what is the purpose of your constantly repeating that silly line about aqueducts? and I think you don't understand what well regulated means in terms of the second amendment
we should take a poll among those who post on gun issues as to whose posts demonstrate "clueless" nonsense. But tell me-what was the pre-existing natural right that the founders intended to guarantee with the second amendment?
Ah...the superiority derived from the secrete cryptic knowledge no one else possesses, eh? Explain how you figure Publius Quinctilius would have benefitted from your superior knowledge...
appealing to the masses instead of reason is a fallacy. Natural rights. Have you missed the entire argument due to your lack of a clue and a lack of standing as a result, for your alleged Cause. It is about the natural right to acquire and possess private property, and to defend that property, and one's self. It can Only be "alienated" by Due Process not any legislature.
It is not cryptic at all; I have been advocating it for years now. You simply haven't "researched" my arguments. Had Varus been a better Roman, he would have declaimed to the Emperor, that he needed better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, before even considering Taxing, barbarians.
Had Varus been a better Roman, he would have declaimed to the Emperor, that he needed better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, before even considering Taxing, barbarians.
You are not providing a supported arguement, merely making an assertion from a conclusion you've reached in your head, that you feel is somewhat relevant to this discussion as an analogy or lesson of history that, without the supporting constructs to reach that conclusion provide no basis for a discussion for anyone to agree with or challenge you. To say someone hasn't done the research is a bit silly, because your assertions don't provide a context to the meaning you are trying to convey. You are basically saying, "guess what I mean". I was once married to a woman that used that tactic and I have seen so called experts use that technique when they don't want their lack of expertise exposed. You basically are evading having to defend your conclusions and your logic at reaching them from challenge. There is a word for that. As for research in this area, I am pretty familiar with the history of this period and can pull associations from that period to support any arguement I'd want to apply to our current political and social situation that I want. Whether I can construct an arguement that is relevant and applicable to others would require me to reveal my logic chain and then defend my position. In regard to Varus and his massive defeat, I can provide a number of arguements for causal factors. But, I can also suggest, that one of the factors of his defeat was the informal rise of a militia to revolt against a remote tyrannical government... Not unlike the American revolt... And one of the reasons behind the inclusion of the 2A in the BoR a limit against potential tyranny.
The Militia is a modern concept, it has no parallel in the past, there existed Armies of either conscripts or citizens of the original countries, any other forces were considered Rogues or Revolutionaries.
Most of what you write I agree with and figure you have some similarity in dealing with self defense and with what happens in other countries without our constitutuional guarantees, but I would suggest militias were the norm in much of history prior to the professional, trained, standing armies of Rome and there may be a few candidates prior. There were,of course, armies build from constricted civilians such as those of Persia. But, throughout most of history armies were derived from the local population of farmers, merchants, etc. basically all male adults that could wield weapons, that were formed for common defense or offense when the need arose. In Ireland, for instance, prior to the Vikings and later the English arrivals, there were large numbers of strong leaders of various clans that were supported in their various skirmishes using what we would now term militias. The idea of militias were recognized as a long standing means for common defense by the FF, even before the Revolution in defense of the frontier.
I truly do not believe, Varus would have been the catastrophe he was, if he had been a better Roman, and declaimed to the Emperor, that he needed better aqueducts, better roads, and more well regulated militia, before even considering Taxing, barbarians.
There were Armies of Professional Mercenaries, well equipped and well trained, for hire by any Country able to pay. These should not be confused with The Militia, The Militia consists of the Citizens of a Country occupied at their regular daily professions and ready to answer the call of Duty at a moments notice, They have basic equipment and transportation and are able to mobilize faster than the Regular Army. There were Countries that had no standing Army, however, if their Treasury was rich enough, they could hire Foreign Mercenaries to fight their Battles, and avoid the more unpleasant aspects of War. Such as loosing many young people in War.
http://www.greekboston.com/culture/ancient-history/army/ http://www.constitution.org/jw/acm_1-m.txt http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Citizen-soldier
In other words, Rome shouldn't have expanded into the frontier of Germania without building the infrastructure to support that expansion? Varus was sent to fill the whole left by Tiberius leaving Germania, the uncivilized (according to the Romans) Roman frontier, at the time, to quell another rebellion, both fresh from putting down other rebellions, the on in Syria ruthlessly put down by Varus. Like Custer, Varus was out to prove himself and achieve fame to overcome, in Varus's case, the taint on his family name because of the suspicions his father was involved in Ceaser's assassination and his ambitions in Roman Government in competition with Tiberius, Custer trying to overcome the taint of his insubordination prior to the Little Big Horn and his ambitions for national political office. In both cases, they became over confident against the savages/barbarians and reckless, which were contributing factors. The taxation of what Rome though we're the recently subdued tribes in Germania was both a common means of Rome breaking the ability of recently subdued countries to financially mount opposition to Roman rule, but also was levied to help an over extended Rome to help pay for wars on-going elsewhere. As for building infrastructure, Rome tended to subdue an area, incorporate it over time into the Roman culture, and then over time use the newly Roman converts to build the infrastructure, the mark of Rome civilizing a new area. This Germania wasn't completely subdued, the transition to being civilized hadn't happened at that point, and Varus's was called on to accelerate the process. In those years in Rome, you didn't appeal for help from Rome if you wanted increase fame and power, like Ceaser at Alesia, you overcome, conquer, and do what you were sent to do. There were a considerable number of other factors at the time, including the various power moves among the Gemanic tribes, pressures on their frontiers by other peoples, and with Arminius himself. Your simplistic assertion, ignores the complexities of the politics, cultural conflicts, and other contributing factors of the time.
The SCotUS ruled on the case and never questioned the issue of standing, nor did any of the lower courts. Anyone arguing that Miller did not have standing is lying to himself.
And the fact that the supreme court did not go the route of proclaiming Miller had no standing to challenge the law means that an individual right to keep and bear arms did exist prior to the Heller ruling, in stark contrast to what others claim to the contrary.
even the four justices who got it wrong in Heller, conceded that the second amendment did recognize an individual right
considering the Militia Acts written just after the 2nd Amendment was ratified, we can assume that they meant the unregulated right to keep and carry guns was meant for those who were part of the militia. those who were not, could have their gun rights regulated.
And there you see the LIE, in any organized Paramilitary Organisation, there is plenty of restrictions and control over who can carry a gun ! Furthermore, in any Paramilitary outfit, you have no Rights as a member, you have Orders and rules. "The People" are accorded Rights, The People are Ordinary Civilians / Citizens whose RIGHT to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed upon ( By the Government ) !!!
