"That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of power and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and power-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a power of power; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack." -Militia Act of 1792 If the federal government made it mandatory to attend a certain church many people would think that was a violation of the freedom of religion. But the government can make it mandatory for you to own a certain type of firearm. It can also order you to use your gun against an invading foreign military thus possibly putting your own life at risk. Does this show us that the the RKBA is different from the more personal rights protected by the Bill of Rights? It seems the Founding Fathers were comfortable with the federal government exercising substantial control over this right- a kind of control that would be unacceptable in the case of other rights.
the federal government was never delegated any power whatsoever to interfere with the arms private citizens own. That is why it was so dishonest for politicians to claim that the second amendment is somehow limited its scope. The militia act has nothing to do with the second amendment or the bill of rights
The militia act was passed to make sure the militia was well regulated. Maybe you need to review the wording of the Second Amendment.
The feds can regulate the militia all it wants to. That still has nothing to do with the individual right to keep and bear arms.
By the text you cite, the people were expecting to bring their own equipment, firearms included. This would be impossible if firearms were rarely owned, as you claimed in a previous discussion. The federal government has also made it mandatory to possess health insurance, even if you cannot afford it. What is the point? The obvious question of "so what?" must be asked with regard to the above. What difference does it make if the federal government possessed the authority to draft the people for the purpose of war? Indeed it does not. It does not even begin to suggest that the right to keep and bear arms is different from every other recognized constitutional right found within the bill of rights. Pray tell, exactly what other choice would the founding fathers have possessed at the time to repel an invading foreign enemy, other than calling upon the people to defend their country?
So would it be okay if the federal government mandated that people attend certain churches and buy certain books and newspapers? I don't think most people would think so, but in the case of guns it appears to me that the Founding Fathers were comfortable with the federal government having a substantial level control.
Is that true even if regulation of the militia substantially affects what kind of guns people own and for what purposes they use those guns?
Is it acceptable that the federal government can and has mandated that the people of the united states must own health insurance, even if they have no desire to own it, and no ability to afford it? Mandating church attendance, and the purchasing of media, is enforcement of a specific viewpoint. Pray tell what viewpoint was enforced in a hypothetical requirement that those capable of serving in the militia own firearms?
Pray tell what are you even suggesting with the above? That the people were incapable of legally owning firearms of their choice, if said firearms were not in compliance with the militia act?
you seem to not understand that the Militia act had nothing to do with private citizens in their own private homes keeping and bearing whatever weapons they want. You seem to not be able to comprehend that telling those who might be in the militia that they have to own SOMETHING is no way a suggestion that congress had the same power to prevent you from OWNING other things. so your stupid argument is just that-a stupid argument that has no relevance to the topic whatsoever
Using his brand of anti logic is akin to this Those appearing for militia duty must where BDUS of Camouflage pattern #1 and boots of a certain grade from that he would conclude that gave Congress the power to tell you what you can wear in your own home when not on duty or what kind of clothes you, your wife and your children can even HAVE
Guns were expensive in those days- each one cost about 2 month's salary according to one estimate. So the government mandating that you buy a certain type of firearm could literally make it difficult for you to purchase another one. Yet the Founding Fathers were very comfortable with this situation.
Lols!! Mental image of some of our more ardent gun proponents on here being restricted to a musket or flintlock
Does requiring people to buy health insurance violate any Constitutional right? That isn't the point. The point is that the Founding Fathers were comfortable with regulation at the federal level which significantly affected the exercise of a right.
What came to mind was Jim Jefferies skit on gun control where he talks about people wanting to shoot each other when they only have a musket - by the time it is loaded you would have calmed down and gone for a beer with your opponent That is one way to reduce the firearm morbidity
you really are grasping for straws. That's among the most idiotic arguments I have ever heard. Maybe you will argue that the income tax was designed to limit gun ownership-with what I pay in income taxes, I could arm a town the size of Abilene
you are telling falsehoods again. you know there was not a single document from the founders that EVEN HINTED that the federal government was to have ANY power restricting what sort of arms private people could possess or use. But to the BM movement, even the constitution will not stand in the way of their hatred of those of us who don't buy into the creeping crud of collectivism and the desire of those who enable criminals, from using the false claim that gun control=Crime control, to pander to the low wattage masses
Why would it? They can designate what the militia can or can't use for militia purposes. That doesn't affect the citizenry.
It's one impossible way. Jim must have missed the Caetano v Massachusetts decision, and can't count to 3 million.
