Re: The 2ed Amendment as a Gun Nuts Wet Dream

On 27 Nov 2003 15:05:05 -0800, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (ulTRAX) wrote:

>"Randy Sweeney" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<[EMAIL PROTECTED]>...
>> "ulTRAX" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>> 
>> 
>> > MORE interesting that some can't see that the "well regulated militia"
>> > being consistent with the Constitution and the Militia Act can NOT
>> > mean EVERYONE.
>> 
>> 
>> Exactly, it means only citizens with full civil rights.
>> 
>> You would classify us as slaves?
>
>It's pretty obvious that slaves were NEVER meant to get ANY of the
>rights in the BoR. Can we agree on that no brainer? But when Congress
>fleshed out the Framers' Constitutional militia in the Militia Act of
>1792... only able-bodied white males between 17 and 45 were members.
>So much for any universal intent even then. Move up to 1903 when the
>Dick Act invents an unorganized militia. 

     There has ALWAYS been an "unorganized militia".  Just because it
was finally recognized and codified, doesn't mean it didn't exist
previously.

Leaving out the matter that
>this militia obvious in NOT trained in anything... it still only
>applies to men. Nope... no universal right there either.  Feel free to
>pretend that there was always some universal militia that Congress
>meant the 2ed to apply to... it's a standard gun nut ploy. It's just
>that they have no actual federal law to prove the Framers or First
>Congress EVER had such a disorganized (sic) militia in mind.

    It seems that one of them did:
FEDERALIST No. 28


The Same Subject Continued

(The Idea of Restraining the Legislative Authority in Regard to

 the Common Defense Considered)

For the Independent Journal.


HAMILTON



If the representatives of the people betray their constituents,

 there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original

 right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of

 government, and which against the usurpations of the national

 rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success

 than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a

 single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become

 usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which

 it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no

 regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously

 to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except

 in their courage and despair.