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

jimmy the one

(2,718 posts)
7. articles of confederation
Fri Feb 13, 2015, 11:43 AM
Feb 2015

.. some poster with initials Nyc-S is challenging you on rkba on this; here is some supporting evidence which I used to rebut him (since fed46 1788 written prior to 2ndA 1791), from the articles of confederation (when states were confederated rather than federated):

dec 2012: In the American Revolution, a loosely-affiliated group of colonial states, operating under the Articles of Confederation (1777-87), provided arms to those serving in well-regulated militias. Art VI of the Articles stated in part: “…Every state shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed…and shall provide…a proper quantity of arms…”
... When the Founders realized the Articles were too weak, and the nation needed a stronger central government, they adopted the U.S. Constitution, which created a federal system, and delegated to Congress the power to raise an Army.

So, guess what was so important that it was left out of the Constitution altogether? Any reference to arms either private or government owned. The Second Amendment is just that, an amendment, which means it wasn't even a part of the Constitution until some of my relatives helped stage the Shays's Rebellion and "lobbied for a statement of rights similar to those they already had in the Massachussets Bay Colony. But the language above was borrowed from the Articles of Confederation, under which the big bankers were foreclosing on every landowner's property and evicting them.

Subsequent Acts of Congress, such as the Militia Act of 1792, which ordered every 18 to 45 year old man to be “enrolled in the militia” and to “provide himself with a good musket or firelock…or with a good rifle” showed the Founders were connecting the right to bear arms with enlistment in a militia.
I know five members of the Supreme Court can't read English, but four of them can. And I think you can, as well. Just because the Supreme Court had five votes for it doesn't make it right, or true, or accurate, does it? It only makes it the law, for now.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/second-amendment-came-from-articles-of-confederati/

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control Reform Activism»Why Second Amendment abso...»Reply #7