The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Politics & Current Events / Conservative Fools


Subject:  Re: Magnificent takedown of Piers Date:  1/12/2013  1:44 PM
Author:  Vile Number:  114073 of 165963

""[W]hen the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually, by totally disusing and neglecting the militia."

It supports my argument that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the existence of well-regulated militias to defend the state against a standing army led by a tyrant and to put down popular rebellions by malcontents like Shays' Rebellion. Also supporting this argument is the fact that President Washington used state militias to do exactly that when he led them against the Whiskey Rebellion."

But it doesn't support your argument since the other quote states that the militia is every citizen.

"I've seen this before, but forget who said it. (You don't say.) At the time, 240 years ago, it was more or less true. It isn't anymore."

I did say. You don't read well but we established that before. George Mason, one of the authors of the second amendment wrote it. And it is just as relevant if not moreso today given the founding fathers believed every man had a natural right to defend himself, especially against a tyrannical government.

"Actually, the phrase "the people" doesn't always refer to individuals. It didn't at the time of the Constitution's writing, and it doesn't now, as in the People's Republic of China. I read something on this recently that was specifically about the use of the phrase in the Constitution, comparing the way "the rights of the people" was used in the Second to it's absence in the other amendments. It argued that "rights of the people" had a collective, not individual, meaning. Can't find it right now, but I'll look it up if you ask nicely."

Actually the phrase does refer to individuals, even the supreme court says so. You are wrong once again. Let me put my shocked fact on. :0

I am not asking you to do anything as I already know it is an individual right.

"You can argue about the meaning of the introductory clause, but leaving it out weakens your argument. It's in there for a reason."

It doesn't weaken my argument. You just lack enough education on it or you are lying. It really says even though a militia may be required for a free state, no one will be banned from being able to arm themselves.


Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us