Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Welcome back, we missed you. Gee, I don't think I've ever read a "diatribe" from Merlyn. The folks most likely to be bitter are those that disagree with his views.


No matter. Discussions about God, religion, atheism, anarchy, homosexuals, government, politics, socialism, bigotry, fascism, and Martian anal probes can easily be avoided by not visiting the Issues and Politics forum. And if it is only one forum member that gets your goat, the "Ignore This User" button is fully functional.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 82
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

"The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."


Note: "All males physically capable of acting in concert." In short, the "militia" was the people in arms, if necessary in violent opposition to he state and/or the government. The Authors had just lived that experience, killing the servants of the state and its lawful government in order to make the Revolutiion.


The Ohio Militia Act is, as is typical, in accord, but makes a presumption that age 55 (IIRC) is the limit of physical capability -- drafted, as it was, at a time when the average lifespan was in the upper 40's.


This was, of course, long before females (in all states) and African-Americans (in some states) were fully citizens .



And if it's homicide, then the deceased was a human being. Thus, the ACLU must argue, and has argued in several criminal cases, that killing an unborn child cannot be homicide. This is necesary, in the logic of the ACLU, to be consistent with the ACLU's support of abortion at any stage of pregnancy and under all circumstances.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tahawk, argue with the supreme court about the 2nd amendment. And no, just because some states subsume feticide within laws against murder doesn't mean fetuses are legally the same as human beings. Corporations are considered persons under the law in some circumstances, but that doesn't make them human beings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Gee Brian, I was not arguing with the Surpeme Court, I was quoting the Supreme Court. It is useful to read what they actually wrote instead of what the ACLU wishes they had written. The "militia" was NOT the National Guard. It was everyone, as the Supreme Court expressly noted in upholding a ban on sawed-off shotguns.


More from the Supreme Court to follow as the issue is squarely before them on an appeal from decisions below outlawing the DC ban:


"That would be an odd right of the people if limited to militias, commented Chief Justice John Roberts in the Supreme Court hearing March 18 in District of Columbia v. Heller.

. . .

Referring to the American Revolution, Justice Antonin Scalia noted that tyrants took away the peoples weapons, not just those of the militia.


For the American settlers, Justice Anthony Kennedy added, Wasnt there a need for self defense against Indian attacks, robbers, wolves and grizzlies?


In recent years, Kennedy is the swing vote in close cases.

. . .


The text of the Constitution already had a militia clause. As Kennedy noted, the preamble to the Second Amendmenta well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free statesupplemented that clause. My view is that the amendment guarantees a general right to bear arms without reference to the militia.


And Scalia added that historically, English bans had been imposed on possession of arms by oppressed groups, such as Roman Catholics and Scottish Highlanders.


. . .


Justice David Souter found keep and bear to be a unitary concept what is served by bear, if you can keep? He quipped that you do not bear arms to hunt; no one in the 18th century talked that way.

. . .

The second clause of the Second Amendment, insisted Scalia, goes beyond the militiait is a right of the people. Why not acknowledge that?


Kennedy stated that a machine gun is more related to the militia than the handgun, but the latter is relevant to the homeowner.

. . .

As is usual, the justices engaged in their own fencing match.


Look at the murder rate, the crime statistics, anguished Souter.


All the more reason to allow homeowners to have handguns, implored Scalia.

. . .

Justice Clarence Thomas asked no questions. But a decade ago, in Printz v. U.S., he wrote an opinion appearing to favor the individual-rights view."

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...