|
“Tu ne cede malis”
Joined: Dec 13, 2006
Lots of different places
|
Bob2bob wrote: GEORGE MASON:(Debating Article 1, Section 8.) So, now we come to the Second Article of Amendment: "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." The people: PEOPLE. A state; as the people of the state of New York. A nation in its collective and political capacity. Nesbitt v. Lushington, 4 Term R, 783; U. S. v. Quincy, 6 Pet. 467, 8 L. Ed. 458; U. S. v. Trumbull (D. C.) 48 Fed. 99. In a more restricted sense, and as generally USED lN CONSTITUTIONAL LAW, THE ENTIRE BODY OF THOSE CITIZENS OF A STATE OR NATION who are invested with political power for political purposes, that is, the qualified voters or electors. Arms: ARMS. Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 161b, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it is used in the constitution, relative to THE RIGHT OF CITIZENS TO BEAR ARMS, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. So we arrive at: A well regulated militia (defined as the people of the state) being necessary to the security of a FREE STATE, the RIGHT of THE ENTIRE BODY OF THOSE CITIZENS OF A STATE OR NATION to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. So, bobby boy, bugger off!
|
|
“Tu ne cede malis”
Joined: Dec 13, 2006
Lots of different places
|
Bob2bob wrote: <quoted text>
How can I be lying? I'm Just showing you what THEY said
GEORGE MASON:(Debating Article 1, Section 8.) "I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers." ---George Mason, Virginia Delegation, Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788 Post #75 {Closed store is source of guns} Via JMullen You can disagree all you want, but that does not make your belief correct. The people are the Militia as stated by the founding fathers and the U.S. Supreme Court. U.S. vs. Miller (1939): "The signification attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. "A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline." And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time." "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people." ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. Whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them; nor does it follow from this, that all promiscuously must go into actual service on every occasion. The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle; and when we see many men disposed to practice upon it, whenever they can prevail, no wonder true republicans are for carefully guarding against it." ---Richard Henry Lee, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788. "I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers." ---George Mason, Virginia Delegation, Constitution Ratification Convention, 1788
|
|
Jason
|
Patrcik Henry,
"The great object is, THAT EVERY MAN BE ARMED."
James Madison
"the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation,"
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
Bob2bob wrote: GEORGE MASON:(Debating Article 1, Section 8.) "But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use... I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power." Tucker's Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D [Section 10 — Powers of Congress (cont.)] 12. Congress has, moreover, power 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 C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. 8. The objects of this clause of the constitution, although founded upon the principle of our (Virginia) state bill of rights, Art. 8, declaring, "that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state," were thought to be dangerous to the state governments. The convention of Virginia, therefore, proposed the following amendment to the constitution; "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same." A further amendment proposed, was, "that the militia should not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service, in time of war, rebellion, or invasion" .... A provision manifestly implied in the words of the constitution. As to the former of these amendments, all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments (The Second Amendment) to the constitution, since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and hear arms, shall not be infringed." To which we may add, that the power of arming the militia, not being prohibited to the states, respectively, by the constitution, is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government. http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d10000.htm If Mason was wishing for "an express declaration" that individuals have the right to OWN military armaments, SHOW ME WHERE. If Tucker said that the Second Amendment guarantees a right for individuals to OWN military armaments, SHOW ME WHERE. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
Bob2bob wrote: <quoted text> How can I be lying? I'm Just showing you what THEY said GEORGE MASON:(Debating Article 1, Section 8.) "But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use... I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power." Tucker's Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D [Section 10 — Powers of Congress (cont.)] 12. Congress has, moreover, power 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 C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. 8. The objects of this clause of the constitution, although founded upon the principle of our (Virginia) state bill of rights, Art. 8, declaring, "that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state," were thought to be dangerous to the state governments. The convention of Virginia, therefore, proposed the following amendment to the constitution; "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same." A further amendment proposed, was, "that the militia should not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service, in time of war, rebellion, or invasion" .... A provision manifestly implied in the words of the constitution. As to the former of these amendments, all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments (The Second Amendment) to the constitution, since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and hear arms, shall not be infringed." To which we may add, that the power of arming the militia, not being prohibited to the states, respectively, by the constitution, is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government. http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d10000.htm If Mason was wishing for "an express declaration" that individuals have the right to OWN military armaments, SHOW ME WHERE. If Tucker said that the Second Amendment guarantees a right for individuals to OWN military armaments, SHOW ME WHERE. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
|
|
“Shall NOT be infringed.”
