Massachusetts’ law prohibiting the possession and sale of some semiautomatic weapons commonly used in mass shootings is acceptable under a recent change to Second Amendment precedent from the US Supreme Court, a federal judge said Thursday.
That’s because there isn’t any. At the constitutional convention they considered a version that included on express personal right to keep guns and it was unanimously rejected.
ROFL no they did not, we had just won a war with privately armed citizens and ownership against a standing army…read the first two paragraphs of paper #28…
Those papers are not saying what you want them to say. Alexander Hamilton is saying Militias are not good enough and if a standing army goes awry then the state’s forces can stand up to them.
He is literally advocating for the police and national guard. Part of his argument is that the modern GOP idea of minutemen was bad and that the Continental Army did the heavy lifting. So we should do what we need until we can raise a standing Army and then use State forces as a check against tyranny at the federal level.
“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions,as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia,would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country… to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise, and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
The first two paragraphs of paper number 28…you clearly haven’t read them then.
THAT there may happen cases in which the national government may be necessitated to resort to force, cannot be denied. Our own experience has corroborated the lessons taught by the examples of other nations; that emergencies of this sort will sometimes arise in all societies, however constituted; that seditions and insurrections are, unhappily, maladies as inseparable from the body politic as tumors and eruptions from the natural body; that the idea of governing at all times by the simple force of law (which we have been told is the only admissible principle of republican government), has no place but in the reveries of those political doctors whose sagacity disdains the admonitions of experimental instruction.
Should such emergencies at any time happen under the national government, there could be no remedy but force. The means to be employed must be proportioned to the extent of the mischief. If it should be a slight commotion in a small part of a State, the militia of the residue would be adequate to its suppression; and the national presumption is that they would be ready to do their duty. An insurrection, whatever may be its immediate cause, eventually endangers all government. Regard to the public peace, if not to the rights of the Union, would engage the citizens to whom the contagion had not communicated itself to oppose the insurgents; and if the general government should be found in practice conducive to the prosperity and felicity of the people, it were irrational to believe that they would be disinclined to its support.
It’s literally saying that we just fought a war with a standing army, and that if we had one and shit went south the people will need to stand up to put it down.
I’ve read the Federalist Papers in their entirety and I see 0 defense for the modern interpretation of the second amendment among them
That’s because there isn’t any. At the constitutional convention they considered a version that included on express personal right to keep guns and it was unanimously rejected.
ROFL no they did not, we had just won a war with privately armed citizens and ownership against a standing army…read the first two paragraphs of paper #28…
https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-21-30#s-lg-box-wrapper-25493341
Those papers are not saying what you want them to say. Alexander Hamilton is saying Militias are not good enough and if a standing army goes awry then the state’s forces can stand up to them.
He is literally advocating for the police and national guard. Part of his argument is that the modern GOP idea of minutemen was bad and that the Continental Army did the heavy lifting. So we should do what we need until we can raise a standing Army and then use State forces as a check against tyranny at the federal level.
“To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purposes of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country… to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise, and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._29
The first two paragraphs of paper number 28…you clearly haven’t read them then.
It’s literally saying that we just fought a war with a standing army, and that if we had one and shit went south the people will need to stand up to put it down.
This is arguing in favor of the national government having the ability to mobilize forces. At the time, there was no standing army
Again, I mentioned it being relevant today. The US government neither wants nor needs your help
Great so the police and national guard fulfill that function. We can safely ban private ownership now since the need they expressed is fulfilled.