XPost: can.talk.guns, alt.guns, alt.rec.guns   
   XPost: talk.politics.guns   
   From: me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net   
      
   "Leif"  wrote in message   
   news:1190084610.146549.199500@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com...   
   > On Sep 17, 8:24 am, "RD (The Sandman)"   
   >  wrote:   
   >> Leif  wrote   
   >> innews:1190004412.644162.155400@19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com:   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >> Yep, under the Articles of Confederation, the states had their own   
   >> >> militias which were armed via being drawn from a pool of armed   
   >> >> citizenry.  However, under the new proposed Constitution that onus of   
   >> >> arming the militia appeared to become the responsibility of the   
   >> >> central government [ArtI (8)(16)].  That would make it very difficult   
   >> >> for a state militia to remain armed so that they could protect   
   >> >> "...the security of a free state...".  Their militias could simply be   
   >> >> disarmed by the central government not performing as requirede and   
   >> >> then they would be unable to resist that government if it threatened   
   >> >> state soveriegnty.  Ergo, the anti federalists insisted on the   
   >> >> protecting "..the right of the people to keep and bear arms.." so   
   >> >> that if the state needed that resource pool to protect its   
   >> >> sovereignty, it would still exist.  The 2A was one of the amendments   
   >> >> the federalists had to agree to in order to get some of the delegates   
   >> >> to favor ratification of the constitution itself.   
   >>   
   >> > Leif speaking:  "The people" referred to in the 2nd Amendment was the   
   >> > well regulated  militia.   
   >>   
   >> No, it isn't.  It is the citizenry who make up the resource pool for both   
   >> the state and federal usage of the militia.   
   >>   
   >> >   The militia of 1789 wasn't just a "resource   
   >> > pool."  It was an organized state entity, made up of men capable of   
   >> > bearing arms, enrolled in militia companies for training and service.   
   >>   
   >> Never claimed it was.  What I said was that the state militias were drawn   
   >> from a pool of armed citizenry.   
   >   
   > Leif speaking:  State militias of 1789 were not drawn from a pool of   
   > armed citizenry.   
      
   That's not what SCOTUS says, and don't you always take their statements as   
   the ultimate announcement of truth?   
      
   "When called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms   
   supplied by themselves."   
      
   Us vs. Miller 1939.   
      
      
      
   >   The militias were made up of nonexempt men falling   
   > within a specified age bracket, regardless of whether they possessed   
   > arms or not.  In fact, many of those enrolled never did obtain their   
   > own militia weapons.  They were provided with "public" arms by the   
   > state.   
      
   So since your claim contradicts your source you have asserted is the   
   authority on the militia, please provide your sources to indicate that the   
   men appearing for militia duty were neither required nor expected to appear   
   bearing their own arms, but instead were to be generally provided with   
   public arms instead.   
      
   I await your documentation to support your claim.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)