This message was self-deleted by its author

[jimmy the one]

90. story rawle & tucker were militia believers

Last edited Tue Nov 3, 2015, 12:41 PM - Edit history (1)

tortoise: Rawle, Story, Tucker- all of them said the 2A was an individual right, and not dependent upon being in the militia.

Where have they said this? post excerpts where these 3 'clearly' conditioned 2ndA as an individual rkba disconnected from militia. You are under a severe misconception, I suspect due to 2nd amendment mythology syndrome.
If you are citing scalia spinning that they believed it was an individual rkba, then you are adhering to far rightwing ideology; scalia is demonstrably wrong about that, at best for him there is ambiguity not clarity. Scalia also used the expedient definition of 'the people' to make invalid rulings.

tortoise: Story said that this right was integral to maintaining a well-regulated militia, but when he also said it was a right of the citizens to keep and bear arms He didn't say it was only as a part of the militia.

You confuse dialectic reasoning to prove your case, no can do here. Story uses 'the people' synonymously with 'the militia':

Story excerpted again: .. among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see.

If story believed there was an individual right to keep & bear arms disconnected from militia, his above sentence would be contradictory to that belief - 'the people' then could be 'duly armed' by simply owning guns with no militia obligation. But that is what story is worried about, that 'the people' simply owning guns outside militia would NOT be duly armed without some organization/militia.

tortoise: I also disagree with your assumption that he meant the militia clause - it could just as well have been second clause in the amendment that he was referring to. It would make more sense if it was, since the first clause in the amendment is simply one reason why the right is important, while the second part is the description of the right that affords the "protection intended by this clause of our National Bill of Rights."

No you are wrong. In his last sentence below Story is referring back to the top of that paragraph - 'the importance of a well regulated militia'. He then goes on to say that 'indifference' to militia 'may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt, and thus gradually undermine all the protection intend by this clause of {2ndA}'.
If he was referring to the rkba clause (2nd clause) as you suggest, it doesn't make sense; since 'the people' would still have the 'right' to individually bear arms outside of militia - what is stopping them?

story in context, early 1800's: And yet, though this truth would seem so clear, and the importance of a well regulated militia would seem so undeniable, it cannot be disguised, that among the American people there is a growing indifference to any system of militia discipline, and a strong disposition, from a sense of its burthens, to be rid of all regulations. How it is practicable to keep the people duly armed without some organization, it is difficult to see. There is certainly no small danger, that indifference may lead to disgust, and disgust to contempt; and thus gradually undermine all the protection intended by this clause of our national bill of rights. http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendIIs10.html

You are contending that 'indifference' & 'disgust' & 'contempt' of militia would somehow 'gradually undermine all the protection intended' by the clause 'the right of the people to keep & bear arms shall not be infringed'. That's a bit of a stretch. Gun owning americans who opted out of militia duty still owned their guns, yes?
Even militia scofflaws in the early 1800's were generally better armed than americans who fought in the rev-war, since the two armories were in existence by the early 1800's, & guns were more plentiful.