Reply #355: Frustrated indeed! [View All]

[gorfle]

You write: 'The intention of the founders to have state militias DOES still exist, as it always did since they conceived it. But the militias that they intended to exist were dismantled in 1903. "

What exactly is your point? That the 1903 law is invalid and unconstitutional because it dismantled state militias as originally conceived? If you have a point, you haven't made it with me.

As I said, I have not yet moved onto my next point of discussion, because first we have to agree on what purpose the militias were intended to serve before 1903. Once I can get you to say what they were for, then I'll be happy to move on to further discussions about the right to bear arms.

So I'll ask you again:

What do you think the militias were for?

You can spend two hours 'digging up several quotes'. That's your choice. None of it replaces the words of the Constitution.

Nor were they intended to. You originally asked the question, "Was the right to keep and beer arms for the purpose of having an Organized Militia?". In order to answer your question, we have to understand what the founding fathers intended Organized Militias to be. The Constitution does not provide this information, and therefore we must look to contemporary writing to find out. The Federalist Papers are the most cited documents to provide insight into the intent of the United States Constitution.

The notion that any one (of dozen Constitutional authors) quotes should trump or even alone clarify what was voted on by everyone is nonsense.

Then please provide counter-examples contradict my assertion of the founding fathers' intent for militias.