The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..

[woodwork201]

So, Darkwind, you're like the left; you don't want to learn because ignorance allows you to keep with the arguments you know. Learning more takes work. I understand.

Unfortunately, if gun owners don't want to learn, we're going to lose our rights, but you just make yourself comfortable. That's more important than liberty.

 

[Smokin' OP]

That's a complete lie. The requirement was that you must have a weapon and were, by default,

You're FOS.
You were allowed to have a weapon if you were in the militia, it wasn't mandatory.

required to provide your own.

Again, FOS.

In some cases, there were efforts, definitely important historically but not terribly wide spread, to provide arms to those who couldn't afford them or even just to standardize.

But the requirement in all militias was to show up for appointed training or drills with your weapon in hand, whether owned by the State or otherwise.

In Pennsylvania, there was an order by the governor to have all government owned militia weapons turned in for maintenance and the militia members refused, fearing it was an attempt to disarm them - proving that even then the people feared the State would take their arms and that the state provide arms were kept in the hands and homes of the militia members.

"Turned in for "maintenance"?
Three times FOS?

Soldiers maintained their own weapons.

I proved you wrong on this point once before and you know it.

Four times...................A liar.

You just continue with the lie because you're a Democrat - which means "one who lies".

 

[Smokin' OP]

So, Darkwind, you're like the left; you don't want to learn because ignorance allows you to keep with the arguments you know. Learning more takes work. I understand.

Unfortunately, if gun owners don't want to learn, we're going to lose our rights, but you just make yourself comfortable. That's more important than liberty.

I've had guns for over 45 years, not once did I feel, I was losing the right to have them.
It's a 40 year-old made up lie and it gets you dumbasses every time a democrat gets in office.

"They're a comin' fer my guns" and you idiots, go out and purchase guns like crazy.
Hold on, aren't they being banned?
Why would people go out and purchase something, they are convinced will be banned?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Stay focused! I am exploring / asking about your theory that the 2ndA "collective" right is for the militia and the Militia Act is a good explainer of the extent and purpose of the right.

My question, "How can a right expressly stated to be secured for the people, not include ALL the people?" assumed that you and I were only discussing the particular "people" called out in the Militia Act (which of course would exclude Blacks and Native Americans) who you argue are the "people" who possess and can exercise 2ndA's right to arms.

It is you arguing the 2ndA is very discriminatory because it is restricted to only those "people" the Militia Act recognizes as liable to serve in the militia.

I guess we should do the remedial Militia Act coverage here, if you can't maintain continuity of argument . . .

The Militia Act states only the "free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years" are in the militia.

Clearly, a member of that class are the only individuals in the entire nation that the Militia Act operates on, since that determination is demanded by the canon of statutory interpretation of, expressio unius est exclusio alterius -- the express mention of one thing excludes all others.

My question was about those "free able-bodied white male citizen(s)" who are excluded in the law, exempted from militia duty and the operation of militia law.

I'm asking because your position demands that these citizens, who otherwise meet the Militia Act's requirements, have no 2ndA right to keep and bear arms:

"the Vice-President of the United States, the Officers, judicial and executives, of the government of the United States; the members of both houses of Congress, and their respective officers; all custom house officers, with the clerks; all post officers, and stage-drivers who are employed in the care and conveyance of the mail of the post office of the United States; all Ferrymen employed at any ferry on the post road; all inspectors of exports; all pilots, all mariners actually employed in the sea service of any citizen or merchant within the United States; and all persons who now are or may be hereafter exempted by the laws of the respective states, shall be and are hereby exempted from militia duty, notwithstanding their being above the age of eighteen and under the age of forty-five years."​

It was the militia LAW that was discriminatory, you can't argue it was the RKBA because TO YOU they were one in the same!

The express specific criteria of who was under militia law impressment, means that everyone else was excluded from militia law (plus those, as we see above, who met the criteria but are excluded from militia law).

That was the basis for the discriminatory gun laws and the genesis of the "militia right" interpretation. The Southern states justified their gun prohibitions on Blacks by citing the exclusion of Blacks from militia service in federal militia law, not any interpretation of the 2ndA (which did not have any action on state law).



