Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: What America's gun fanatics won't tell you [View all]discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,602 posts)60. I'll say this
Mr Arends' background as a MarketWatch columnist and biographer of Mitt Romney uniquely qualifies him to determine the effect of the Second Amendment.
You want to impugn the integrity of Justice Scalia, or find a writer who does, go ahead. You'd have plenty of good company as would any writer you might quote.
To the issue of the meaning and effect of the 2A, Mr Hamilton was a Federalist and opposed any Bill of Rights being attached to the Constitution. To attain a real and correct understanding of the law, I would site Federalist #46. Authored by the same author who wrote the Bill of Rights, James Madison.
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence.
I will point out that the 1790 Census lists the number of free white males over 16 (folks who were considered militia eligible) as a bit more than 800,000. I suggest that number be adjusted a bit lower to account for those over 45. Madison clearly states there a position agreeing with the 2nd Militia Act passed in 1792. This agreement between Federalist #46 and 2nd Militia Act defines the concept that, if you can or do head a household, you have the right to be armed.
I will further suggest that the principle of in pari materia states that within a body of legislation any term be interpreted consistently throughout that legislation. (https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/in+pari+materia) The term "the people" refers to exactly the same folks to which that term in every other article in the BoR refers.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
71 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Is that your only conclusion to the OP-ED after reading Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Paper 29?
ffr
Mar 2018
#2
I'm sorry, but you just made a straw man fallacy. I have offered no proposition at this point
ffr
Mar 2018
#4
"When you reply to a sourced article posted on D.U., you are replying to that sourced article."
Eko
Mar 2018
#46
That's a given. Articles are referenced sometimes at the top for LBN, but usually at the bottom.
ffr
Mar 2018
#55
You don't really think those assholes CARE what the constitution says, do you?
Ferrets are Cool
Mar 2018
#52
You forget that the findings in Miller were rendered moot by Heller. The same standard applies...
friendly_iconoclast
Mar 2018
#69