I found an interesting line in the Constitution

[formerlurker]

jmowreader (23,265 posts)

I found an interesting line in the Constitution


 
This is in Article I, Section 8: Powers of Congress

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...

We all know that the Second Amendment says this:

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.

If Article I says the government shall be responsible for organizing and arming the Militia, which means among other things deciding what guns the Militia should have, and the Second Amendment says that this Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, could it then not follow that the government can decide it should not be equipped with weapons like Bushmasters and AK-47s?

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022226605#post12


The million dollar post:

ToxMarz (202 posts)
2. Forwarded to the White House. Not sure if anyone else is aware of this. Good find.

The Constitutional scholar president CERTAINLY not aware of it.

However misfits, you missed the boat yet once again - which is reason you are forever damned to the island.  

States.   Federal.    There is a clear distinction.    The 2nd Amendment applying to the state.   The powers of Congress shall not infringe on the rights of the states.  

What part of that are you having the toughest time understanding?

[diesel driver]

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022226605#post12


The million dollar post:

The Constitutional scholar president CERTAINLY not aware of it.

However misfits, you missed the boat yet once again - which is reason you are forever damned to the island.  

States.   Federal.    There is a clear distinction.    The 2nd Amendment applying to the state.   The powers of Congress shall not infringe on the rights of the states.  

What part of that are you having the toughest time understanding?

Pretty much ALL of it.   

[98ZJUSMC]

ToxMarz (202 posts)
2. Forwarded to the White House. Not sure if anyone else is aware of this. Good find.

Oh, bravo!!  (D)Ummiana Jones found the long lost Sentences of the Constitution! 


But, watch out for....

[NHSparky]

There is no facepalm large enough to convey the epic fail of the DUmmie in the OP.

None.

[diesel driver]

There is no facepalm large enough to convey the epic fail of the DUmmie in the OP.

None.

The Constitution is the FOUNDATION of this country's government.

When you dick around with the FOUNDATION of anything, what is usually the result? 

There isn't enough STUPID to convey the epic fail of DUmmie "logic".

[txradioguy]

They're so cute when they think they're smarter than they really are.

Wait until they find the part about the military only being funded for two years at a time.

[Freeper]

Well let's see, progressives have been wanting to take away our guns since the first progressive uttered his first stupid sentence.
So does this DUmpmonkey really think that in the past 100 or so with all the gun grabbers going over the Constitution with a fine tooth comb trying to find a way to ban guns that they would have missed this new discovery?

[BlueStateSaint]

Well let's see, progressives have been wanting to take away our guns since the first progressive uttered his first stupid sentence.
So does this DUmpmonkey really think that in the past 100 or so with all the gun grabbers going over the Constitution with a fine tooth comb trying to find a way to ban guns that they would have missed this new discovery?

Here's an interesting line in New York's Civil Rights Law:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.

That's what the new AWB in NY is going to be litigated against.  I haven't a clue as to how it's going to go, but expect massive civil disobedience to King Andrew's new law.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/hit_us_with_your_best_shot_andy_5rxZg0gYBJJhkLBtiTPMfJ

My wife says that the writer of the column, Fred Dicker (who is a friend of Cuomo), is pissed about the new law.  Mad enough to curtail a friendship?  We'll see.

[DumbAss Tanker]

If Article I says the government shall be responsible for organizing and arming the Militia, which means among other things deciding what guns the Militia should have,

Fail.  Where's my 240B then?  It doesn't say anything about limiting militia arms, it actually make Congress responsible to provide them and then keep their hands off the militia unless it is called into Federal service.

The interpretation that the Second Amendment pertains only to the establishment of a militia is just that, an interpretation, and one imposed by a Supreme Court that wanted to uphold the National Firearms Act rather than apply a thorough analysis going back to source documents that would clarify the Drafters' intent, like the Federalist Papers.  The more accurate interpretations of the Amendment are firstly that a disarmed population would make a useless militia, and that the citizen militia and beyond that the armed citizenry (Part of which would form the militia at any given time) were the ultimate guarantors against an oppressive government.

[Crazy Horse]

Fail.  Where's my 240B then?  It doesn't say anything about limiting militia arms, it actually make Congress responsible to provide them and then keep their hands off the militia unless it is called into Federal service.

The interpretation that the Second Amendment pertains only to the establishment of a militia is just that, an interpretation, and one imposed by a Supreme Court that wanted to uphold the National Firearms Act rather than apply a thorough analysis going back to source documents that would clarify the Drafters' intent, like the Federalist Papers.  The more accurate interpretations of the Amendment are firstly that a disarmed population would make a useless militia, and that the citizen militia and beyond that the armed citizenry (Part of which would form the militia at any given time) were the ultimate guarantors against an oppressive government.

And to add, they do arm the militia.. ......we call them the National Guard

[DumbAss Tanker]

That's certainly the National Guard's position, it's actually a lot more complicated than that.