Fail . . . The 2ndA had no effect on any state or local laws -- either to protect what I argue, a individual right to arms of private citizens without any militia conditioning or your militia members' "right" to be armed while obeying federal militia law.



No, again, the 2ndA had no effect on any state or local laws.

What protected the arms of militia members was federal militia law, not the 2ndA.

Milita law did operate on state and local laws and the federal militia law mandating the arms acquisition and use of militia members, was preemptive of state and local laws, by the doctrine of supremacy.

This is why I'm asking those questions. I just can't follow your "logic" and settle the conflicts -- why any militia member would need any claim to any "right" to arms . . . Everything he does with his gun as a militia member is an obligation in federal law that is superior to all state and local laws.

.

The militia member is only under federal or state control when the militia is called up by the STATE or FEDERALLY for active duty.
THEN it has superiority.
When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else.

 

[woodwork201]

You're FOS.
You were allowed to have a weapon if you were in the militia, it wasn't mandatory.

Again, FOS.

"Turned in for "maintenance"?
Three times FOS?

Soldiers maintained their own weapons.

No, I've proven it and you're the one full of shit. State owned arms were in the hands and homes of the Pennsylvania militia and were ordered brought in for cleaning. Not for storage in the armory but for cleaning.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=wmborj

Footnote 188, beginning at the bottom of page 380 and ending at the bottom of page 381.

Pretty much everything you post you make up on the fly according to what sounds good to your simple mind. I, on the other hand, have given you the actual history as proof of the things I write. You can lie, and no doubt you will; you can deny what you know from my teachings to be the truth, and no doubt you will, but it doesn't make what you claim to be the truth.

 

[Abatis]

The militia member is only under federal or state control when the militia is called up by the STATE or FEDERALLY for active duty.
THEN it has superiority.

Not true. We are only discussing one narrow aspect of a citizen's activity, the acquisition, possession and use of a gun.

Once enrolled a citizen is compelled by law to provide himself with a firearm as described in law and a certain amount of ammunition and specific accessories and when called for drill / exercise / muster he must present himself with all the above (except when called for drill he didn't need his knapsack). None of those requirements depend upon the member actually being called into service.

Your argument is that those militia purposes and activities comprise the entirety of the 2ndAmendment right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . I have asked you to explain how any of those mandated by law activities can be described as a right, as understood to be an immunity / exception of government power.

I see that as an extremely vital philosophical, legal and logical question that you should be able to explain, but I suspect you will continue to ignore.

When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else.

We are not talking about reading a book or going to church; as I said, for an enrolled militia member, EVERYTHING he does with his gun is mandated in law and apparently, according to you, there is no allowance in the law / 2ndA, to use his gun for any non-militia purpose.

What "same laws as everybody else"? The class of citizens that militia law operates on, is specific and narrow and the actions allowed are very precisely limited.

According to you, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is just a militia member's duty to obey militia law, there is no discretion granted to any citizen (even an enrolled militia member) for any personal use of his militia arm.

There are no other laws for a citizen to consider or follow directing arms possession and use but militia law, correct?

What are "the same laws as anyone else" when there is no "everyone else" under militia law impressment?

.

.

 

[Smokin' OP]

WTF?

No, I've proven it and you're the one full of shit. State owned arms were in the hands and homes of the Pennsylvania militia and were ordered brought in for cleaning. Not for storage in the armory but for cleaning.

https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1421&context=wmborj

Footnote 188, beginning at the bottom of page 380 and ending at the bottom of page 381.

Pretty much everything you post you make up on the fly according to what sounds good to your simple mind. I, on the other hand, have given you the actual history as proof of the things I write. You can lie, and no doubt you will; you can deny what you know from my teachings to be the truth, and no doubt you will, but it doesn't make what you claim to be the truth.

188 188 While the proposed United States Constitution was debated, the government of Pennsylvania attempted to collect the public arms for cleaning and maintenance. A very large number of Pennsylvanians, however, refused to surrender their public arms even temporarily-fearing that the new federal government might be oppressive and that the swords) owned by individuals; individuals could use them for militia service, and a person with his own private arms would not need the charity of public arms. The distinction between the two types of arms was set forth in the 1823 Return of the Adjutant General of the enrolled militia in Pennsylvania, which contained an inventory of the supply of arms (of all types) available for militia use."

