Here we go again with misreading "well regulated" again...

[illinois_buckeye]

Admittedly I’ve not read the entire thread, but I think I remember reading that in Illinois you are basically part of the militia if you are able bodied per the state constitution.  
 

https://law.justia.com/constitution/illinois/con12.html

 

I remember reading once where someone asked what the founding fathers if they were alive today would think.  One answer was interesting, the answer was that they though George Washington wouldn’t like the idea of a large standing army.  Which makes sense as they’d just fought the British who were the superpower of their time.  

 

The point they made was that another nation wouldn’t have invaded at least at that time since citizens had arms and were able to rise up to defend themselves.  Really it makes sense if you think of it.  Think back to when America was young.  With the help of the French they’d just defeated the British, who were still in Canada.  But until the Louisiana purchase, you still had the French in the west as well as I think there were Spaniards in Florida, as well as many tribes of Indians that they may have been fighting from time to time.  So in the historical context of the time the 2nd amendment was written, I wouldn’t think that they would have wanted the people disarmed.  They wouldn’t have been concerned about their own government only, but what if another power like the French or the British decided to attack them.  It would have meant all of your able bodied men would have been able to rise up to defend the state.

[Flynn]

On 7/1/2022 at 9:37 PM, ScottFM said:

I am saying that the claim by one writer in this thread that the 2nd Amendment was meant to create a "militia to fight a tyrannical government" is NOT anywhere written in the Constitution

 

Spelled out in black and white, no...   Implied and likely based on other period papers by those same people that were involved in the formation of the country, yes.

 

Quote

in fact the 2nd Amendment contradicts that intent by specifically and unambiguously stating that the right is their to quell insurrection and quell invasion. 

 

The 2nd specifies no such thing, to even make that claim is beyond silly.  Serously where do you see that in the 2nd?  You are once again trying to cut an paste parts of the Constitution outside their defined categories and apply them to other categories, that is just silly.

 

You can't take a codified limit of Congressional powers in the Constitution specifically categorized as a Legislative power limit and proclaim it to be an enumerated Individual right limit in the Constitution, anymore than you can take a power granted to Legislative branch and declare that power is a right of every Individual, that is just being silly again.  Legislative constraints and powers in the Constitution are not applicable to be applied to Individial rights, apple and oranges.

 

Again, you are proclaiming a clearly defined Legislative power limit clearly categorized in the Constitution as a limit on the Legislative branch is somehow a limit on an Individual right, that is an epic jump in mental gymnastics.

 

 

[2A4Cook]

On 7/2/2022 at 3:36 PM, Flynn said:

 

Spelled out in black and white, no...   Implied and likely based on other period papers by those same people that were involved in the formation of the country, yes.

 

 

The 2nd specifies no such thing, to even make that claim is beyond silly.  Serously where do you see that in the 2nd?  You are once again trying to cut an paste parts of the Constitution outside their defined categories and apply them to other categories, that is just silly.

 

You can't take a codified limit of Congressional powers in the Constitution specifically categorized as a Legislative power limit and proclaim it to be an enumerated Individual right limit in the Constitution, anymore than you can take a power granted to Legislative branch and declare that power is a right of every Individual, that is just being silly again.  Legislative constraints and powers in the Constitution are not applicable to be applied to Individial rights, apple and oranges.

 

Again, you are proclaiming a clearly defined Legislative power limit clearly categorized in the Constitution as a limit on the Legislative branch is somehow a limit on an Individual right, that is an epic jump in mental gymnastics.

 

 

Not to mention that the Bill of Rights was added to the Constitution inn 1791.  If Section 8, defining the powers of Congress, was the only and final word on the subject, then what, pray tell, would be the purpose of the Second Amendment?

[Flynn]

On 7/2/2022 at 6:15 PM, 2A4Cook said:

If Section 8, defining the powers of Congress, was the only and final word on the subject, then what, pray tell, would be the purpose of the Second Amendment?

 

We all know (or at least should) the "Occam Razor" answer to that, the 2nd is an individual right outside and removed from the scope of the Legislative militia constraints found in Section 8.