Nnanji
Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
quote:
ORIGINAL: Nnanji
quote:
ORIGINAL: mnottertail
http://www.constitution.org/mil/militia_debate_1789.htm
http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/madison-speech-proposing-the-bill-of-rights-june-8-1789.php
And I cannot help that nutsuckers are not well acquainted with our history and dont know what was the discussion at the continental congress, yet feel empowered without fact or backround to couch the discourse in pure nutsuckerism.
The founding fathers intent of the militia and the arms bearing deal was to protect the Federal government from insurrections by the states, and to protect states warring with other states.
I understand your reticence Wilbur, your disbelief. I don't believe anything you say out here, because it has always been proven to be lies and propaganda from nutsucker slobberblogs. Nothing factual, ever.
That's whacko.
From your first link:
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.
From your second link:
Massachusetts Convention — Did not propose a keeping and bearing amendment, nor a militia nor a standing army amendment.
South Carolina - Proposed no keeping and bearing, or militia or standing army amendment.
New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress, nor shall Soldiers in Time of Peace be Quartered upon private Houses without the consent of the Owners... TWELFTH Congress shall never disarm any Citizen unless such as are or have been in Actual Rebellion.
Virginia — SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided,
Of Course, Madison wasn't the only framer and I didn't quote everything in your links, but show me anywhere in the above quotes where the purpose of bearing arms was to protect the federal from insurrection by the states? In fact, the discussions, such as in the Virginia quote above, was more along the lines of letting the government have a standing army was dangerous to liberty.
Yup, whacko nutsucker shit, read the Notes, that 2nd link is not the notes. Read the discourse it went on for several days.
And in every case you see that trained militia (you know what that word means? it has not changed meaning since its first known written use in the mid 16th century) is central to the plan.
they always held it in keeping with this part of Article 1 Section 8:
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, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
All of Madison's notes were vetted by the people he reported speaking as well as other attendees.
And forget clauses, prefatory and operative clauses. you could get away with preamble and operative clauses.
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,
preamble? not quite, because it does not introduce the problem
the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
and here solve it.
It is an aposiopesis and it is two clauses, and they are interdependent, not two separate thoughts, If so, they would be two sentences, these guys were pretty good lawyers and went to pretty good schools.
What Bama said I was going to say. You started out with and argument that the second amendment was there to protect the federal government from insurrection by the States. Your argument was shown to be totally absurd. So you switch to something else. As you've repeatedly shown you ant post citations that pertain to the subject, you just post stuff expecting people won't read it all and just assume you know what you're talking about; and as you've shown you don't usually know what you're talking about, I'm not going to follow more of your false little trails and waste my time. Make your argument like I do. Post a clause from wherever you want with a reference citation and argue its meaning. Post several of those and make a point. We do it. You ignore it. You spend the time now and do it as well.
|
RE: Breaking: Connecticut Passes Gun Confiscation Bill ... - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread