For advocates of gun control who feel the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution applies only to the military, I submit the following:
The first ten amendments were added by popular demand to give “the people” specific guarantees. The amendments clearly indicate reference to individual rights, not states’ rights.
The term “militia” as used in the 2nd Amendment referred to all able-bodied male citizens at least 18 years old.
In 1903, an act was passed creating the federal control, funding, and training of state forces as organized militia. It designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.
An act of 1916 designated the organized militia as the National Guard. This was further clarified by the National Defense Act of June 4, 1920, and this act again designated all other adult male citizens as the unorganized militia.
Title 10 U.S. Code, Section 246, states that the militia consists of all able-bodied males 17 to 45 years old. It also specifies two classes of militias exist, the organized (i.e. National Guard) and unorganized.
In U.S. vs Miller, 1939, the U.S Supreme Court said that when militia members were called to service, they were “expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use” at the time.
Notice that making it illegal for males under 21-years-old to purchase a pistol, or making it illegal for any male at least 17-years-old to buy any rifle "in common use," is a violation of Federal law.
Data gathered by Glenn E. Chatfield, blog owner.
3 comments:
OOOOOKKKKKAAAAYYYYY???
You will not find a single credentialed constitutional scholar or historian worth his salt who tells you that the 2nd Amendment pertains to the private ownership of guns. It rather concerns hunting and thus is an implicit affirmation of one's own private property. "Bearing arms" is used in the plural rather than singular, meaning a federal military office. Most living in the thirteen colonies did not even have guns, or what precious little they had was from Europe and mostly in bad shape. Most fighting against Britain was done was done by peaceful protests and civil disobedience. They protected themselves by staying in groups. The only "sources" you will find who say otherwise are ignorant hillbillies or conservative talk show hosts who have no business discussing law or politics in the first place. There may be valid philosophical or historical reasons for the private ownership of guns, but the 2nd Amendment isn't one of them. Many of our rights are not found in the constitution anyway.
Ethan,
You will not find a single real credentialed constitutional scholar or historian worth his salt who agrees with you. Seem the SCOTUS has often disagreed with you "Arms" plural simply means we can have more than ONE firearm And your propaganda revised history is so full of crap that have proven yourself to be an ignorant, indoctrinated LEFTIST.
Post a Comment