Funny you should say that..

The last line in my profile since I joined and so long as the site did not delete it... was:

'However..... I am very constipated right now'

Lilith.. actually held off contacting me, because I had that line in my profile.

The opinions of one man.. or 10 men.. do not make a law in this country. The opinions of men written in journals or books are not law. Not our Constitution.

Agreed.. These men were brilliant beyond their time. Some of them might have believed in a free and armed state... They may not have as well... Either way? What is written in the Constitution and Bill of Rights is law. It was agreed upon by many with differing approaches to the same goal.

It was not a document that was written and signed. It was deliberated and discussed at length.. Until such time that a compromise was met and then ratified by representatives of the people. Then it had to go before the Senate.. and completely rehashed again...

In that.. What George Washington wrote in his Journal? Or Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton wrote in theirs? Only gives us their opinion.. Not the bodies opinion. Not the will of the people or the States the representatives resided in.

Although the journals are of great historic value and offer insight on what individuals were thinking? They are not law.

In the grand scheme of things? They matter just a bit more then my opinion or yours.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
By the way... Lordling.. I did find a legal referance to the case. I downloaded it and it will take some time to study.

Thanks.

Thanks.. I'll look into it.

I did find some data on the comma question. Most all of them were references to pro gun blogs.... Nothing that appeared to be from a legal opinion or stance... Yet. I'm still looking though.

I did come up with an article by James Madison brought to the floor. It stated:


'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.'

And a report by John Vining of Delaware to a review committee of 11 of the 13 colonies.. Only because Rhode Island and North Carolina had not yet ratified the Constitution. It said....

'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.'

Then.. after deliberation... The House modified the amendment.

'A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person.'

Not long after.. The Senate struck the conscientious objector clause and adopted:

'A well regulated militia being the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

To think that life still goes on.. outside of gun threads...

I take it he came back and offered some more pearls of wisdom here?

I'd look... but....

Dude! We get it.. You are pissed at lilith and I. I'm still not entirely sure why and really don't much care anymore.
Let it go... I have.. Lilith has...
My God.. You'd think I called your Mother a whore.

Finally.. a direct answer that makes some sense. Thank-you.
I already know the meaning of 'state'.
I still have my doubts though.. considering that the Constitution and Bill of Rights was written by the elite class of the time... was all inclusive. I highly doubt that the land owners of the time would have enjoyed the possibility of the working class and poor becoming organized and armed.
Even if you look at some of the laws passed just 20 to 50 years after the Bill of Rights was ratified...Concerning concealed weapons and wearing sidearms in public... Many of those, stood unchallanged.


By the way lording.. I come up with nothing, searching any and all variables of 'Comma Controversy' and 'Yasky's'
Is it possible to point me to some evidence of this?

Yes.. I have. Not all of it.. but some.
For instance...

'"If a single member should attempt to usurp the supreme authority, he could not be supposed to have an equal authority and credit in all the confederate states. Were he to have too great influence over one, this would alarm the rest. Were he to subdue a part, that which would still remain free might oppose him with forces independent of those which he had usurped and overpower him before he could be settled in his usurpation.

"Should a popular insurrection happen in one of the confederate states the others are able to quell it. Should abuses creep into one part, they are reformed by those that remain sound. The state may be destroyed on one side, and not on the other; the confederacy may be dissolved, and the confederates preserve their sovereignty.

"As this government is composed of small republics, it enjoys the internal happiness of each; and with respect to its external situation, it is possessed, by means of the association, of all the advantages of large monarchies."

Which leads me to believe that the designers of the Constitution believed the militias were a State (small republic) responsibility... and to be governed by that States Government. Therefore.. the term... 'Well regulated militia'.

Yes... Tyranny from the Federal Government. The source of any possible tyranny from within.
The governing body is the State the militia resides in. The Commander in Chief to that militia is the elected Governer. So.. if a regulated militia is all able bodied armed people of the State. We are governed by the State we live in... We can be called to service by the Govener, against the Federal Govornment.

How exactly do you think the South went about it, during the Civil War?

In November 1860, Lincoln was elected.
In December a call for a convention to deliberate the Southern Confederacy.
A week later, South Carolina seceded from the Union.
Then Mississipi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia...etc....

By February Jefferson Davis was elected President of the Confederacy.

It wasn't a bunch of hillbillies behind the stil... It was State Governments, following the will of the people in the State.

