Both Sides of Gun Debate in Richmond for Lobby Day
#1 Jan 21, 2013
Those two on the left of the picture could conceal a whole arsenal and then some.
#2 Jan 21, 2013
Regulated : to govern or direct to rule
#3 Jan 21, 2013
Do you ever get tired of being wrong all the time?
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
So hows that public education working out for you?
#4 Jan 21, 2013
Really, NBC29?!? You send a camera and a journalist "with degrees in journalism and political science" to Richmond and all you got to show for it is a measly 100 words?!?
No viewpoints from any of the citizens there, lobbying their reps? No tape from any elected officials?
Nothing about any of the proposed bills on gun control?
At least it was a nice day for a drive in the country.
#5 Jan 21, 2013
So they spent all this money on security and metal detectors, but you are allowed to bring guns to the state capitol now that republicans are in charge?
#6 Jan 21, 2013
Hope they vote wisely!
#7 Jan 21, 2013
So who is regulating the drug dealers carrying guns that make crack deliveries all over this welfare paradise? Street pharmacist inspied deaths totally dwarf anything that the media has blathered about lately.
#8 Jan 22, 2013
gun nut interpretation according to Halonen
"In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."
A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia"."
#9 Jan 22, 2013
#10 Jan 23, 2013
Your quote from Federalist No. 29 is misapplied. It is not a discussion of the Second Amendment, but rather the Militia Clause in Article 2 of the Constitution, which deals with the defense budget, and empowers Congress to "provide for calling forth the militia," and of militias versus standing armies. Hamilton and the Federalists argued against a Bill of Rights, claiming it was unnecessary, and that the very structuring of the government was sufficient guarantee of pre-existing rights: "For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" (Federalist No. 84) That Americans had a right to keep and bear arms that predated the Constitution is rather self-evident. And in fact, in Federalist No. 29, Hamilton goes on to describe an armed citizenry: "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year." That the people are not now assembled once or twice a year is not injurious to their right to possess firearms.
Since a Bill of Rights was passed, over Hamilton's objections, it is necessary to examine the interaction between the Article 2 militia clause and the Second Amendment. That Congress can call on armed citizens in times of need for the common defense, and even that it can equip them and pay them (Article 2), does not undo the right of the people at large to bear arms, which is plainly stated in the active clause of Amendment 2, and the need for them as a "Plan B" for national defense, which is plainly stated in the prefatory clause of Amendment 2. Congress cannot-- and should not-- ban individual ownership of firearms because the framers saw a need for the general militia, the people, not connected with service in a select militia, to be armed so that they could participate in the common defense when needed.
I will close with a series of questions from Hamilton in Federalist No. 29 which challenge to its core the irrational fear of civilian firearms ownership: "Where in the name of common-sense, are our fears to end if we may not trust our sons, our brothers, our neighbors, our fellow-citizens? What shadow of danger can there be from men who are daily mingling with the rest of their countrymen and who participate with them in the same feelings, sentiments, habits and interests?"
Add your comments below
|Alberta Septic Systems Offers Senior Discounts ...||8 hr||Gerald Vonberger||1|
|'Gayborhoods' fade with growing acceptance of LGBT||14 hr||Messed Up Mess||93|
|ANR ABF Relationships in Kirkland (Jul '12)||Oct 9||bechtjohn||9|
|Meddling match-making grandparents featured in ... (Apr '10)||Oct 6||Cineplex meddling||3|
|Megapastor's Own Ministers Accuse Him Of Creati...||Aug '14||Skeptic||1|
|Seattle prelate is early prospect for Episcopal...||Jul '14||Listen to the Word||1|
|Catholic Bishops Set to Lobby Lawmakers on Immi...||May '14||spud||3|
Find what you want!
Search Downtown Forum Now