Why NRA members do not like Federalist Paper #29

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

Never heard of him.

No? He's definitely your kind of guy.

[BlueStreak]

Originally Posted by Boreas

No? He's definitely your kind of guy.

LMAO! Also another one who claims to not be a racist...........like Frank Ancona.

I find it HILARIOUS when these people deny what they are after parading it around for all the world to see. The absurdity of it is a hoot!

http://newsone.com/2997895/kkk-frank-ancona/

[Tom Joad]

Originally Posted by BlueStreak

LMAO! Also another one who claims to not be a racist...........like Frank Ancona.

I find it HILARIOUS when these people deny what they are after parading it around for all the world to see. The absurdity of it is a hoot!

http://newsone.com/2997895/kkk-frank-ancona/

I see.

So now, because I won't bend a knee to the corrupt criminal bitch hag Clinton, I must be a racist?

[whell]

Originally Posted by sheltiedave

The 29th Federalist paper and the 2nd Admendment are linked at the hip. The 29th advocates for a well regulated state militia, the 2nd Admendment secures the right to bear arms for a well regulated (state) militia.

Uh, not really. If that's *what you want it to read*, you can try to make the case. But you might have to ignore lots of other things to do that.

Thing you'd need to ignore #1: the reason Federalist 29 was written. What Publius was actually trying to do was settle a debate about how the Constitution allowed Congress to form an army with no limitations save that it had to be funded no more than two years at a time. The fear was that the standing army could become an instrument of the government to exercise control over the people. The argument came down to "standing army versus militias only". Federalist 29 argued that there was room for both and made the case for it. Federalist 29 was never intended debate personal gun ownership.

Personal gun ownership at the time, in fact, was not a subject of much debate.

Jefferson, for example, proposed language for the Virginia Constitution: ""No freeman shall ever be de-barred the use of arms."

"To disarm the people...[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them" - George Mason.

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun." - Patrick Henry

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of." - James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788

Thing you'd need to ignore #2: Borrowed from above, Federalist paper 46. "Publius" argues here that the possession of firearms by the citizens and the potential for resistance to tyranny implicit in that possession is necessary as part of the system of checks and balances that holds tyranny at bay. "Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain, that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes. But were the people to possess the additional advantages of local governments chosen by themselves, who could collect the national will and direct the national force, and of officers appointed out of the militia, by these governments, and attached both to them and to the militia, it may be affirmed with the greatest assurance, that the throne of every tyranny in Europe would be speedily overturned in spite of the legions which surround it."

Thing you'd need to ignore #3: Federalist paper 84. The Federalist papers are fine for understanding the crafting of the US Constitution. Publius wrote the Federalist papers before the Bill of Rights were drafted and in fact were written to convince people to ratify the Constitution without a Bill of Rights. The concern of many Americans at the time was that if such a bill were created, it might later be interpreted as a list of the only rights that people had. The Constitution was intended to define the limits of the power of government, not the people.

Thing you'd need to ignore #4: The definition of militia as used at that time, or the words "well regulated" by the individuals who were debating the language in the Constituion, and later in the Bill of Rights. Its the only definition that matters in this debate. The Constitution nor the Bill of Rights specifically define the term. A widely reprinted article by Tench Coxe, an ally and correspondent of James Madison, described the Second Amendment's overriding goal as a check upon the national government's standing army: "As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." Therefore, the argument that the term "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment refers to government control fails in the context of what the records show as the intent of the 2nd amendment. It doesn't make sense to argue that these words referred to a grant of "regulation" power to the government (national or state), when the entire purpose of the Bill of Rights was to both declare individual rights and tell the national government where the scope of its enumerated powers ended.

The Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia (see below). The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms.They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics. In this context "well-regulated at the time simply meant something that was functioning properly.

As far as the meaning of "militia":

Tenche Coxe again - “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against 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.”

Patrick Henry - “Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?"

Richard Henry Lee - “A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms.”

James Madison: “A WELL REGULATED militia, composed of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Tom Joad

I see.

So now, because I won't bend a knee to the corrupt criminal bitch hag Clinton, I must be a racist?

I think he was talking about David Alan Coe, a serious racist*. For what it's worth, TJ, I don't think you're a racist. As I recall, you said that your wife is black so it's hard for me to think of you as a racist.

* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0rwnIqRl4gc

[Pio1980]

I dunno if DAC was a racist then or now tho that seems to be his rep. He did some edgy and pretty tastless stuff that seems related to prison/ titties and beer biker culture. Do a websearch for yourself.

Sent from my SM-N900V using Tapatalk