It says 'civil power'.. Not people. In other words.. The military (i.e. Guard) is subordinate to the State Government.

Then by whom?
The amendment does use the word regulated, does it not? Who is to govern other then the Government. Who is to be in charge of the agenda of said militias?

We've had a bit of experience around here in the Northwest on this.

For instance.. Take a look at this site.
http://www.aryan-nations.org/about.htm

The Constitution of Oregon State manages to say it in such a way that is substantially different then the Federal Constitution.

It says:
Section 27. Right to bear arms; military subordinate to civil power. The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence [sic] of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power[.]

How come they failed to word the Federal Constitution like that?

Where? when?

Perhaps the way I should have countered your verbage adj... is:

How come there is nothing in there defining 'Regulated Militia'?

Regulated:
A rule of order having the force of law, prescribed by a superior or competent authority, relating to the actions of those under the authority's control.

Militia:
A group of private citizens who train for military duty in order to be ready to defend their state or country in times of emergency. A militia is distinct from regular military forces, which are units of professional soldiers maintained both in war and peace by the federal government.

In the United States, as of the early 2000s, the National Guard serves as the nation's militia. Made up of volunteers, the National Guard acts under the dual authority of both the federal and state governments. According to the Constitution, Congress can call the National Guard into federal service for three purposes: to enforce federal laws, to suppress insurrections, and to defend against invasions. State governors can call upon the National Guard for emergencies that are prescribed by state law.

The American militia system has its roots in ancient English tradition, dating back to the Anglo-Saxon militia that existed centuries before the Norman Conquest in 1066. This militia, known as the fyrd, consisted of every able-bodied male of military age. It was traditionally used for defense only, and the sovereign could call upon the fyrd to fight if the men would be able to return to their homes by nightfall. Fyrd members were required to supply their own weapons, which they could use only in the service of the king.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Given this definition...
Wouldn't it seem reasonable to assume that a militia does not consist of private untrained citizens?
Even if it does.. That the term 'regulated' means the State has the right to determine what is armed and not armed?

You are right.. Apparently I mixed up a few posts in my head. Sorry.

I tried... Don't see the point in trying anymore.

The op asked:
'This is my choice for the biggest threat not addressed by america. We have a gun problem...with everyone popping off so easy and quickly as well as public shooting sprees...are any of us safe anymore? Do we all have to pack? What the hell is going on in this country? Do we have a people behavioral problem as well? wether you live on the streets or you live in the hills this is a problem. Spill it America. '

Constitutionality was not really an issue till you and a few others brought it up. My experience and feelings on the subject, did pertain to the original question.. Just as much as your feelings on the right to bear arms.

I had no idea that this was intended to be a one sided debate, meant for pro-gun people who only spoke in a certain vernacular.

So you are right rob.. I apparently do not belong in this thread.

Of course I did... I just see it from an entirely different percpective.



I'm sorry you feel that way. I also feel bad for you that you blame lilith and I for making you feel anything at all... But, that too..is your right.

Now.. If you have managed to get the name calling and blaming out of the way... Maybe we can continue with what once was an intelligent conversation...

I'm sure you do.. But it doesn't.
It is the same canned answer you use consistently. Not that it does not pertain to the subject at large... but it does not even scratch the surface of liliths points.

The questions pertained to motive. As to why people think they need to be constantly armed. Why do some feel compelled to be always protected..and from what?

Her questions were not based in the legalities or constitutionality of the right to bear arms.

History of what? How does history relate to what lilith wrote?

I fail to see the connection.

Where in the 2nd amendment, do you read that?
The well regulated militia part?

This is an honest question. Completely devoid of ill intent.




Relax... Taking everything that is written... personally? Is very unbecoming.

I talked about my feelings. not yours. If you choose to take my feelings as to why I chose to carry as an insult to you? It makes me think that somehow i've inadvertantly managed to strike a nerve.

I hate to break it to you... Although I am sure it might seem that way. I do remember thinking the same thing once upon a time, long, long ago..
Then, for my troubles, I ended up with a beautiful woman whom I wouldn't even consider being alone with, let alone out in public or around my family and friends.

Most often... we are what we attract.

Trying to rely on someone else to fix us? Is not very effective. Really pretty selfish.... and always a clear path to go deeper then you might care to, into the mess you are already in.

The general idea... If you find yourself in a hole. Drop the shovel and stop digging. That is the first step to getting out of the hole.