Send a Message
to Bob2bob too

Comments

210

Joined

Jan 10, 2014

Bob2bob too Profile

Forums Owned

Recent Posts

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

February 1788? He isn't commenting on the Second Amendment.  (Feb 6, 2014 | post #5649)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

And what is the military force that exists among the people? They were ALWAYS talking about the militia not armed individuals acting alone.  (Feb 6, 2014 | post #5648)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

You need to be more careful about where you get your 'information' from. General George Washington: "The distinction between a well regulated Army, and a Mob, is the good order and discipline of the first, and the licentious and disorderly behaviour of the latter." (August 25, 1776) "The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this Province, makes it necessary for me to inform you... your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law." (January 24, 1777) "For want of proper Laws in the Southern Governments, their Militia were never well regulated; and since the late Troubles, in which the Old Governments have been unhinged, and new ones not yet firmly established, the people have adopted a mode of thinking and Acting for themselves." (March 6, 1777) "The Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at a Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency, for these purposes they ought to be duly organized into Commands of the same formation... By keeping up in Peace 'a well regulated, and disciplined Militia,' we shall take the fairest and best method to preserve, for a long time to come, the happiness, dignity and Independence of our Country." (May 1, 1783) President George Washington: "The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." (Address to Congress, November 19, 1794)  (Feb 6, 2014 | post #5640)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

Rights differ in their application. Just because a citizen belonging to the collective body of "the people" may assemble to petition the government doesn't mean that he must also retain powers, personally. Likewise, he can't claim the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the State is his, personally. If eligible, he will be called to serve on behalf of "the People". So, in the U.S. Constitution, the Framers DIDN'T use terms with the opposite meaning that they had in their own State Constitutions.  (Feb 6, 2014 | post #5639)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

And "the people" is not used when securing those rights, but you tried to claim those rights were secured to "the people" by including them in your listWrong. That's just your unsubstantiated opinion. I've already explained how rights and powers are retained by "the people" as a collective body and how you don't have the right to assemble to petition the Government if you don't belong to the collective body of "the people".  (Feb 6, 2014 | post #5638)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

Yes, it doesThe quotes I provided gave specific examples, not just from the TIME of the Founders, but BY THE FOUNDERS. Alexander Hamilton: "The POWER of REGULATING the militia, and of commanding its services in times of insurrection and invasion are natural incidents to the duties of superintending the common defense, and of watching over the internal peace of the Confederacy... This desirable UNIFORMITY can only be accomplished by confiding the REGULATION of the militia to the direction of the NATIONAL AUTHORITY... If a WELL-REGULATED MILITIA be the most natural defense 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..." Luther Martin: "..it was speciously assigned as a reason, that the GENERAL GOVERNMENT would cause the militia to be better REGULATED and better disciplined than the STATE GOVERNMENTS... That leaving the POWER to the several STATES, they would respectively best know the situation and circumstances of their citizens, and the REGULATIONS that would be necessary and sufficient to effect a WELL REGULATED MILITIA in each."  (Feb 6, 2014 | post #5631)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

By contrast: X.--Each individual of the society has a right to be protected by it........... XI.--Every subject of the Commonwealth ought to find a certain remedy, by having recourse to the laws,........... XII.--No subject shall be held to answer for any crime or offence, until the same is fully and plainly, substantially and formally, described to him,... And every subject shall have a right to produce all proofs, that may be favorable to him;..... XIV.--Every subject has a right to be secure from all unreasonable searches, and seizures of his person, his houses, his papers, and all his possessions....... XXVIII.--No person can in any case be subjected to law-martial, or to any penalties or pains, by virtue of that law, except those employed in the army or navy, and except the militia in actual service, but by authority of the legislature.  (Feb 5, 2014 | post #5522)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

If you're not part of the collective body of "the people", you have no right to assemble to petition the government or to be free from searches. But you will have the fundamental, personal rights of free speech, relligion and trial by jury. Rights differ in their application. Just because a citizen belonging to "the people" may assemble to petition the government doesn't mean that he must also retain powers, personally. Likewise, he can't claim the right to keep and bear arms for the security of the State is his, personally. If eligible, he will be called to serve on behalf of "the People".  (Feb 5, 2014 | post #5515)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

The stated purpose is all that matters. The Judge in Nunn v. State went off on a rant saying that children of ALL ages have the right to own ANY weapon for service in a well regulated militia. 'Cuckoo!!!' Yet again, I have to ask: Why not just quote from Nunn v. State without associating Chief Justice John Marshall with it?  (Feb 5, 2014 | post #5510)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

I'm ignorant? I provided the link so that you could see clearly the difference between collective and personal rights and you won't see beyond the first article. Why doesn't the arms bearing provision refer to "all men" having the right of "defending their lives"?  (Feb 5, 2014 | post #5508)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

It's an important point. If you're trying to claim that "the people" in the whole of the Bill of Rights is a reference to all individuals, you can't include freedom of speech and religion to prove your point if there's no mention of "the people" when protecting those rights. But there are amendmens in which "the people" retain/reserve rights and powers which show that "the people" is a collective body with just powers.  (Feb 5, 2014 | post #5507)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

Here's Thomas Jefferson, the man who wrote the Declaration of Independence, calling on James Madison, the man who drafted the Second Amendment, to recognize the ancient right of owning a gun for self defence unconnected to militia service: "I was in Europe when the Constitution was planned, and never saw it till after it was established. On receiving it I wrote strongly to Mr. Madison, urging the want of provision for the freedom of religion, freedom of the press, trial by jury, habeas corpus,*THE SUBSTITUTION OF MILITIA FOR A STANDING ARMY*, and an express reservation to the States of all rights not specifically granted to the Union. He accordingly moved in the first session of Congress for these amendments, which were agreed to and ratified by the States as they now stand". ..........NOT.  (Feb 5, 2014 | post #5506)

Guns

Texas law professor calls for repeal of Second Amendment

The 1st Amendment doesn't say "the people" have those rights. They ARE fundamental, individual rights along with trial by jury. I notice you included those two in your list but excluded the 9th and 10th, which do refer to "the people". Why?  (Feb 5, 2014 | post #5502)