Amira writes: "Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson claimed that 100-round magazines of ammunition - like the one used by Aurora gunman James Holmes - were a constitutionally protected right."
Police crime scene tape around the Century 16 theater complex in Aurora, Colorado, 07/20/12. (photo: unknown)
|
THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community. |
Comments
We are concerned about a recent drift towards vitriol in the RSN Reader comments section. There is a fine line between moderation and censorship. No one likes a harsh or confrontational forum atmosphere. At the same time everyone wants to be able to express themselves freely. We'll start by encouraging good judgment. If that doesn't work we'll have to ramp up the moderation.
General guidelines: Avoid personal attacks on other forum members; Avoid remarks that are ethnically derogatory; Do not advocate violence, or any illegal activity.
Remember that making the world better begins with responsible action.
- The RSN Team
Hamilton and Madison encounter each other:
J-Mad, what's up?
Hey, Hammie.
Look, man, the 2nd Amendment isn't ready yet. It just says we need a well-regulated militia, but it doesn't say why.
Chill, Hammie. Everyone knows we need it for frontier skirmishes and most particularly in case of slave uprisings. We can't depend on the Continental Army to haul out to some plantation on a moment's notice.
Not so fast, Jimbo. I thought it was because we want the people to be able to kill federal officers.
What!? We're going to be federal officers! I'm not writing that horse crap into the job-description!
I take your point. Let's just leave it with the slave uprisings. Love to Dolley.
Militia Acts:
The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 (current extended health could push that to 55 or 60) into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to REPORT FOR TRAINING twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.
The militias were divided into "divisions, brigades, regiments, battalions, and companies" as the state legislatures would direct.[6] The provisions of the first Act governing the calling up of the militia by the President in case of invasion or obstruction to law enforcement were continued in the second Act.[7] Court martial proceedings were authorized by the statute against militia members who disobeyed orders.[8] (!!!!!!)
That's from Wikipedia on the Militia Acts. In other words, militia-r-us, not some nutcase living in a cave up on the mountain.
The question of whether Englishmen should have the right to bear arms, meaning military weapons, was heavily fraught in context of the violent, bloody revolutions of 1649-60 and 1776-83. When the Bill of Rights was drafted, the terms of the question were clarified so as to make clear that the right to bear arms was expressly not intended to mean that anyone could have a weapon to use in any way he saw fit without any regulatory constraint. If the Framers had wanted to say something like that, they certainly had the eloquence to do so.
As I remember the discussions that I read about the debates of the Continental Congress, the right to bear arms was about having a standing militia that would be disolved after any conflict (much cheaper than today's military) and to protect the Nation against any Gov't that might seize power and instate a Monarchy, a Theocracy or a Dictatorship. That actually works for me because we are getting awfully close to those very things happening. We are in a time where a faint heart will not secure the Republic.
By foreign invasion? It's possible, so Article I, Section 8 gives Congress power to declare war, to raise armies and a navy, and to call up militias in defense.
By rebellion or insurrection? The Framers foresaw these possibilities, too, and they made those things expressly unconstitutiona l in Article I, Section 8 and Section 9. In fact, far from being authorized to oppose the federal government, the militias are specifically placed at the command of that government:
"[Congress shall have the power] To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States …"
By popular election? Yep. That's the one constitutionall y authorized way to "seize power" in the US, and there's no provision in the Constitution to depose an elected government by force of arms. That's what the document itself calls rebellion and insurrection.
US citizens who are moved to overthrow the government by force of arms can cite the Declaration of Independence and take their chances of being hanged as rebels, just as the Founding Fathers did, but they can't cite the Constitution.
Correct, davidr! Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution defines the powers of Congress as they apply to the military. They have the power "To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, supress Insurrections and repel Invasions". In 1789, there was still a fear of invasion from the outside (War of 1812), and insurrection from within since there were still British sympathizers within the Colonies. This is just one of about 6 powers described relating to the military.
Bottom Line: The 2nd Amendment gives Congress the power to call forth the militia IN SUPPORT OF the government.
And consider this dose of truth: millions, yes millions, of U.S. nut cases are now buying and hoarding hundreds and in some cases thousands of rounds of ammunition. And all the guns they can afford. All itching to use them.
The founders were well aware of the improvement in power, rapidity of reloading and accuracy that had been going on for centuries. Some of them had faced Ferguson rifle, and they were intelligent enough to know better arms would be designed. This argument betrays the utter intellectual and moral bankruptcy of the anti-gun left. Would you bad the internet because, although it is speech, it is much faster speech over longer distances than was possible in 1776?
RSS feed for comments to this post