• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Black Watch and Our Early Militias

jet57 said:
Once again: I entered into the subject, because the origins were strikingly similar to our own militia history. Until 1775 the militia units were British. Lexington, Concord and then Moore's Creek Bridge changed the militias to patriot units.

My evidence shows conclusively that our militia system was NOT of our own devising, but rather copied from the British system that rather closely resembled The Black Watch in meaning and measure.

YOU et al, have, been trying to force a square peg into a round hole by stating erroneously that our militia system was invented to protect the new Americans from the government, AND THAT, as a result of a sectarian theory, said militia members had the "natural right" to self defense with a gun and as such said members and the general public today have "the natural right" to carry whatever gun they want, any way they want for any reason they want, and my evidence; primary source material, has defied everything you've stated to be true - full top.

You have no evidence to show that I am wrong - none. If you had then I would have seen it by now.

You cannot prove that The Black Watch was not an influence, you cannot prove "natural right" and the second amendment. You cannot prove anything.

So, yes, it's closed - over - your running around in circles now. YOU have zero to show.
Click to expand...


Just checking here. But you saw the reference to the 6th century and a recognition of the right of self defense? How about the Magna Carta in 1215? Or the Great Charters of 1225 and 1297? Or the Six Statutes under Edward the III? All of them speak about rights men are due from the King, because they are not granted from the King. Due process is in there as one of the most important.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I see you avoided reference to the prefatory clause and operative clause. This is the strict SCOTUS ruling: the militia is the prefatory clause, the right to keep and bear arms is the operative clause. The prefatory clause is dependent upon the operative. The right to keep and bear arms makes a militia more efficient and able to accomplish its aims. The proof is that after militias were disbanded was the members were not disarmed after the muster unless those weapons were provided for them. Further, militia members were not the only people allowed to keep and bear arms.
More evidence:
The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Click to expand...
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Moving back towards the Black Watch, your argument is that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon the militia in some obscure way. Can you please point me to the evidence that arms were restricted to any but the Black Watch in that time period? You are making a mistake in that you are confusing free, armed people gathering for common defense with subjects drafted into an army. They were armed before the fact and they were armed after the fact.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Just checking here. But you saw the reference to the 6th century and a recognition of the right of self defense? How about the Magna Carta in 1215? Or the Great Charters of 1225 and 1297? Or the Six Statutes under Edward the III? All of them speak about rights men are due from the King, because they are not granted from the King. Due process is in there as one of the most important.

Regarding the 2nd Amendment, I see you avoided reference to the prefatory clause and operative clause. This is the strict SCOTUS ruling: the militia is the prefatory clause, the right to keep and bear arms is the operative clause. The prefatory clause is dependent upon the operative. The right to keep and bear arms makes a militia more efficient and able to accomplish its aims. The proof is that after militias were disbanded was the members were not disarmed after the muster unless those weapons were provided for them. Further, militia members were not the only people allowed to keep and bear arms.
More evidence:
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Moving back towards the Black Watch, your argument is that the right to keep and bear arms is dependent upon the militia in some obscure way. Can you please point me to the evidence that arms were restricted to any but the Black Watch in that time period? You are making a mistake in that you are confusing free, armed people gathering for common defense with subjects drafted into an army. They were armed before the fact and they were armed after the fact.
Click to expand...

I've not avoided anything you've posted. I have credibly refuted with primary source material every ridiculous argument you have sprung into this discussion. And since 6th century writing doesn't enter into this that I can find, that is yet another spurious entrance into the debate.

As for the Black Watch, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and ignore every bit of factual information concerning them, and have at every turn misrepresented my arguments. So, until you can place new evidence that has at the very least a modicum of credibility, and proves "natural rights" were written into the second amendment proving that justice Scalia was entirely wrong, our discussion is over.

