This is nothing more than media tendering to whom they perceive to be their listeners. We live in a free-market society and it reflects equally in our media coverage. If you don't think this isn't so then simply tune into Fox or conservative radio or thumb through The Weekly Standard or News Max or any right-wing rag. These and more have made their founders wealthy pandering solely to right-wing ideology. *Good for them. From the day that the first page rolled off the first printing press bias entered into the media. The founders were notorious in their manipulation of the media to suit their own political perspectives and for media pandering to them. Yet through it all we have somehow muddled through. This is why I say so what. You are sniveling and whining about something that, at the end of the day, really doesn't matter.
Originally Posted by Odysseus
Where is that being suggested? The question is why one can only defend oneself with an assult weapon with a 100 round clip?
On the contrary, it is you who doesn't get it. First, understand that the primary authority behind the Constitution is not the federal government, but the people. The powers given to the federal government are those powers delegated by the people of the United States, and ratified by the states. The rights guaranteed by the Constitution are not granted to the people by a benevolent state, but are rights which predate the state, and which the state has no authority to withdraw. The delegation of national defense to the federal government does not mean that we abrogate the right of self defense, or possession of the means of self defense.
First, you didn’t give an argument. Article 1 Section 8 gives congress the right to regulate militia but you ignored the reason why congress sought to rely on the militia instead of a permanent army. An argument would have explored the reasons behind the wording of the Constitution and its articles.
If you wish to argue that I don't understand the laws which I cited, then by all means, provide your interpretation. Ideally, that interpretation will also quote the statutes and supporting documents, such as the Federalist Papers or the decisions of the various courts in interpreting the Second Amendment. However, if you are simply attempting to provide cover for your inability to refute the argument, then the absence of an effective response will be all the proof necessary. Your move, Petey.
The original intention of the Founding Fathers was that America would not risk maintaining a traditional standing army. The new American nation was to be founded on the high principles of freedom, liberty, and respect for life and property. As such the only concern was to defend the nation, not establish the means to conquer America's neighbors. When a need to defend the new nation arose, they would do as they'd done to fight the British - rely on a well armed citizenry motivated by enlightened self-interest to defend their own lives and property.
This isn't a question of weather the militia should be armed or how congress would regulate armament--of course they should be armed, they were intended to be the army!!! As for citations look at the Congressional Record for the period.
AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY STATES...June8, 1789
Massachusetts Convention — Did not propose a keeping and bearing amendment, nor a militia nor a standing army amendment.
South Carolina — Proposed no keeping and bearing, or militia or standing army amendment.
New Hampshire — TENTH, That no standing Army shall be Kept up in time of Peace unless with the consent of three fourths of the Members of each branch of Congress,*
Virginia — SEVENTEENTH, That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well regulated Militia composed of the body of the people trained to arms is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State. That standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the Community will admit; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to and governed by the Civil power. EIGHTEENTH, That no Soldier in time of peace ought to be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, and in time of war in such manner only as the laws direct. NINETEENTH, That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead... (Amendments proposed to the body of the Constitution).... NINTH, that no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. TENTH, That no soldier shall be inlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war.
ELEVENTH, That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining it's own Militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the Militia shall not be subject to Martial Law, except when in actual service in time of war, invasion, or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.
New York — That the People have a right to keep and bear Arms; that a well regulated Militia, including the body of the People capable of bearing Arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free State; that the Militia should not be subject to Martial Law, except in time of War Rebellion or Insurrection. Cases of necessity; and that at all times, the Military should be under strict Subordination to the Civil Power. That standing Armies in time of Peace are dangerous to Liberty, and ought not to be kept up, except in r. That in time of Peace no Soldier ought to be quartered in any House without the consent of the Owner, and in time of War only by the civil Magistrate in such manner as the Laws may direct...that the Militia of any State shall not be compelled to serve without the limits of the State for a longer term than six weeks, without the Consent of the Legislature thereof.
HOUSE COMMITTEE REPORT, July 28, 1789.
"A well regulated militia1, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."2
HOUSE RESOLUTION AND ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; August 24, 1789.
ARTICLE THE FIFTH. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.
On September 4, the Senate agreed to amend Article 5 to read as follows: A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
On September 9, the Senate replaced "the best" with "necessary to the." On the same day, the Senate disagreed to a motion to insert "for the common defence" after "bear arms." This article and the following ones were then renumbered as articles 4 through 8.
ARTICLE THE SIXTH. No soldier shall, in time of peace, be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner prescribed by law.
ADDITIONAL ARTICLES OF AMENDMENT; September 8, 1789
That no standing army or regular troops shall be raised or kept up in time of peace, without the consent of two thirds of the members present in both houses. That no soldier shall be enlisted for any longer term than four years, except in time of war, and then for no longer term than the continuance of the war. That each State respectively shall have the power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining its own militia, whensoever Congress shall omit or neglect to provide for the same. That the militia shall not be subject to martial law, except when in actual service in time or war, invasion or rebellion; and when not in the actual service of the United States, shall be subject only to such fines, penalties, and punishments as shall be directed or inflicted by the laws of its own State.
The Founding Fathers viewed a standing army during times of peace as dangerous to freedom. Jefferson while he was president stripped it down to only 3000 men. Congress had no intention of infringing on the right to bear arms which is why your conclusion that “congress cannot, as a pretense of regulating the militia, infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms.” is pure BULLSHIT.
The point that is being ignored here is that we don’t rely on a States Militia for protection but the largest and strongest free standing army every conceived by man. So, other than self-defense, what is the reasoning today behind the Second? Certainly not solely to entertain a segment of society that seeks an unlimited and unrestricted armament so as to repel some mystical tyrannical invasion of government....as so many conservatives seem to think.
It isn’t a question now of whether congress can regulate arms, they already do, this is why we don’t see nukes or even an RPG in the hand of citizens. So why then are restrictions to certain types of weapons perceived as such an invasion of our rights?