[miskie]

Alright primitives, I'm certain this has been explained upthread, but Ill do my best to make it DUproof for you.

There are three levels here.

The INDIVIDUAL has the right to bear arms.

The STATE may assemble militias. (E.g. National Guard)

The NATION may make use of those militias, (if called into federal service) it may also assemble its own forces.

These are three distinct things.

The NATION cant interfere with the STATE or the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms.
The STATE cant interfere with the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms.

In other words, primitive -Your notion is absurd.
 

[Tucker]

And to add, they do arm the militia.. ......we call them the National Guard

They arm the current NG but keep in mind that the NG wasn't chartered until 110 years after the signing of the Constitution.

[Airwolf]

Better yet. Following the DUmmies definition of Militia then how many of you DUmpmonkies are going to be joining up or are going to get drafted to form that militia when the State has need for you? Anyone? Anybody there at DU? Hello I say. Looks like you all ran off again you pussies. What are you afraid of? Having to keep arms in your home the way you are defining the 2nd Amendment? Must be because your kind lack the balls to join up for even two years to serve voluntarily. You clowns need to go back to school and start over with Dr Seuss Since you clearly can't understand shit in the Bill of Rights or just don't care unless it's about you.

[Crazy Horse]

That's certainly the National Guard's position, it's actually a lot more complicated than that.

I understand that, just a quick answer to the op

[I_B_Perky]

They arm the current NG but keep in mind that the NG wasn't chartered until 110 years after the signing of the Constitution.

Details, details.

/dummie mode off

[Tucker]

Details, details.

/dummie mode off

I had to nadin it. I took a guess on the 110 years part.

Constitution went into effect in 1789. NG was chartered in 1903, so 114 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_of_the_United_States

Active    As state-funded militia under various names: 1636–1903
As federal reserve forces called the National Guard: 1903–present

[DumbAss Tanker]

At the time the Constitution was written, the traditional meaning of militia did not even usually mean the State was involved, since the means to communicate to and from the Governor in case of a real emergency were so slow as to make it useless to respond to any emergency in that manner.  What it actually meant was the armed and able-bodied men turning out to deal with the problem immediately, THEN worrying about getting word to the Sovereign that something was going on and riders out to bring in reinforcements if necessary from the surrounding communities (Also with the priority on mustering rather than on getting approval from the Governor).

[Tucker]

At the time the Constitution was written, the traditional meaning of militia did not even usually mean the State was involved, since the means to communicate to and from the Governor in case of a real emergency were so slow as to make it useless to respond to any emergency in that manner.  What it actually meant was the armed and able-bodied men turning out to deal with the problem immediately, THEN worrying about getting word to the Sovereign that something was going on and riders out to bring in reinforcements if necessary from the surrounding communities (Also with the priority on mustering rather than on getting approval from the Governor).

Well regulated meant well trained and equipped. The fighting man had to supply his own arms as well.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Well regulated meant well trained and equipped. The fighting man had to supply his own arms as well.

Many did, but the local town armory also had a store of military-standard weapons to make up shortages and arm the poorer members of the community, also as a repository for the heavier items or those not useful to an individual in peace, like Coehorns, light cannon, bayonets, grenades, etc., in addition to doubling as a last-resort redoubt, in case the 'Emergency' managed to actually get itself into town before an effective response could be mounted.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

And to add, they do arm the militia.. ......we call them the National Guard

Whole different animal.

Guardsmen are enlisted for set periods.

[Gina]

ToxMarz (202 posts)
2. Forwarded to the White House. Not sure if anyone else is aware of this. Good find.

got to be a mole, no one is going to actually be that dense 

[Rebel]

http://election.democraticunderground.com/10022226605#post12


The million dollar post:

The Constitutional scholar president CERTAINLY not aware of it.

However misfits, you missed the boat yet once again - which is reason you are forever damned to the island.  

States.   Federal.    There is a clear distinction.    The 2nd Amendment applying to the state.   The powers of Congress shall not infringe on the rights of the states.  

What part of that are you having the toughest time understanding?

The second amendment doesn't apply to the state. It's an individual right. Pretty much all amendments up to ten are strictly individual in nature, with the 10th being shared.

[DumbAss Tanker]

The second amendment doesn't apply to the state. It's an individual right. Pretty much all amendments up to ten are strictly individual in nature, with the 10th being shared.

No, the Supreme Court long ago ruled that any individual right in the Bill of Rights may not be interfered with by a State because they all apply to individuals by means of the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause, notwithstanding any language directly addressing Congress in them.  Therefore despite the First Amendment being directly addressed to limitations of Congressional but not State power, it also applies actions of any State government.  The problem in the Second Amendment area was that a pro-big-government Supreme Court ruling on the National Firearms Act long ago decided the Second did not afford an individual right, a nonsensical position based on both subsequent historical research and its very placement in the Bill of Rights at all - Why would Amendments 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8 all be about an individual right, but not 2?  An irrational position, but until Heller and McDonald, one that stood.