2nd amendment musings.

[merrylander]

If you were to read James Madison's Notes on the debates of the Constitution you would realize that the 2nd applies to the formation of a common militia. Each of the 13 colonies had their own militia but they used different weapons of differing calibers, etc. Hence the "well regulated". Mad Uncle Wayne is so full of it , along with the Supremes that it is almost laughable. It is rather unfortunate that no one down here speaks English.

[whell]

Originally Posted by merrylander

If you were to read James Madison's Notes on the debates of the Constitution you would realize that the 2nd applies to the formation of a common militia. Each of the 13 colonies had their own militia but they used different weapons of differing calibers, etc. Hence the "well regulated". Mad Uncle Wayne is so full of it , along with the Supremes that it is almost laughable. It is rather unfortunate that no one down here speaks English.

Oh, I think we can read just fine. We can also think.

Your argument pre-supposes that, in the early days of our country, someone who never used a firearm for their own purposes would simply show up and be prepared to use a firearm in armed conflict. You think Madison believed that militia folks would just show up when called and magically know how to use a gun? Since militia members were expected to bring their own firearms when called, do you think that they were expected to never use them unless the militia was activated? That's BS. They were expected to be proficient in the use of firearms, and were not provided with any formal training on how to use them, so learning how to use them was done as part of their day to day existence.

The Militia Act of 1792 was really the first attempt to "well - regulate" the militia. It codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able- bodied citizens. It also required each militiaman to supply his own arms, and the law didn't provide any funding. So, I'm not sure how "well - regulated" the militias were as a practical matter.

[nailer]

The second comes from the British constitution and exists for three reasons: 1) forming a militia to aid the sovereign in defense of the realm, 2) self defense and 3) overthrowing a tyrant.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by nailer

The second comes from the British constitution and exists for three reasons: 1) forming a militia to aid the sovereign in defense of the realm, 2) self defense and 3) overthrowing a tyrant.

It's the third point that concerns me as per the opening post. Up to the present, our system has managed to reign in excessive executive authority without the torches and pitchforks of popular revolt. Armed rebellion in any form has never fared well with this Republic.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Pio1980

It's the third point that concerns me as per the opening post. Up to the present, our system has managed to reign in excessive executive authority without the torches and pitchforks of popular revolt. Armed rebellion in any form has never fared well with this Republic.

We've yet to be ruled by a tyrant.

[Pio1980]

Originally Posted by nailer

We've yet to be ruled by a tyrant.

I agree, tho some did accuse FDR. The present aspirant to that level of authority has found systemic and practical limits to his ambition.

[JJIII]

Originally Posted by nailer

We've yet to be ruled by a tyrant.

That's right.

http://www.history.com/topics/americ...lution-history

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by nailer

We've yet to be ruled by a tyrant.

Ol' King George was misunderstood.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by bobabode

Ol' King George was misunderstood.

Although he never ruled US, George III was indeed a tyrant from his rebelling colonists' perspective.

[sheltiedave]

Originally Posted by whell

Oh, I think we can read just fine. We can also think.

Your argument pre-supposes that, in the early days of our country, someone who never used a firearm for their own purposes would simply show up and be prepared to use a firearm in armed conflict. You think Madison believed that militia folks would just show up when called and magically know how to use a gun? Since militia members were expected to bring their own firearms when called, do you think that they were expected to never use them unless the militia was activated? That's BS. They were expected to be proficient in the use of firearms, and were not provided with any formal training on how to use them, so learning how to use them was done as part of their day to day existence.

The Militia Act of 1792 was really the first attempt to "well - regulate" the militia. It codified the traditional view of the militia as consisting of all able- bodied citizens. It also required each militiaman to supply his own arms, and the law didn't provide any funding. So, I'm not sure how "well - regulated" the militias were as a practical matter.

It may be helpful for you to read a few serious scholastic books about the Revolutionary War, paying particular attention to the formation of the Army Quartermasters Corps, the Continental Marines, and the purchases the Continental Congress/Army made with France. You would not be advancing this alternative history re firearms.