Posted on Jun 16, 2016
How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago
1.76K
36
17
4
4
0
This is by far the best argument to addressing gun control issues in this country. I am entirely for what the founding fathers initially intended the 2nd Amendment to do for the common citizen. However, I have recognized that more regulation is needed not just for semi-automatic rifles and "Assault Rifles" but for all weapons. I think this brings a well balanced approach to protecting gun ownership rights and a call for responsible use and oversight of firearm owners.
Edit 16JUN16:
To be clear, the problem does not lie in the law of the land. I personally think the Constitution is a near perfect legal document that founded the values of our Country. Rather, the issue is people. I don't have concrete statistics but I am absolutely sure 95% of lawful gun owners are using their weapons appropriately while the other 5% are making us looking bad.
Thoughts?
Edit 16JUN16:
To be clear, the problem does not lie in the law of the land. I personally think the Constitution is a near perfect legal document that founded the values of our Country. Rather, the issue is people. I don't have concrete statistics but I am absolutely sure 95% of lawful gun owners are using their weapons appropriately while the other 5% are making us looking bad.
Thoughts?
How Alexander Hamilton solved America's gun problem — 228 years ago
Posted from theweek.com
Gun Control
Politics
Militia
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 7
6
6
0
Hang on folks. You know you're in for a rough go of it when the opening of this story begins: "So many Americans are slaughtered by gun violence that even the most sensitive of us has grown numb to some degree." "...slaughtered by gun violence..." Why not "slaughtered" or "slaughtered by criminals and terrorists"? No, we're going to blame the gun. Now, read on if you dare...
"Regardless of your position on guns, two facts are beyond dispute: The National Rifle Association as a lobby is sufficiently powerful to stop confiscation laws dead in their tracks; and the astounding number of guns in America means even that if every gun manufacturer folded tomorrow, generations of Americans would still live in a nation awash in instruments of death, whether said death is directed at animals, intruders, or innocents." The first part is not true. The NRA merely represents voters to whom our elected representatives should be beholden and they're the ones who will rise up if those in DC dishonor our right to bear arms. The second is irrelevant. The incidence of gun ownership is clearing unrelated to the incidence of violence. Indeed, the facts could better support an argument that gun ownership reduces the incidence of violence as told so well by Bill Whittle.
What then did Alexander Hamilton do? Well, you're going to have to skip the first two paragraphs or you may never find out. (Oh, you'll have to skip paragraph three as well inasmuch as it uses President Obama as authority to confirm the statements of the first two paragraphs. Sheesh!
Well, it seems that the answer proposed by Hamilton was "a well-regulated militia".
Oh, that tired old argument. The one based on ignorance of what a militia actually is. A spontaneous gathering of armed citizens in response to a threat. Not the National Guard. Not the Army Reserve. Just armed citizens. Armed with muskets? No. Armed with weapons that an enemy might carry. Oh...
"Regardless of your position on guns, two facts are beyond dispute: The National Rifle Association as a lobby is sufficiently powerful to stop confiscation laws dead in their tracks; and the astounding number of guns in America means even that if every gun manufacturer folded tomorrow, generations of Americans would still live in a nation awash in instruments of death, whether said death is directed at animals, intruders, or innocents." The first part is not true. The NRA merely represents voters to whom our elected representatives should be beholden and they're the ones who will rise up if those in DC dishonor our right to bear arms. The second is irrelevant. The incidence of gun ownership is clearing unrelated to the incidence of violence. Indeed, the facts could better support an argument that gun ownership reduces the incidence of violence as told so well by Bill Whittle.
What then did Alexander Hamilton do? Well, you're going to have to skip the first two paragraphs or you may never find out. (Oh, you'll have to skip paragraph three as well inasmuch as it uses President Obama as authority to confirm the statements of the first two paragraphs. Sheesh!
Well, it seems that the answer proposed by Hamilton was "a well-regulated militia".
Oh, that tired old argument. The one based on ignorance of what a militia actually is. A spontaneous gathering of armed citizens in response to a threat. Not the National Guard. Not the Army Reserve. Just armed citizens. Armed with muskets? No. Armed with weapons that an enemy might carry. Oh...
(6)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SGT Russell Telker - "Militia membership"? All armed citizens are part of the militia. It's not a requirement, it is merely a statement of fact. If you "require" membership in a militia, it isn't a militia. It's a National Guard. It's an Army. It something, but not a "militia". It really is difficult to understand the Constitution if you don't understand the words in which it is written.
(1)
(0)
SGT Russell Telker
CPT Jack Durish - you seem to have misunderstood my comment being in the context of the article. His comment about required membership implies some sort of official roll or list. That's what I was referring to.
(0)
(0)
CPT Jack Durish
SGT Russell Telker - Sorry, I wasn't responding to your comment. I quoted the content of the article and commented on that. However, to be fair, it seemed that your comment endorsed the article and its conclusions. Rather than attack you, I attacked the article. It is wrong, like all those who use the "well-regulated militia" are wrong because they don't understand what a militia is. And, the problem isn't that the meaning of "militia" has changed over the years. It hasn't. The problem is that people simply don't know what they think they know or what they think they know, as Reagan said, just isn't so. Now, the meaning of "well regulated" has changed and that causes other problems. If you choose to understand the spirit and intent of the Constitution, you must use definitions of the words in it as they were intended in the time and place the Constitution was written.
(1)
(0)
SPC Aj Ferguson
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
(2)
(0)
5
5
0
5
5
0
It relies on the ideas that "courts change" and also that "well regulated" has the same definition now as it did 200+ years ago.
Well Regulated means "Equipped the same" in historical context.
"Courts Change" is faulty argument, as the SCOTUS has shown they are opposed to overturning previously established decisions, as it places Interpretation of the Constitution a matter of "whim" as opposed to anything else.
Heller establishes that The Right of the People is an Individual Right, not subject to service within a Militia (However every able bodied man is already a member according to US Code). Chicago incorporates this Protection to the States.
Even "revoking" the 2a would have little effect as the 9a confirms that Rights and Protections not listed does not mean they do not exist. Therefore removal of an enumerated Protection would merely leave its shadow looming forever.
Well Regulated means "Equipped the same" in historical context.
"Courts Change" is faulty argument, as the SCOTUS has shown they are opposed to overturning previously established decisions, as it places Interpretation of the Constitution a matter of "whim" as opposed to anything else.
Heller establishes that The Right of the People is an Individual Right, not subject to service within a Militia (However every able bodied man is already a member according to US Code). Chicago incorporates this Protection to the States.
Even "revoking" the 2a would have little effect as the 9a confirms that Rights and Protections not listed does not mean they do not exist. Therefore removal of an enumerated Protection would merely leave its shadow looming forever.
(5)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google