I can, with exactitude. The Constitution granted Congress the sole power to organize, arm and discipline the militia in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16. Congress, using this authority, has passed five Militia Acts since ratification of the Bill of Rights to regulate the militia. Current law on militia regulation is 10 USC 246. U.S. Code § 246.Militia: composition and classes (a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b)The classes of the militia are— (1)the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2)the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. In future, the militia will be whatever Congress determines it to be under their enumerated Constitutional powers.
George Mason was one of the only three delegates who refused to sign the constitution. In any case, the "consist of the whole people" argument LOST See http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/ Washington's and Hamilton's argument that it should NOT be "the whole people" prevailed. However, this has nothing to do with this thread.
"Mason’s statement at the Virginia Ratifying Convention was a criticism of Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution, which gave Congress the power 'to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.' Mason’s fear was that if Congress had this power, they would decide to only conscript the poor into service. Not an unreasonable fear, mind you, given the way most wars have gone. It is often the poor fighting and dying, while the rich enlist in champagne units or sit at home tending to their 'bone spurs.' " https://qz.com/1214718/what-america...hree-important-words-in-the-second-amendment/ Mason was saying that the composition of the militia could change if the US Constitution was ratified. You really took that quote out of context.
I read the opinion article you cited but fail to see how Mason's concerns affects the right of most Americans to "... keep and bear arms". Additionally, Mason was not the only White male to endorse the Bill of Rights so the sentiments of the other signatories must be considered too and they saw that the various rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights as both individual and collective rights.
Not true at all. The first half is a justification for the right contained in the second half, it is not a restriction on it. Keep in mind that the strict scrutiny standard also applies to the rest of the fundamental individual rights and any weakening on 2A also weakens the rest of your fundamental rights.
Where did you read the word "restriction"? Of course it's a justification. Now... if you want to comment on my post with that in mind, I'd be happy to see it.
The Supreme Court didn't even bother to "debunk" this. They just ignored the Amicus Brief submitted by the most prominent Linguists and Philologists in our country. https://www.supremecourt.gov/Docket...Corpus Linguistics Professors and Experts.pdf
And you ignored that your incoherent reading limits 2A to a reminder to supply the militia with arms. Further, your claim is Fake News. SCOTUS debunked your false claim most directly. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf You labor under a self-serving "confusion" of the prefatory clause for the operative clause.
Let me know when you're done making up nonsense, and if you have anything to respond to what I do say. Though I'm sure expecting you to even understand what I said may be too much to ask.
You can call the findings of the Supreme Court "made up nonsense" but they remain the law of the land.
You can call it "the law of the land", but not that it has debunked the most prominent historians and linguists in this country who have demonstrated that the decision was not based on history or linguistics.
Then they missed what the states decided about the right to keep and bear arms. Pennsylvania: 1776: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power. Declaration of Rights, cl. XIII. Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).\ Kentucky: 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned." Art. XII, § 23. Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). Connecticut: Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state. Art. I, § 15 (enacted 1818, art. I, § 17). The constitutions of the various states indicated an individual rights viewpoint at least 66 times.. http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm Cruikshank affirmed an individual right unassociated with a militia. Verdugo-Urquidez affirmed that the Second protected an individual right.
As I have pointed out to liberals here more than once, US Code defines the militia as citizens or those seeking to become citizens. 10 US Code §311. BTW, when the Constitution was written "well regulated" meant well trained, work, etc. In other words the militia, which is the people, would be able to own and train with guns. That being said. Liberals need to stop with the attempting to be clever and put repealing the 2nd Amendment to a vote. Put up or shut up.
Which protects the individual right to keep and bear arms. Given that the states prior to and subsequent to the ratification of the Bill of Rights noted an individual right in their Constitutions along with the existence of the Supremacy Clause tells us that the Second couldn't protect just a collective right.
Read the Second Amendment yes it is. It's specifically mentions one right and who it belongs to. The cause for this right to exist is being able to form a militia if you take away people's ability to own guns then they can't.
Yes it does say just that even if you had the first part about militia the first sentence doesn't negate the second one. The words that are the most important in this amendment is the right of the people not the militia not people in the militia the people. You're putting too much emphasis on the first sentence that's not where the right is contained.
No it's not. The Amendment doesn't say you only have the right to own a gun if you are in a militia that wouldn't make sense. Because when you join the militia you would have to have a gun do you know what a militia is?
There is no talk about any individual right to keep and bear arms in the 2nd A. But that's a completely different topic. See http://www.politicalforum.com/index.php?threads/history-101-why-the-2nd-amendment.586263/
"Taking away"? Where the hell did you get that? Read the post you're responding to before... responding!
The Second Amendment, like all of the Bill of Rights, don't define the right. It restricts government authority. Why do you keep ignoring this? Why do you keep ignoring all of the evidence that the Founders intended that the right to keep and bear arms be an individual right?
