Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago

    http://www.theweek.com/articles/6298...-228-years-ago
    "Ask not what your country can do for you"

    Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

    you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

  • #2
    The libturd author of that article proposes a solution which Hamilton rejected in Federalist #29 and the Supreme Court has routinely rejected.

    Hamilton never wrote this:
    So: If the whole point of the keeping and bearing of arms is to stock "well-regulated militias," why not mandate militia membership in order to own a gun?

    The libturd journalist wrote it.

    Hamilton wrote this:
    "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

    "But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.''

    Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #29

    The militia, as written in the Constitution, consisted of the people. All able bodied adult males who had adequate rifles were entitled to join the militia.
    That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act. And it shall at all time hereafter be the duty of every such Captain or Commanding Officer of a company, to enroll every such citizen as aforesaid, and also those who shall, from time to time, arrive at the age of 18 years, or being at the age of 18 years, and under the age of 45 years (except as before excepted) shall come to reside within his bounds; and shall without delay notify such citizen of the said enrollment, by the proper non-commissioned Officer of the company, by whom such notice may be proved. That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

    http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm



    "The people" are composed of individuals.

    The "militia" as described in the Constitution is composed of "the people" of the several States.

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


    The right of the people is not contingent upon membership in the militia. The right of the people is necessary for the maintenance of a militia...
    1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
    (a) 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. Pp. 2–22.

    (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

    (c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.

    (d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

    (e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
    Last edited by The Doctor; 16 Jun 16, 08:24.
    Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

    Comment


    • #3
      Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

      All able bodied adult males who had adequate rifles

      The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

      It also seems the idea of a militia was only because we didn't have a standing army, which we have had since the time of Union.
      Does that not mean that today we have no need for a milita?
      "Ask not what your country can do for you"

      Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

      you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
        Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

        All able bodied adult males who had adequate rifles

        The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

        It also seems the idea of a militia was only because we didn't have a standing army, which we have had since the time of Union.
        Does that not mean that today we have no need for a milita?
        Hamilton wrote that it would "necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year" after expounding on the fact that it would be impractical, if not impossible, to train the militia as a regular military unit.
        Gun ownership was a requirement to join the militia. The militia of the Constitution was replaced by the National Guard.

        The right to keep and bear arms was a prerequisite to having a militia. The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It does not protect the right of the militia to keep and bear arms.

        Nowhere in Federalist #29 or Federalist #46 do Hamilton or Madison suggest that the right to keep and bear arms is contingent on membership in the militia.
        Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

        Comment


        • #5
          Recall that about 240 years ago if you didn't slaughter your own meat, which you had raised, you might also be out hunting such; deer, fowl, etc. And the colonists preferred using firearms for such rather than spears or arrows, etc. There also were occasions where the local natives/indigenous peoples tended to act violently towards the "new immigrants" and again the preference for firearm usage.

          The whole "militia" language grows out of the context of the times regarding living conditions and also language usage. Hey, "gay" back then would not have the connotations it does now, 240+ years later. Regular troops/standing army was few and far between in the colonies, the colonists/settlers on their own for protection and self defense and "militia" was an extension of those conditions when organizing and operating as a group/body might be needed, similar to a posse.

          Always astounding how many on a history focused board fail to apply historical context to the discussions; think and emote in contemporary terms with little to no grasp of the mindsets or context of the past they dredge up.
          TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
          “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
          Present Current Events are the Future's History

          Comment


          • #6
            Setting aside the total idiocy of the article, if "Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago," how did this happen 212 years ago?




            http://www.history.com/this-day-in-h...milton-in-duel
            Watts Up With That? | The world's most viewed site on global warming and climate change.

            Comment


            • #7
              There is a huge flaw in the argument that the founders intended the 2nd to apply only to "well regulated Militias."
              Why didn't any of the founders act on that idea?
              None did, not one single founding father ever made the attempt to disarm the public.
              Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Half Pint John View Post
                The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.
                John, the problem with that line of thinking is that the Bill of Rights are individual freedoms, not militia or state. Because of the need that a state has for a militia.....the check and balance is that individual's right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

                This is from a gov site:


                During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens. Several state conventions in their formal ratification of the Constitution asked for such amendments; others ratified the Constitution with the understanding that the amendments would be offered.

                http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/cha...of_rights.html

                The immunity that the individual has is a direct result of the right to bear arms. If the 2nd Amendment was a part of the Bill of Rights, you would be correct in that it refers to arming a militia. As it was and still is, the Constitution both Federal and States have clearly spelled out instructions on creating and maintaining a militia/military.
                "I don't discuss sitting presidents," Mattis tells NPR in an interview. "I believe that you owe a period of quiet."

