- Joined
- Jan 27, 2011
- Messages
- 39,162
- Reaction score
- 9,667
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
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.
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.pdfThe 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.
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.