Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the possession and sale of some semiautomatic weapons commonly used in mass shootings is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court, a federal judge said Thursday.
That’s because there isn’t any. At the constitutional convention they considered a version that included on express personal right to keep guns and it was unanimously rejected.
ROFL no they did not, we had just won a war with privately armed citizens and ownership against a standing army…read the first two paragraphs of paper #28…
Those papers are not saying what you want them to say. Alexander Hamilton is saying Militias are not good enough and if a standing army goes awry then the state’s forces can stand up to them.
He is literally advocating for the police and national guard. Part of his argument is that the modern GOP idea of minutemen was bad and that the Continental Army did the heavy lifting. So we should do what we need until we can raise a standing Army and then use State forces as a check against tyranny at the federal level.
They absolutely are…no where does it say it’s advocating for a national standing military…how did you come to that conclusion lol
and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.
“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes 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 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.”
to oblige the great body of the yeomantry, and of the other classes of citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions,
Weird you highlighted right after the states purpose.
would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss.
And stopped before the fun parts. Literally the rest of that sentence, lol.
Also you left out the commitments by the same methodology.
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.
When you do this, it seems like haven’t read the Federalist Papers, just found parts in them that align with your view. I’m sure that’s not true, but it’s what it seems like.
This paragraph just straight up does not mean what you’re implying it means
The first two paragraphs of paper number 28…you clearly haven’t read them then.
THAT there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force, cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes arise in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government), has no place but in the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government. Regard to the public peace, if not to the rights of the Union, would engage the citizens to whom the contagion had not communicated itself to oppose the insurgents; and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.
It’s literally saying that we just fought a war with a standing army, and that if we had one and shit went south the people will need to stand up to put it down.
The government isn’t who would be the one asking for my help. How are you not getting this… foreign and domestic… tyrants exist. How are you people this dense.
Again. Alexander Hamilton did not warn against standing Armies. He was defending the Constitution against Anti-Federalists who were worried that the Congressional power to raise an Army would lead to a dictatorship.
Stop repeating what the NRA said and actually read what’s written. Then go look at the man’s biography.
Lol yes he did, he even calls out having fought a war against a standing army… please provide me differently writings from him that says otherwise. The NRA can burn, stop thinking you’re discussing this with someone who is a Republican NRA member…
Lol yes he did, he even calls out having fought a war against a standing army… please provide me differently writings from him that says otherwise. The NRA can burn, stop thinking you’re discussing this with someone who is a Republican NRA member…
And yes I’m somehow a right wing supporter who is pro choice and wants single payer healthcare…you still haven’t provided anything that refutes what I have. So at this point I’ll assume you’re just a troll.
I’ve read the Federalist Papers in their entirety and I see 0 defense for the modern interpretation of the second amendment among them
That’s because there isn’t any. At the constitutional convention they considered a version that included on express personal right to keep guns and it was unanimously rejected.
ROFL no they did not, we had just won a war with privately armed citizens and ownership against a standing army…read the first two paragraphs of paper #28…
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-21-30#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493341
Those papers are not saying what you want them to say. Alexander Hamilton is saying Militias are not good enough and if a standing army goes awry then the state’s forces can stand up to them.
He is literally advocating for the police and national guard. Part of his argument is that the modern GOP idea of minutemen was bad and that the Continental Army did the heavy lifting. So we should do what we need until we can raise a standing Army and then use State forces as a check against tyranny at the federal level.
They absolutely are…no where does it say it’s advocating for a national standing military…how did you come to that conclusion lol
You keep pulling out snippets like I didn’t read the entire thing. And this snippet has nothing to do with his defense of a future standing army.
Please provide me different “snippets” that state otherwise.
You already have the entire thing. Stop trying to read a snippet like it’s tea leaves.
“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes 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 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.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29
Weird you highlighted right after the states purpose.
And stopped before the fun parts. Literally the rest of that sentence, lol.
Also you left out the commitments by the same methodology.
When you do this, it seems like haven’t read the Federalist Papers, just found parts in them that align with your view. I’m sure that’s not true, but it’s what it seems like.
This paragraph just straight up does not mean what you’re implying it means
The first two paragraphs of paper number 28…you clearly haven’t read them then.
It’s literally saying that we just fought a war with a standing army, and that if we had one and shit went south the people will need to stand up to put it down.
This is arguing in favor of the national government having the ability to mobilize forces. At the time, there was no standing army
Again, I mentioned it being relevant today. The US government neither wants nor needs your help
The government isn’t who would be the one asking for my help. How are you not getting this… foreign and domestic… tyrants exist. How are you people this dense.
Great so the police and national guard fulfill that function. We can safely ban private ownership now since the need they expressed is fulfilled.
The police do not fulfill this function…and did you really want the police to have that much power?
The national guard is a standing army they warned against as well.
Again. Alexander Hamilton did not warn against standing Armies. He was defending the Constitution against Anti-Federalists who were worried that the Congressional power to raise an Army would lead to a dictatorship.
Stop repeating what the NRA said and actually read what’s written. Then go look at the man’s biography.
Lol yes he did, he even calls out having fought a war against a standing army… please provide me differently writings from him that says otherwise. The NRA can burn, stop thinking you’re discussing this with someone who is a Republican NRA member…
Oh so even further right?
This is one of the most famous bits of revisionist history from the gun lobby.
Lol yes he did, he even calls out having fought a war against a standing army… please provide me differently writings from him that says otherwise. The NRA can burn, stop thinking you’re discussing this with someone who is a Republican NRA member…
Oh so even further right?
This is one of the most famous bits of revisionist history from the gun lobby.
O so you have nothing?
And yes I’m somehow a right wing supporter who is pro choice and wants single payer healthcare…you still haven’t provided anything that refutes what I have. So at this point I’ll assume you’re just a troll.
Dude for all that you’re sure carrying a lot of water in revising the whole federalist v anti- federalist debate for the gun lobby.