The 139th Illinois Militia, nor Illinois for that matter, did not even exist when the 2nd Amendment was written, so who can you say that was what the 'founding fathers' meant by a 'well regulated' militia?
On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 1:57 AM, Eric Roberts <[email protected]> wrote: > > Also, where a lot of the militia stuff changed is when we went from a state > militia model to the national Guard Model. In either case, that "well > regulated militia" was an actual legal entity that has the governor of the > state as CinC. So when you see in military records civil war and earlier, > you will see 139th Illinois Militia, for instance. That is what a well > regulated militia was. Not just some amorphous "all able bodied men"...they > were actual military units that went to war when we did. In that situation, > we didn't need a draft as pretty much everyone in the community formed up > with the militia they belonged to and went to war when needed. In the > south, during the civil war...especially towards the end, they had "gangs" > for lack of a better term, that would haul in able bodied men that were not > off at the front and they were charged with treason and executed in some > cases. > > ------------------------------------ > Three Ravens Consulting > Eric Roberts > Owner/Developer > [email protected] > tel: 630-486-5255 > fax: 630-310-8531 > http://www.threeravensconsulting.com > ------------------------------------ > > -----Original Message----- > From: Judah McAuley [mailto:[email protected]] > Sent: Tuesday, October 02, 2012 11:58 PM > To: cf-community > Subject: Re: Pennsylvania voter ID law enforcement halted by judge > > > The militia certainly can be all of us...and ought to be well regulated. > Hence the term "well regulated". > > I do believe that the founding fathers viewed many of the heavy handed > weapons restrictions as tools of tyranny wielded by England and they wanted > to make sure that that was not going to happen in America. > Absolutely. > > However, they were also men who tempered their idealism with practicality. > While early America championed the cause of collective self defense, they > also did not see the right to keep and bear arms as all-encompassing and > absolute by any means. Witness the case of Aymette vs. The State in 1840: > > "The legislature, therefore, have a right to prohibit the wearing or keeping > weapons dangerous to the peace and safety of the citizens, and which are not > usual in civilized warfare, or would not contribute to the common defense. > The right to keep and bear arms for the common defence is a great political > right. It respects the citizens on the one hand and the rulers on the other. > And although this right must be inviolably preserved, yet, it does not > follow that the legislature is prohibited altogether from passing laws > regulating the manner in which these arms may be employed." > > The 2nd Amendment was passed in the context of collective self defense. It > is absolutely important. It is not and has never been an all encompassing > right that rejects all attempts at reasonable regulation. > > Judah > > On Tue, Oct 2, 2012 at 9:36 PM, LRS Scout <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> I don't ignore either part. Remember, who is the militia? >> >> According to Madison it is all of us. >> >> No, I'm sorry. My reading of the thoughts of the founders has proven >> to me beyond a shadow of a doubt that they men the arms trade to be >> free and open and without the fetters it currently has. > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:355719 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