As for disarming Scots:

Historical Geography of the Clans of Scotland

By T. B. Johnston, F.R.G.S. and Colonel James A. Robertson

The Disarming Act, 1746
19 Geo. II c. 39

Historical Geography of the Clans of Scotland - The Disarming Act, 1746

his Act received the Royal Assent on August 12, 1746. Its administration was entrusted to Lieut-General Humphry Bland, Commander of the Forces in North Britain. His execution of this duty is the subject of an interesting paper by Mr A. I-I. Millar in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries of Scotland, March 9, 1896. In 1747 the Heritable Jurisdictions Act was passed, which broke up the feudal power of the great landowners. Some amazing instances of feudal tyranny in the Highlands in the first half of the eighteenth century are noted in Captain Burt’s Letters from the North of Scotland, vol. ii., p. 246 et seq. (Ed. 1876.)

An Act for the more effectual disarming the Highlands in Scotland and for more effectually securing the Peace of the said Highlands; and for restraining the Use of the Highland Dress, and for further indemnifying such Persons as have ac/ed in defence of his Majesty’s Person and Government, during the unnatural Rebellion; and for indemnifying the Judges and other Officers of the Court of Justiciary inScotland, for not performing the Northern Circuit in May, One thousand seven hundred and forty six; and for obliging the Masters and Teachers of Private Schools in Scotland, and Chaplains, Tutors and Governors of Children or Youth, to take the Oaths to His Majesty, His Heirs, or Successors, and to register the same.
Click to expand...

I'm getting off your "merry-go-round".
 
Last edited:
jet57 said:
I've not avoided anything you've posted. I have credibly refuted with primary source material every ridiculous argument you have sprung into this discussion. And since 6th century writing doesn't enter into this that I can find, that is yet another spurious entrance into the debate.

As for the Black Watch, you clearly have no idea what you're talking about and ignore every bit of factual information concerning them, and have at every turn misrepresented my arguments. So, until you can place new evidence that has at the very least a modicum of credibility, and proves "natural rights" were written into the second amendment proving that justice Scalia was entirely wrong, our discussion is over.

I'm getting off your "merry-go-round".

As for dis arming Scots:

Historical Geography of the Clans of Scotland

By T. B. Johnston, F.R.G.S. and Colonel James A. Robertson

The Disarming Act, 1746
19 Geo. II c. 39

Historical Geography of the Clans of Scotland - The Disarming Act, 1746
Click to expand...

The 6th century reference is the first documented idea of the right to self defense with arms.

That's interesting, the Scots disarmed their militias and the Americas did not. Well, then your argument fails because the two influenced each other but are conspicuously different in how they treated the people comprising their militia.

I have had to do this 2 or 3 times now. Several cases argued about rights not granted by the constitution.
Chisolm v Georgia
Lessee v Dorrance
Fletcher v Peck
The 14th Amendment, which strengthened due process!
Slaughter House cases
Loan Association v Topeka
Griswold v Connecticut

This last one will throw you for a loop, Roe v Wade.
 
OpportunityCost said:
The 6th century reference is the first documented idea of the right to self defense with arms.
Click to expand...

Strangely though - that right doesn't appear in the second amendment does it...

That's interesting, the Scots disarmed their militias and the Americas did not. Well, then your argument fails because the two influenced each other but are conspicuously different in how they treated the people comprising their militia.
Click to expand...

You asked, and I showed ya. The Black Watch however was not disarmed. You really need to read and understand history if you're going to get all of this and facts as I shown them do not fail - you fail: yet again.

I have had to do this 2 or 3 times now. Several cases argued about rights not granted by the constitution.
Chisolm v Georgia
Lessee v Dorrance
Fletcher v Peck
The 14th Amendment, which strengthened due process!
Slaughter House cases
Loan Association v Topeka
Griswold v Connecticut

This last one will throw you for a loop, Roe v Wade.
Click to expand...

I've had to do THIS at least ten times now: "your argument fails because you cannot prove it".
 
jet57 said:
Strangely though - that right doesn't appear in the second amendment does it...

You asked, and I showed ya. The Black Watch however was not disarmed. You really need to read and understand history if you're going to get all of this and facts as I shown them do not fail - you fail: yet again.

I've had to do THIS at least ten times now: "your argument fails because you cannot prove it".
Click to expand...

