rifles against a Bradley IFV would be dead in 30 seconds or less.
So in reality the guns are used for target shooting, hunting, murder, or mass shootings now. They are going to be useless for withstanding a foreign invasion (Red Dawn is fiction). We need to recognize that the linchpin is gone. Now our linchpin is the fact that the military takes its oath to the Constitution, not the President, and that the military is strong. If the military goes over to tyranny and supports a tyrannical President, the armed citizenry with the arms we own today isn’t going to help. Having a Bushmaster .223 isn’t going to help when an Abrams tank puts an HE round into your house.
Dude, those are **my **words. I can alter them any way I like. In our reality, however, all I did was exactly what you did, put a bold around a phrase. Which is legitimate or I could have called *you *on it.
Again, in any recognizable reality the reference is obviously to the Militia Act of 1903. You keep stating wrongly what the state can do with militias. Their actual legal history is complicated and you would do well to learn a bit of it.
Again, in our reality this is a settled matter of law. You cannot own a great many military-grade weapons. Period. That was question #4. If you think that individuals can own “atomic bombs, tanks, missiles, and WMDs” trot out the legislation or case law that allows it. There have been 224 years of law in this country and Heller is one data point, not the be-all and end-all. You’re making claims. Let’s see the cites.
Indeed, it can.
Now, if someone could explain what Paul Revere and Hollywood have to do with the topic at hand I’d appreciate it.
Hollyweird and Revere were responses to the linked article in post #4 that referrenced a performance by DiCaprio. Hartmann believes that words spoken by actors are historically accurate. I believe that Hollyweird is historically hysterical .
You altered my quote and even admitted “correcting” it for me. Remember when you said, “You’re apparently as bad at bolding as with history. I’ve corrected it for you”.
The Militia Act of 1903 wasn’t in effect in 1791. There were militias in the 13 colonies.
Well, since we agree that the 2nd is the right of an individual, I think it’s unfortunate that the SCOTUS didn’t fully address the regulatory part. They left that for a future SCOTUS case.
What will that case consist of? Magazine capacity? I think that issue is definately headed towards the SCOTUS. Restricting magazine capacity is like government mandated trigger locks. The firearm could be rendered inadequate or useless for self-defense. Government mandated trigger locks are a thing of the past. How many rounds would an honest, law-abiding citizen need against multiple armed felons carrying illegal, extra large capacity magazines?
Then there is this new Democrat Party ploy about requiring insurance coverage for gun owners. Requiring insurance to own a firearm reminds of charging a fee for voting. You have a 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm but you can’t own your firearm without paying the government mandated insurance fee/tax - therefore the government uncontitutionally restricts your 2nd Amendment right to own a firearm???
Bolding or italicising is within the board rules.
Several rounds of dozapine should do the trick.
Well, there’s no positive right to vote for a citizen enumerated in the constitution. Nor is requiring car insurance considered a restriction on the right of citizens to freely assemble.
Bolding added.
This obsession is becoming farcical. And your reporting of it is factually wrong, continuing your long streak.
And we also know this was true long after the BoR was passed. Real history books tell us so. Like 1877: America’s Year of Living Violently by Michael A. Bellesiles. He starts by discussing the horrific 1876 election campaign.
Southern militias were formed before the Revolutionary War to harass and control slaves. They continued to do so for the next century until the Civil War. After the war they used the same tactics against freedmen. If somebody were to write a book about it, they might call it An Inconvenient Truth. Hey, see what I did there? I made a cultural reference. Did I just undermine my whole case? (Answer: no.)
But doorhinge seems determined not to answer any direct questions. I’ll try this one again, since it remains pertinent to his last posting.
If you think that individuals can own “atomic bombs, tanks, missiles, and WMDs” trot out the legislation or case law that allows it.