                Comment


                • #9
                  Always astounding how many on a history focused board fail to apply historical context to the discussions; think and emote in contemporary terms with little to no grasp of the mindsets or context of the past they dredge up.
                  Do you think the mindset or context of the FF had an idea of the future were a single person has the fire power of a Company of riflemen from the Revolutionary War? Can you grasp that
                  "Ask not what your country can do for you"

                  Left wing, Right Wing same bird that they are killing.

                  you’re entitled to your own opinion but not your own facts.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Here is a good article on the 2nd Amendment from the Washington Post:

                    The five extra words that can fix the Second Amendment



                    John Paul Stevens served as an associate justice of the Supreme Court from 1975 to 2010. This essay is excerpted from his new book, “Six Amendments: How and Why We Should Change the Constitution.”

                    Following the massacre of grammar-school children in Newtown, Conn., in December 2012, high-powered weapons have been used to kill innocent victims in more senseless public incidents. Those killings, however, are only a fragment of the total harm caused by the misuse of firearms. Each year, more than 30,000 people die in the United States in firearm-related incidents. Many of those deaths involve handguns.

                    The adoption of rules that will lessen the number of those incidents should be a matter of primary concern to both federal and state legislators. Legislatures are in a far better position than judges to assess the wisdom of such rules and to evaluate the costs and benefits that rule changes can be expected to produce. It is those legislators, rather than federal judges, who should make the decisions that will determine what kinds of firearms should be available to private citizens, and when and how they may be used. Constitutional provisions that curtail the legislative power to govern in this area unquestionably do more harm than good.

                    The first 10 amendments to the Constitution placed limits on the powers of the new federal government. Concern that a national standing army might pose a threat to the security of the separate states led to the adoption of the Second Amendment, which provides that “a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

                    For more than 200 years following the adoption of that amendment, federal judges uniformly understood that the right protected by that text was limited in two ways: First, it applied only to keeping and bearing arms for military purposes, and second, while it limited the power of the federal government, it did not impose any limit whatsoever on the power of states or local governments to regulate the ownership or use of firearms. Thus, in United States v. Miller, decided in 1939, the court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that sort of weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated Militia.”


                    Full Article: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...245_story.html
                    "War is hell, but actual combat is a motherf#cker"
                    - Col. David Hackworth

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      When "People" gets defined by a Progressive Supreme Court as a group instead of the individual of a group, all your rights under the Constitution will promptly vanish.
                      “Breaking News,”

                      “Something irrelevant in your life just happened and now we are going to blow it all out of proportion for days to keep you distracted from what's really going on.”

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        When the Founders wrote and implemented the new Constitution, the United States didn't have 'a gun problem.'

                        The knee-jerk reaction when some off the wall nut murders people, then the right to own a weapon or weapons is immediately put on the table by those that want to curtail or end that inherent right. That's just stupid.

                        If you want to fix the perceived 'problem' then tighten up on criminals, terrorist wannabes and those of that ilk.

                        That's the issue. If gun control actually worked, then why do places in the US with the strictest forms of gun control, such as Chicago and Washinton DC, have the hightest murder rates in the country?

                        Please explain that to me and the forum.
                        We are not now that strength which in old days
                        Moved earth and heaven; that which we are we are; One equal temper of heroic hearts
                        Made weak by time and fate but strong in will
                        To strive to seek to find and not to yield.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Massena View Post
                          When the Founders wrote and implemented the new Constitution, the United States didn't have 'a gun problem.'

                          The knee-jerk reaction when some off the wall nut murders people, then the right to own a weapon or weapons is immediately put on the table by those that want to curtail or end that inherent right. That's just stupid.

                          If you want to fix the perceived 'problem' then tighten up on criminals, terrorist wannabes and those of that ilk.

                          That's the issue. If gun control actually worked, then why do places in the US with the strictest forms of gun control, such as Chicago and Washinton DC, have the hightest murder rates in the country?

                          Please explain that to me and the forum.
                          It's just like the "bathroom" laws.

                          If you want to enforce laws for bathrooms, you have to someone to enforce them at every bathroom.

                          How many cops are there?

                          How many bathrooms?

                          How much land, buildings, back alleys, basements, pubs, ways into a city, borders, and dead drops are there?

                          Israel has experience in this.

                          It's spy craft and common sense.

                          Building a gun however is a whole other issue.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Thomas Jefferson was a FF.
                            Did he ever attempt to ban guns?
                            John Jay was a FF, did he at any time in his long career support a ban on fire arms?
                            Madison? Adams? Washington?


                            I challenge anyone to find evidence that any of the FFs ever suggested by thier actions in the political arena or as a USSC Justice that the 2nd. meant anything other than protection of the individuals right to arms.
                            Last edited by Urban hermit; 17 Jun 16, 09:15.
                            Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong remedies.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              A reminder that those "militias" of @240 years ago also had canons in their armories, which is what that fight at Concord and Lexington was all about. Heavy weaponry has improved a bit since then but the concept remains, meaning your modern "militias" would be allowed to have AFVs, tanks, fighter-bombers, attack helios, etc.
                              TANSTAAFL = There Ain't No Such Thing As A Free Lunch
                              “War is merely the continuation of politics by other means” - von Clausewitz
                              Present Current Events are the Future's History

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X