WTF? "188 While the proposed United States Constitution was debated"?
So the US government wasn't even established.

Pennsylvania's militia was under control of the state.
Hmmmmm...........sounds almost like a state regulation.


"

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.

Kangaroo court case laws violate the second amendment portion that says shall not be infringed.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The militia member is only under federal or state control when the militia is called up by the STATE or FEDERALLY for active duty.
THEN it has superiority.
When not active, they follow the same laws as anyone else.

Actually no. The unorganized militia cannot be federalized. Without the approval of the state governor.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Goes without stating YOU ARE.

No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.

NO, it didn't idiot.

Guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur); banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns; and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers).

From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.”

For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.”

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.


View attachment 676292

Yours did.

Banning the sale of guns to American Indians is the argument you want to fight on? Now why would you want to ban firearms from people? Why do you support racism?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Not true.

YES, it is.
When the states militia is called up for federal duty, they are under federal authority, along with the commander of the states commander.

We are only discussing one narrow aspect of a citizen's activity, the acquisition, possession and use of a gun.

Once enrolled a citizen is compelled by law to provide himself with a firearm as described in law and a certain amount of ammunition and specific accessories and when called for drill / exercise / muster he must present himself with all the above (except when called for drill he didn't need his knapsack). None of those requirements depend upon the member actually being called into service.

So, the enrolled citizen MUST have a firearm, ammo and accessories, show up for drills but NOT actually be called up for service?

Where were these drills held at and who did the member report to?

Your argument is that those militia purposes and activities comprise the entirety of the 2ndAmendment right of the people to keep and bear arms . . . I have asked you to explain how any of those mandated by law activities can be described as a right, as understood to be an immunity / exception of government power.

I see that as an extremely vital philosophical, legal and logical question that you should be able to explain, but I suspect you will continue to ignore.

As you and others ignore "A well- regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".
Means if you aren't in an active-duty situation, people are subject to local and state/colony laws.

We are not talking about reading a book or going to church; as I said, for an enrolled militia member, EVERYTHING he does with his gun is mandated in law and apparently, according to you, there is no allowance in the law / 2ndA, to use his gun for any non-militia purpose.

Never stated that, people didn't have take out.
Most, if not all, had to supply their own food.
Including people in the militia.

What "same laws as everybody else"? The class of citizens that militia law operates on, is specific and narrow and the actions allowed are very precisely limited.

Yes, WHEN the person is on active duty, otherwise, local or state/colony laws applied.

According to you, the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" is just a militia member's duty to obey militia law,

Yes, hence: 'Well regulated".

there is no discretion granted to any citizen (even an enrolled militia member) for any personal use of his militia arm.

Never stated that.

There are no other laws for a citizen to consider or follow directing arms possession and use but militia law, correct?

Never stated that either, when not active duty, they were subject to local laws.

What are "the same laws as anyone else" when there is no "everyone else" under militia law impressment?

.

.

What part of under local authority don't you understand?

 

[Smokin' OP]

Actually no. The unorganized militia cannot be federalized. Without the approval of the state governor.

WTF?

Yes, they can and were, it's called a draft.
The "unorganized" militia wasn't part of any state's militia.

That was the meaning behind "well regulated".

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

 

[bigrebnc1775]

WTF?

Yes, they can and were, it's called a draft.
The "unorganized" militia wasn't part of any state's militia.

That was the meaning behind "well regulated".

You're a racist piece of shit that supports gun control. You fucking idiot well regulated means in working order as to be expected. It does not mean government regulation

 

[Smokin' OP]

Banning the sale of guns to American Indians is the argument you want to fight on? Now why would you want to ban firearms from people? Why do you support racism?

I didn't, moron.
They couldn't join the militia, either.

 

[Smokin' OP]

View attachment 676526

View attachment 676527

SOOOOOOO, when did the massive gun confiscation take place?
1993? 1994? 1995?
They seemed to have missed mine.

 

[Smokin' OP]

You're a racist piece of shit that supports gun control.

You're a fucking moron, gun nut.

You fucking idiot well regulated means in working order as to be expected. It does not mean government regulation

Sure it does, you fucking idiot.
In the RWNJ "Dikshunary"?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Goes without stating YOU ARE.

