In pictures: US gun-blessing ceremony

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

This isn't even a real quote, it's two Mason quotes glued together. The second statement was in context of the British Government's attempts to control the subjects in America.

The first part is the important part related to what was meant by militia: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." This meaning was held in common at the time.

Regardless, Mason's remarks at the debate were against reliance on a standing army (in addition to the risks he thought it posed) in favor of local militias that could be raised when necessary. They would need to be "well regulated" so that states that were called to come to the aid of other states would be sufficiently trained and equipped.

But fast forward a few hundred years and the militias are now really the National Guard, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government.

No, the National Guard is not the militia. The National Guard is the National Guard. The militia, as understood in writing the Constitution was not funded by the federal government. It was The People, not just a select group prepared for duty funded by the federal government.

If you're called up for National Guard duty you don't bring your personal AR-15 in fact you're not even allowed.

How this justifies the average person to have a weapons designed for war is beyond me.

It is beyond you because your understanding of the Constitution is not informed by the actual language and meaning used to write the Constitution, but informed by Progressive revisionism--so-called interpretation which is actually a rewriting, a changing, outside of the legal and proper amendment process.

Here is a good explication of the meanings of the words in the 2A contemporaneous to the time it was written. It is a little bit longish, not too much, just very thorough and a really good guide to understanding the 2A.

https://www.quora.com/What-do-the-te...cond-Amendment

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The first part is the important part related to what was meant by militia: "I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people." This meaning was held in common at the time.

Yes, because there was no National Guard.

No, the National Guard is not the militia. The National Guard is the National Guard. The militia, as understood in writing the Constitution was not funded by the federal government. It was The People, not just a select group prepared for duty funded by the federal government.

Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

It is beyond you because your understanding of the Constitution is not informed by the actual language and meaning used to write the Constitution, but informed by Progressive revisionism--so-called interpretation which is actually a rewriting, a changing, outside of the legal and proper amendment process.

To be fair I've read Mason's entire debate transcript in full along with others in context. I don't really read progressive sources on this stuff as it's better to get to the roots. When I decided to make my first pizza from scratch I read up on how to grow wheat. It's how I roll.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Yes, because there was no National Guard.
Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

"Evolved" is the Progressive way of saying changed by Court or legislative fiat without actually amending.

To be fair I've read Mason's entire debate transcript in full along with others in context. I don't really read progressive sources on this stuff as it's better to get to the roots. When I decided to make my first pizza from scratch I read up on how to grow wheat. It's how I roll.

Mason said what I quoted. There are several other of the Founders who said essentially the same thing--they basically all believed the same thing. The Progressive "sources" are the actual "interpretive" fiat changes that you espouse and which were made without using the amendment process.

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Mason said what I quoted. There are several other of the Founders who said essentially the same thing--they basically all believed the same thing. The Progressive "sources" are the actual "interpretive" fiat changes that you espouse and which were made without using the amendment process.

Your "fiat changes" are part of the system they created and are the law of the land.

Also, your quotes were improperly placed. It was a made up quote. You know how these ""'s work right???

My "sources" are the words of the founding Fathers.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Your "fiat changes" are part of the system they created and are the law of the land.

They are part of the system like cancer is a part of a system.

Also, your quotes were improperly placed. It was a made up quote. You know how these ""'s work right???

Regardless of placement, Mason did say those things, especially the part about the militia being the whole people. And several others who debated the formation of the Constitution basically said the same thing.

My "sources" are the words of the founding Fathers.

Which words?

[spence]

Originally Posted by detbuch

They are part of the system like cancer is a part of a system.

This is like saying you believe in God but God is the problem. You're making little sense today.

Regardless of placement, Mason did say those things, especially the part about the militia being the whole people. And several others who debated the formation of the Constitution basically said the same thing.

At the time there was a debate if the United States should have a standing army or if our national defense should be composed of militias as defined at that time. You don't seem to want to include this in your thought process. Context for these remarks really does matter, and laws passed since then under the Constitutional framework they agreed to matter as well.

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by spence

Because the militia has evolved. The National Guard is now the militia, run by the states and regulated and funded by the federal government. This is law.

What law? be precise, where is this law? exactly that says the National Guard IS the militia? Also when did this happen? be precise.

You said it and I call bull

[zimmy]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

What law? be precise, where is this law? exactly that says the National Guard IS the militia? Also when did this happen? be precise.

You said it and I call bull

National Guard IS the militia? Well, militias became the National Guard and effectively remained that way ever since with some limited recurrence of state militias.

National Guard Mobilization Act 1933
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a497658.pdf

[scottw]

Trump should announce an executive order banning those on the american left from owning firearms....shouldn't really be a problem and if they complain about constitutionality etc...they will look foolish...they won't necessarily have to hand over their guns and get nothing, there could be a buy back type program...hand in your guns and get a comfort pet working in conjunction with american pet shelters..this would relieve the stress on overcrowded pet shelters nationwide...hand in your gun..get a comfort pet ...go back to your safe space which was just made much safer and comforting thanks to Trump....also, the creation of a national(easily searchable)registry of american leftists who never owned and/or no longer have guns on the premises...this is so the bad guys will know where to go to get stuff...that should reduce american homes with guns quite significantly and in a much higher proportion in the most violent cities and communities in America...which will no doubt make America a safer place...