Almost all notions of law in Europe arose from Roman or Holy Roman Empire law and it arose from Greek law. European laws are the basis for most of the Bill of Rights---Locke, Kant, Montesquieu, et al. The concept of free people being armed predates the constitution and the constitution recognizes that law. If you had bothered to read any of the cases I quoted they make arguments of rights not being granted from the constitution but the rights existed beforehand and were recognized and were singled out for protection and proof from interference.

The Black Watch and the Militias in the colonies differed in that the members of the militia remained armed before, during and after. Hence their formations being linked falls apart based upon basic differences in their formations and how they treated members. Your base argument is false because it is the element of being armed that you rest your argument upon. You wish to prove something demonstrably false by the fact the militia members were armed even when they were not mustered members of the militia.

Yes there were similarities. Similarities in part do not make them equal on the whole. Influence also does not equate to the same and does not constrain rights from one to the other when they held those rights differently.
 
OpportunityCost said:
Almost all notions of law in Europe arose from Roman or Holy Roman Empire law and it arose from Greek law. European laws are the basis for most of the Bill of Rights---Locke, Kant, Montesquieu, et al. The concept of free people being armed predates the constitution and the constitution recognizes that law. If you had bothered to read any of the cases I quoted they make arguments of rights not being granted from the constitution but the rights existed beforehand and were recognized and were singled out for protection and proof from interference.

The Black Watch and the Militias in the colonies differed in that the members of the militia remained armed before, during and after. Hence their formations being linked falls apart based upon basic differences in their formations and how they treated members. Your base argument is false because it is the element of being armed that you rest your argument upon. You wish to prove something demonstrably false by the fact the militia members were armed even when they were not mustered members of the militia.

Yes there were similarities. Similarities in part do not make them equal on the whole. Influence also does not equate to the same and does not constrain rights from one to the other when they held those rights differently.
Click to expand...

"Natural rights" do not appear in the second amendment.
 
jet57 said:
"Natural rights" do not appear in the second amendment.
Click to expand...

what was the scope of the natural right the founders intended to recognize with the second amendment and how could a natural right be dependent on membership in a governmental or quasi-governmental entity?
 
jet57 said:
"Natural rights" do not appear in the second amendment.
Click to expand...

natural rights-as the Founders envisioned them created the framework and the scope of coverage of the bill of rights

natural rights created the boundary over which the federal government could not intrude
 
TurtleDude said:
what was the scope of the natural right the founders intended to recognize with the second amendment and how could a natural right be dependent on membership in a governmental or quasi-governmental entity?
Click to expand...

Apparently the founding fathers had some debate over the exact nature of the second amendment, because there was originally a conscientious objector clause in the second ammendment.

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Click to expand...
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Apparently the founding fathers had some debate over the exact nature of the second amendment, because there was originally a conscientious objector clause in the second ammendment.
Click to expand...

nice side step but I was asking someone else and he has been unwilling to answer the question despite making assertions about natural rights which I know are not valid.

You want to actually give it a shot?
 
TurtleDude said:
nice side step but I was asking someone else and he has been unwilling to answer the question despite making assertions about natural rights which I know are not valid.

You want to actually give it a shot?
Click to expand...

That depends on whether or not we are talking about the second amendment.
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That depends on whether or not we are talking about the second amendment.
Click to expand...

What? of course we are talking about the second amendment. As noted in Cruikshank, Miller and Heller, the second amendment doesn't create a right, it recognized one the founders believed existed from the start of mankind. So tell me-what was the scope of the right the founders sought to recognize?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
Apparently the founding fathers had some debate over the exact nature of the second amendment, because there was originally a conscientious objector clause in the second ammendment.
Click to expand...

Yeah, you don't wanna confuse TD. It throws him off of his "I'll baffle you with bullshit game"...
 
TurtleDude said:
What? of course we are talking about the second amendment. As noted in Cruikshank, Miller and Heller, the second amendment doesn't create a right, it recognized one the founders believed existed from the start of mankind. So tell me-what was the scope of the right the founders sought to recognize?
Click to expand...

That all depends on whether you include the deleted clause from the second amendment that was originally part of the second amendment when it was presented for ratification.

"but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Click to expand...

