Reply #347: The state of mind of the founding fathers... [View All]

[gorfle]

You get into the 'state of minds' as it relates what the founders think of a concept (militias) you say no longer exists. The suggestion that the right to bear arms is predicated on the notion that the people should be able to overthrow their own government is not founded by the words of the Constitution, which using your text from the Constitution requires just two witnesses. Do you think the government can come up with that? LOL.

I'd be careful in arguing that the militias were 'federalized' 100 years ago as that may just diminished the argument that anyone other than those who are in the militia (as defined by that act) are now entitled to bear arms. That's going to leave out alot of people.

The right to bear arms is founded by the words of the constitution, via the second amendment. It refers to militias - militias as they existed at the time of the writing of the constitution. In order to understand what the words of the constitution actually mean you have to understand the context of those words. Again - Article 3 does not speak to the subject at hand - militias.

There is no arguing that militias were federalized in 1903 - that is a fact. Before we move on to the debate about what impact that had on the right of individuals to bear arms, we need to agree on what role the founding fathers intended militias to play.

You still refuse to acknowledge any of Alexander Hamilton's writings on this subject that I have quoted for you. I've provided numerous cited examples of the founding fathers' writings in regards to militias - your only response to this has been to cite an unrelated clause of the constitution.