Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gunowner quiz on Obama
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Catatonic" data-source="post: 417896" data-attributes="member: 7966"><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">Jagger, while I like your posts and they well positioned, your arguments are based on modern interpretations of what the framers of the constitution meant.</span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">The following is an excerpt of pamphlet put out by a cotemporaneous friend of Madison (who wrote the Bill of Rights):</span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"><a href="http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm" target="_blank">http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm</a></span></span></p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this 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.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms.</span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'"></span></span></p><p><span style="color: black"><span style="font-family: 'Verdana'">George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." </span></span></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Catatonic, post: 417896, member: 7966"] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]Jagger, while I like your posts and they well positioned, your arguments are based on modern interpretations of what the framers of the constitution meant.[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana] [/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]The following is an excerpt of pamphlet put out by a cotemporaneous friend of Madison (who wrote the Bill of Rights):[/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][URL]http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm[/URL][/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][/FONT][/COLOR] [COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]It would be incongruous to suppose or suggest the Bill of Rights, including the Second Amendment, which were proscriptions on the powers of the national government, simultaneously acted as a grant of power to the national government. Similarly, as to the term "well regulated," it would make no sense to suggest this 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. In keeping with the intent and purpose of the Bill of Rights both of declaring individual rights and proscribing the powers of the national government, the use and meaning of the term "Militia" in the Second Amendment, which needs to be "well regulated," helps explain what "well regulated" meant. When the Constitution was ratified, the Framers unanimously believed that the "militia" included all of the people capable of bearing arms. George Mason, one of the Virginians who refused to sign the Constitution because it lacked a Bill of Rights, said: "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people." Likewise, the Federal Farmer, one of the most important Anti-Federalist opponents of the Constitution, referred to a "militia, when properly formed, [as] in fact the people themselves." [/FONT][/COLOR] [SIZE=3][FONT=Times New Roman] [/FONT][/SIZE] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Home
Forums
Brown Cafe Community Center
Current Events
Gunowner quiz on Obama
Top