What would have been the impact if this clause had remained in the second amendment?
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
That all depends on whether you include the deleted clause from the second amendment that was originally part of the second amendment when it was presented for ratification.



What would have been the impact if this clause had remained in the second amendment?
Click to expand...

I don't know how that possibly impacts the natural right that the second amendment sought to guarantee. The second amendment started with the premise that free men have a natural right to be armed and a benefit of codifying that right was an effective militia can be created for the defense of a free state. The deleted clause merely states that legitimate objectors would not be required to serve in the militia nor required to appear at a muster bearing their own arms

one does not denigrate or diminish a right by saying those who do not wish to exercise said right, are required to do so
 
TurtleDude said:
I don't know how that possibly impacts the natural right that the second amendment sought to guarantee. The second amendment started with the premise that free men have a natural right to be armed and a benefit of codifying that right was an effective militia can be created for the defense of a free state. The deleted clause merely states that legitimate objectors would not be required to serve in the militia nor required to appear at a muster bearing their own arms

one does not denigrate or diminish a right by saying those who do not wish to exercise said right, are required to do so
Click to expand...

The reason why the conscientious objector clause was deleted from the second amendment was because the framers debated the merits of the constitution In terms of the power of the State versus individual rights and where to draw the line between them. The framers removed that clause, coming down in favor of the state over the rights of the individual.
 
jet57 said:
The similarities and requirements are so striking that I thought I'd add this to the ongoing discussion of reasons for our second amendment. It should be remembered here, that at that time in our US history, there was a huge population of British Isles citizens, and the majority of the founders and leaders were also from the Isles, so these formations were the norm as were the reasons for them.
Thoughts?
Click to expand...
Nice, but...The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
 
Unitedwestand13 said:
The reason why the conscientious objector clause was deleted from the second amendment was because the framers debated the merits of the constitution In terms of the power of the State versus individual rights and where to draw the line between them. The framers removed that clause, coming down in favor of the state over the rights of the individual.
Click to expand...

an interesting side note that has nothing to do with recognizing and codifying the right of free men to be armed-a right that the federal government could not prevent, or restrict (or in the case of the deleted clause-force upon religious types like the Quakers)
 
jet57 said:
Yeah, you don't wanna confuse TD. It throws him off of his "I'll baffle you with bullshit game"...
Click to expand...

no one on this board is going to be able to do that given I know more about the constitutional issues of this area than you or any of the other gun banners do.
 
TurtleDude said:
an interesting side note that has nothing to do with recognizing and codifying the right of free men to be armed-a right that the federal government could not prevent, or restrict (or in the case of the deleted clause-force upon religious types like the Quakers)
Click to expand...

Oh I think it does affect that right, if you take second amendment and it's deleted clause and view it as a extension of the religious freedom enshrined in the first amendment.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Click to expand...

The Quakers were conscientious objectors because their religion opposes violence against their fellow humans. With the conscientious objector clause as originally written into the second amendment, when faith and the state required opposite actions from the individual, faith was supposed to trump government.

The fact that the framers chose to remove that clause is important because the implication is that the state could, if it so chose, compel millitary service, even for those who might have religious scruples against serving.
 
TOG 6 said:
Nice, but...The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Click to expand...

That has zero to do with the history of militia formation.
 
jet57 said:
That has zero to do with the history of militia formation.
Click to expand...
Which has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or gun control.
 
jet57 said:
"Natural rights" do not appear in the second amendment.
Click to expand...

When discussing cases regarding the second, the phrase used in conjunction with the 2nd is recognized. Not granted, not bestowed, not empowered, but recognized. This means the constitution recognizes the right, it does not grant it.

I know I'm repeating myself, but you ought to take a swing at actually reading Heller in its entirety, you still seem to miss essential elements of what is there, and what is not.
 
TOG 6 said:
Which has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment or gun control.
Click to expand...

Uh, protecting "an individual right" came later, like 2010... Bearing arms for militia service came first as I have clearly demonstrated. The formations of militias and the second amendment are tied in British and American history.
 
jet57 said:
Uh, protecting "an individual right" came later, like 2010.
Click to expand...
The 2nd has never been ruled by the SCotUS to do anything other than protect an individual right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom