Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Who are the Militia? [View all]hansberrym
(1,571 posts)83. too funny
Yes jimmy, imagine that, Coxe was a Federalist writing in support of federal power over the militia (see militia clauses in US Const).
That fact that you are only now getting that shows how ignorant you are of the subject.
Below is what Coxe wrote regarding what became the 2A as the BOR was being drafted:
"As the military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.
Apparently Coxe did not get the memo that "bear arms" must be understood as an idiom in 2A.
His comment makes a mockery of the claim that the RKBA was nothing more than short hand for a right to serve in the organized state militia, and also the claim that the RKBA is merely a collective right.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
174 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Of course I do, its right there in the Constitution, the Militia Acts, even the Federalist papers.
jmg257
Jul 2013
#45
It might. But then agan...why would a sand bag brigade need arms? Or to be well regulated? nt
jmg257
Jul 2013
#72
YOU get to define the term "well-regulated"? In spite its use in several other period
jmg257
Jul 2013
#56
Yes! You are of course right. Which is why I dont get all the yap about "militia".
jmg257
Jul 2013
#89
Ha! Ha! You are still on regulated = equipped? Bullshit yesterday, bullshit today,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#125
You might want to read this too, on the importance of preambles in amendments...
jmg257
Jul 2013
#61
Are you stating that there was such a thing as "the unorganized milita" in 1791?
jmg257
Jul 2013
#63
No, its my turn to say again...the militia referred to in 1792 were REGULATED, organized,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#98
True - and mention the creation of the National Guard as the new "well-regulated militia".
jmg257
Jul 2013
#50
re: "...75% americans did not have any federal right to bear arms in late 1700's."
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Jul 2013
#86
Modern usage of term "militia" = anti-government, anti-tax extremists and fruitcakes
Jessy169
Jul 2013
#31
Actually, he's looking at the governments military organization definition. :) n/t
Decoy of Fenris
Jul 2013
#54
Yeah, but I'm having fun too, and his inability to answer is much of the fun n/t
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#154
Perhaps curiosity will get the best of you, and you will read the thread -or maybe not. n/t
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#140
You just caught that? Which makes his whole "unlimited power of the sword" thingie pretty silly,
jmg257
Jul 2013
#81
There you go. So in order to prevent the abuse of the power actually granted
hansberrym
Jul 2013
#142