So you claim. But you do not present any evidence to back up this claim to demonstrate that firearms were so expensive, almost no one could actually afford to own them. Other than rifles and muskets, pray tell what other types of firearms actually existed at the time, that would otherwise be owned by the people? Which would require overturning Miller, Heller, McDonald and Caetano to achieve such, all of which stated in clear and concise terms that modern firearms, all in common use and commonly owned, are subject to second amendment protections for ownership. If requiring the people to own firearms violates some constitutional right, then so does the requirement to purchase and maintain health insurance. Except for the fact that there was nothing in the way of federal regulations pertaining to firearms, their ownership, or their use. The militia act stated that those who had firearms, and were of a certain age, were designated to be the defenders of the nation during the time. At best their is an argument that the federal government was telling the people to not be victims waiting to be slaughtered. With the amount of black powder that would be on hand, the construction of improvised explosive devices would guarantee far greater fatalities would be experienced from random bombings. The construction of black powder was not illegal, was not regulated, and was not difficult. Do you wish to trade shootings for bombings?
I disagree. The RKBA has never, ever been a right to keep and bear arms in militia service. The militia power always resided with the states, who had the absolute control of what could and could not be used. The states chose to rely on the separate and broader individual RKBA as the source of arms, and one fallacy of the gun control argument is the refusal to see that the militia was thereby rendered dependent on the RKBA rather than the RKBA was dependent on the existence of a militia. The adoption of the Constitution in 1789 transferred the power over militia arms to the total control of Congress in Article I Section 8. The 1792 Militia Act is not an infringement on the RKBA because there never was a right involved with the militia. Rather, it is merely Congress exercising an enumerated power that was transferred from the states to Congress (see Article I Section 8 “Congress shall have the power to organize, arm and equip the militia”). And while the states did have the power to tap the individual RKBA source for arms, and even make it a duty to provide your own firearm when called for service, nothing about this power gave the states the authority to otherwise infringe on the RKBA outside the militia duty. And because that additional power never existed, it was likewise never granted to Congress in the absence of some additional, expressly enumerated power—which Article I Section 8 clearly limits to the control of militia arms alone. Therefore, to address your analogy with freedom of religion….Congress has no enumerated power over religion, and the Constitution recognizes the individual freedom of religion. Therefore, Congress has no power to order me to go to church. Likewise, Congress’ power over arms is limited to militia service, and the constitutionally recognized RKBA exists to protect the right to keep and bear beyond the scope of Congress’ militia power. And if Congress did attempt to expand on its militia power and say “you may only have this one firearm and you may only make use of it in militia service” then Congress would be invading the individual RKBA as surely as if it ordered me to go to a particular church or not read a particular newspaper.
In addition, the very citation of the Militia Act undercuts your argument. Follow me now. You have to accept Congress has the power to enact the Militia Act, for Article I Section 8 clearly says it does. And if you argue that the 2nd Amendment recognized RKBA is limited to militia service, then you choose to deliberately read the Constitution in conflict with itself. You accuse others of not reading the wording of the Amendment, but I say there can be no “right of the people”—in any shape or form—that exists at the foot of an enumerated power of Congress, which itself is made absolute by the Article VI Supremacy Clause. The entire premise of the gun control movement’s legal argument is “the 2nd Amendment is only about the militia and militia arms in militia service.” Yet the conflict this interpretation creates with Congress’ Article I Section 8 power over the militias and the Article VI Supremacy Clause (which renders Congress’ militia power absolute) is what destroys the entire foundation of that very argument. It is little wonder gun control proponents who still favor the “militia only” interpretation attempt to ignore this conflict like some unwanted guest they hope will get the hint and finally leave the room. Galileo, I invite you to be the first gun control proponent I have ever seen to actually address it. Did, for example, the 2nd Amendment somehow repeal Congress’ absolute power over militia arms in Article I Section 8, or are you ready to accept that this “right of the people” is separate, apart, and independent of Congress’ domination of the militia and its arms? I respectfully suggest the acceptance of the reality that the individual RKBA is a right to keep and bear arms outside militia service is the only way you can prevent these two Constitutional provisions from cancelling themselves out as surely as the collision of matter and anti-matter. I ask you this because I have seen your arguments many times over the years, and frankly you are one of the few people from “the other side of the hill” whom I argue with to have shown the ability to critically think about it and give an answer actually worth reading. These are my thoughts. I welcome yours.
