Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete
Unorganized Militia.
Did you miss the other thread?
|
Nope, I didn't miss it at all. In fact, I was a contributor to that thread and followed it closely.
I was referring to comment such as this one by our own learned magistrate (no Pink, seriously respectful use of "learned magistrate"):
Quote:
|
Neither the Federalist Papers, nor Paine's "Common Sense", nor arguments on the floor during debates, were part of what was ratified. If some old document helps in understanding, fine. But, if those documents imply a holding other than the plain text of the Constitution, they are nothing more than ink stains on really old paper
|
.
The actual words in the US Constitution's 2nd Amendment are "well regulated militia". The idea of "organized" vs "unorganized" as brought up in the other thread derives from a 1789 act of the North Carolina legislature (not the US Constitution) and the U.S. Code (which can be changed tomorrow), as well as" some old or obsolete definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary".
If we stick to ONLY the words in the Constitution, these other references become moot.
My point is, and has been, that 'we' need to get out ahead of those who wish to stress the first part of the 2nd Amendment, and gut the second part (about the people keeping and bearing arms), 'we' need to pre-empt any argument 'they' may come up with. Make our own, modern, definition of these words: militia, organized militia, and unorganized militia - on a state-by-state basis.
I personally don't give a shit what 'they' do in New York. Never been there. I'll never go there if I can avoid it. Arizona can set up whatever they choose, the militia may have whatever arms Arizona deems appropriate, and people can 'vote with their feet' as a frequent contributor here says.