Joined: Dec 6, 2006
Phoenix, AZ.
|
Bob2bob wrote: GEORGE MASON:(Debating Article 1, Section 8.) "But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use... I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power." Tucker's Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D [Section 10 — Powers of Congress (cont.)] 12. Congress has, moreover, power 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 C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. 8. The objects of this clause of the constitution, although founded upon the principle of our (Virginia) state bill of rights, Art. 8, declaring, "that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state," were thought to be dangerous to the state governments. The convention of Virginia, therefore, proposed the following amendment to the constitution; "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same." A further amendment proposed, was, "that the militia should not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service, in time of war, rebellion, or invasion" .... A provision manifestly implied in the words of the constitution. As to the former of these amendments, all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments (The Second Amendment) to the constitution, since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and hear arms, shall not be infringed." To which we may add, that the power of arming the militia, not being prohibited to the states, respectively, by the constitution, is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government. http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d10000.htm If Mason was wishing for "an express declaration" that individuals have the right to OWN military armaments, SHOW ME WHERE. If Tucker said that the Second Amendment guarantees a right for individuals to OWN military armaments, SHOW ME WHERE. "The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT be infringed."
|
|
monster meat packer
|
Bob2bob wrote: GEORGE MASON:(Debating Article 1, Section 8.) "But we need not give them power to abolish our militia. If they neglect to arm them, and prescribe proper discipline, they will be of no use... I wish that, in case the general government should neglect to arm and discipline the militia, there should be an express declaration that the state governments might arm and discipline them. With this single exception, I would agree to this part, as I am conscious the government ought to have the power." Tucker's Blackstone Volume 1 — Appendix Note D [Section 10 — Powers of Congress (cont.)] 12. Congress has, moreover, power 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 C. U. S. Art. 1, Sec. 8. The objects of this clause of the constitution, although founded upon the principle of our (Virginia) state bill of rights, Art. 8, declaring, "that a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state," were thought to be dangerous to the state governments. The convention of Virginia, therefore, proposed the following amendment to the constitution; "that each state respectively should have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining it's own militia, whenever congress should neglect to provide for the same." A further amendment proposed, was, "that the militia should not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service, in time of war, rebellion, or invasion" .... A provision manifestly implied in the words of the constitution. As to the former of these amendments, all room for doubt, or uneasiness upon the subject, seems to be completely removed, by the fourth article of amendments (The Second Amendment) to the constitution, since ratified, viz. "That a militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep, and hear arms, shall not be infringed." To which we may add, that the power of arming the militia, not being prohibited to the states, respectively, by the constitution, is, consequently, reserved to them, concurrently with the federal government. http://www.constitution.org/tb/t1d10000.htm NOTHING TO DO WITH A PERSONAL RIGHT TO OWN MILITARY ARMAMENTS. You completely missed the point of this passage you frakkin asshat! this was a cynical piognant view of what would cause the colonial citizenry to fall under the auspice of english rule( the same yoke in the process of being thrown off) so when mason,henry and vandermeer took to speech,this was a stark warning to finish the war and be steadfast in the belief the citizenry be continuous with arms! Also you still dont answer the question...where did the colonials get the arms to thwart the ****,err I mean british from? could it be you dont want to ADMIT they had them ALL ALONG!!!!!
|
|
“Yellow snow - no good”
Joined: Mar 28, 2008
|
Bob2bob wrote: .
IT'S NOTHING TO DO WITH A PERSONAL RIGHT TO OWN MILITARY ARMAMENTS.
DON'T LET THE GUN-LOBBY/INDUSTRY RE-WRITE YOUR CONSTITUTION. And why is this any of your business? You're from ENGLAND you IDIOT!
|
|
Joined: Jul 10, 2007
|
The English Bill of Rights passed in 1689 was to keep the brit monarchy/government from disarming the population, as has been down now. They used to understand that disarming the people in Britain would make them sheep, like bob.
|
Alamogordo Daily News Forum