No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.

NO, it didn't idiot.

Guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur); banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns; and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers).

From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.”

For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.”

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

I didn't, moron.
They couldn't join the militia, either.

Maybe you should read what you wrote. You support racism.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You're a fucking moron, gun nut.

Sure it does, you fucking idiot.
In the RWNJ "Dikshunary"?

You support racism dumbass

 

[Darkwind]

It is not an explanatory clause in any way. It is a requirement that the government maintain a militia and consider and use it as the primary first defense of the security of the state. It is a compound sentence. It could even be considered a running-on sentence, where the author communicated two unrelated topics separated by a comma or semi-colon rather than a period.

Five different States included in their statements/documents ratifying the Constitution that it was done so on the agreement that there would be an amendment protecting the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

New Hampshire's was stated in the simplest of terms: Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

The other four that demanded the right had variations on this, with some including even more differing ideas in the same sentence: 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.

Notice the order of the two statements: The right to keep and bear arms first and the militia clause, clearly stating that the militia is a mandatory part of the defense of a free state, as the second clause. Was the right to keep and bear arms explanatory of, the reason for, the requirement that the militia be composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, and be the natural and safe defense of a free state? Of course not.

The biggest mistake modern lawyers, legislators, Courts, and even the Supreme Court Justices, make is to attribute today's grammar rules, standards, practices, and even mistakes, to the writing style of the late 18th century. Instead, they need to look at other writings with similar constructs, logic, and statements, to understand how things were written at the time.

James Madison and his committee had to look at all of the proposed or demanded amendments and consolidate them. When states or other authors said the same thing but with different words or formatting or grammar, he had to consolidate that into a common statement. He consolidated the various statements into the 2nd Amendment, with some parts of the statements also going into the 3rd Amendment and some not making the cut from committee or Congress.

That, in editing, Madison reversed the order of the two statements is not in any way indicative of an intent to change the meaning or intent of the two statements. This is proven by the fact that every one of the five states, plus others, ratified the 4th proposed amendment (which became the 2nd Amendment).

Had the thing that those five states demanded, even as a stated condition of understanding in their ratification of the Constitution itself, been stripped by what became the 2nd Amendment, they surely would never have ratified that amendment. That they all five ratified the Amendment proves that, in the minds of all of the State Legislatures voting on the Bill of Rights, these statements:

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.​

Meant EXACTLY the same as:

As voted out of Congress:​

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.​

Which meant EXACTLY the same as:

As Ratified:​

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.​

The word games between those three, played by the lawyers, the States, the gun controllers especially, the Courts and even the Justices of the Supreme Court are all self-serving by each.

There were multiple scribes who took what Madison edited, and copied it for Congress. When Congress passed it, multiple scribes copied from what Congress wrote to make copies for the States. That's why there are differences in what Congress received from Committee, what they voted on to go to the States, and what the States ratified.

In fact, considering the complete proposed Bill of Rights as a whole, different States got different versions. Commas were added or removed; some scribes used semi-colons where a different scribe used a comma. Some copies used the word "and" in places where other scribes used the ampersand (&) in the same places. They didn't have computers to guarantee that everything was perfectly alike across the entire process.

But, what the words meant, and that they all meant the same to the Founders, to the entire Congress, to each and every State Legislature, and that a comma here or there didn't change the meaning in any way, and that the order of the two statements does not change the way, is ABSOLUTELY proven by the fact that no one at all in the Congress or the State Legislatures challenged any of these differences at the time.

What many today call the prefatory clause is not a prefatory clause at all. It is a distinct and separate requirement on the government of the United States.

If you are going to make up an argument out of whole cloth, at least be pithy about it.

No one with any understanding of the language, then or today, can read the Second as a government requirement to form or stand up a militia of any kind.

The prefatory clause, as is agreed to by most legal scholars and linguists, is an explanation for the purpose of why government SHALL not infringe up the right of the people.

In every instance where the Bill of Rights speaks, the Amendments are either a restriction on government or an unassailable right OF THE PEOPLE.

Trying to bring into the discussion what other state constitution say is to bring nothing but a word salad that drives the discussion off topic. We are talking about the language in the United States Constitution.