What's wrong with smart guns?

[Abatis]

Can you explain what this "militia context" is and how it manifested itself?

Your question is too vague.

Explain what militia context?

That is your terminology. You claim that "it is a Constitutional Law 101 basic knowledge that the 2nd Amendment applied only in a militia context until after the Civil War". I'm asking you to explain how this "militia context" was evident, how it was "applied", who "applied" it, who the 2nd's protections were "applied" to and who the 2nd's restrictions were "applied" against.

The fact that the first battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to maintain control of colonial Armories which housed all the guns, and in all colonies the only people allowed to own guns individually were those who could prove that they required a gun to hunt for food to subsist?

The fact that this remained true except in the south (where dueling became prevalent and slaveholders felt the need to own guns personally to protect against slave attacks and uprisings) and by the Civil War all rifles and small arms were still in the majority secured in Armories?

When Slave Patrols would arm themselves for their nightly duties (non-slaveholding whites were pressed into gangs every night to patrol for runaway slaves) they went to their town's armories to arm themselves.

When the Civil War happened the first battles were state militias capturing Federal Armories and distributing the weapons to the people forming state volunteer regiments.

Abraham Lincoln was heavily criticized for not going to war to fight for the Federal Armories but waited until Fort Sumter was attacked.

SO.

Please...elaborate your position further.

Good Lord, Thom Hartmann has dropped the brown acid and joined USMB!

 

[TheCrusader]

Can you explain what this "militia context" is and how it manifested itself?

Your question is too vague.

Explain what militia context?

That is your terminology. You claim that "it is a Constitutional Law 101 basic knowledge that the 2nd Amendment applied only in a militia context until after the Civil War". I'm asking you to explain how this "militia context" was evident, how it was "applied", who "applied" it, who the 2nd's protections were "applied" to and who the 2nd's restrictions were "applied" against.

The fact that the first battles of the Revolutionary War were fought to maintain control of colonial Armories which housed all the guns, and in all colonies the only people allowed to own guns individually were those who could prove that they required a gun to hunt for food to subsist?

The fact that this remained true except in the south (where dueling became prevalent and slaveholders felt the need to own guns personally to protect against slave attacks and uprisings) and by the Civil War all rifles and small arms were still in the majority secured in Armories?

When Slave Patrols would arm themselves for their nightly duties (non-slaveholding whites were pressed into gangs every night to patrol for runaway slaves) they went to their town's armories to arm themselves.

When the Civil War happened the first battles were state militias capturing Federal Armories and distributing the weapons to the people forming state volunteer regiments.

Abraham Lincoln was heavily criticized for not going to war to fight for the Federal Armories but waited until Fort Sumter was attacked.

SO.

Please...elaborate your position further.

Good Lord, Thom Hartmann has dropped the brown acid and joined USMB!

Oh OK, then I already explained it.

The United States as the 2nd Amendment was written only knew Guns in two contexts, a rare frontier context where there was no law or where exceptions were made for hunting etc. (such that some states needed to include hunting as a reason for owning guns), or in the communal armory context of a citizen body militia.

There were not households full of fat out-of-shape diabetic losers claiming to be the militia and needing guns to defend against "tyranny".

Founding fathers and authors of the final 2nd Amendment stated such things as Roger Moore stated, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves" leading to a legal definition of 14 to 48(?) year old able bodied men. (Memory isn't so perfect to remember the exact age limit).

Should only those age groups have guns?

I also quote supreme court cases to show when it changed, how could it change unless it was different before?

 

[Abatis]

Can you please tell everyone the history of calling the first half of the 2nd Amendment a "conditional clause"?

. . . a conditional clause must be a true fact for the main clause to also be true.

Does the 2nd Amendment actually contain a conditional clause? Let's hope not for the sake of your own twisted argument.

So you have no answer? Mkay . . .

So in your trip is Jesus riding the white rainbow farting unicorn or the pink one?

 

[Abatis]

There were not households full of fat out-of-shape diabetic losers claiming to be the militia and needing guns to defend against "tyranny".

Well, Madison spoke of the number of armed citizens in 1788 in reference to the size of the standing army that could be maintained.

He said that the largest standing army would amount to no more than 1% of the total number of souls (which would yield about 30,000 troops). To those troops would be opposed a militia of 500,000 citizens with arms in their hands . . .

Was he on acid too?

I also quote supreme court cases to show when it changed, how could it change unless it was different before?

So the Court only speaks to overturn itself?

 

[TheCrusader]

There were not households full of fat out-of-shape diabetic losers claiming to be the militia and needing guns to defend against "tyranny".

Well, Madison spoke of the number of armed citizens in 1788 in reference to the size of the standing army that could be maintained.

He said that the largest standing army would amount to no more than 1% of the total number of souls (which would yield about 30,000 troops). To those troops would be opposed a militia of 500,000 citizens with arms in their hands . . .

Was he on acid too?

I also quote supreme court cases to show when it changed, how could it change unless it was different before?

So the Court only speaks to overturn itself?

He was aggrandizing, the Continental Army and its militia attachments were never more than 10,000 through out the entire Revolutionary War.

He was inferring that somehow a population of approximately 2 million would provide 500,000 able bodied men to fight off invasion.

Except that not even 20 years later the war of 1812, when Britain was fighting Napoleon who had armies of 600,000 men each campaign season, the US managed to only muster about 30,000 soldiers.

17,000 regulars.

So where's this 500,000 claim proven?

Where did 500,000 militia men arise in 1812 to disposses Britain of Canada?

Let's not pretend the British didn't meet every strategic objective of their war against the US in 1812, and that the idea that it was somehow a stalemate or the US won that war is anything but the most stupid farcical fiction.

Where were the 500,000 militia men to rally to save the White House from being BURNED TO THE GROUND.

 

[Abatis]

He was inferring that somehow a population of approximately 2 million would provide 500,000 able bodied men to fight off invasion.

3 million (30,000 = 1%) and Madison's comment had nothing to do with repelling invasion . . . He was discussing the armed citizens as an opposing force to a standing army entirely devoted to the federal government.

So where's this 500,000 claim proven?

See Federalist 46.

 

[TheCrusader]

He was inferring that somehow a population of approximately 2 million would provide 500,000 able bodied men to fight off invasion.

3 million (30,000 = 1%) and Madison's comment had nothing to do with repelling invasion . . . He was discussing the armed citizens as an opposing force to a standing army entirely devoted to the federal government.

So where's this 500,000 claim proven?

See Federalist 46.

I didn't say he didn't make a claim, I said it's an embellished claim which resulted in nowhere near that claim in actuality.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Oh OK, then I already explained it.

The United States as the 2nd Amendment was written only knew Guns in two contexts, a rare frontier context where there was no law or where exceptions were made for hunting etc. (such that some states needed to include hunting as a reason for owning guns), or in the communal armory context of a citizen body militia.

There were not households full of fat out-of-shape diabetic losers claiming to be the militia and needing guns to defend against "tyranny".

Founding fathers and authors of the final 2nd Amendment stated such things as Roger Moore stated, "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves" leading to a legal definition of 14 to 48(?) year old able bodied men. (Memory isn't so perfect to remember the exact age limit).

Should only those age groups have guns?

I also quote supreme court cases to show when it changed, how could it change unless it was different before?

So, are you a revisionist who alters history to promote a leftist agenda, or are you simply fabricating nonsense to support your assault on civil rights?

What you claim is of course false, which I am sure you are aware of.

{
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.}
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes