There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Rivalarrival ,

10 USC 246 does not cover males under 17 or over 45,

When you look at their whole lifetime, 10 USC 246 covers all males, and some females. More than 50% of the people.

The Federalist Papers are not the Constitution.

They are not, but they certainly do provide insight into the language used in the constitution, as well as the intent of the authors.

If you draw a distinction between the constitutional and legislative

Congress is not empowered to alter the meaning of the constitution. If Congress chooses to discuss a term used in the constitution, their usage does not alter the constitutional meaning, but only establishes a legislative meaning.

Congress cannot redefine “speech” to mean “feces” and then claim that the first amendment only protects the right to take a shit.

The distinction I draw between legislative and constitutional meanings clearly and directly arises from the limits to Congressional authority. Congress does not have the power to change the meaning of militia; their use of the term “militia” cannot be considered authoritative.

There is no such distinction for the Federalist papers. The same people who wrote the constitution also wrote the Federalist papers. The papers were written for the specific purpose of explaining and promoting the Constitution, by the very people who wrote it. Their explanations in the papers were the basis for the states to ratify the constitution, so even if the authors meant something else (they didn’t), the states accepted and enacted the constitution in the context of the papers.

Basically, your distinction is arbitrary, capricious, and rejected.

I am a proponent of disciplining the whole nation

Such discipline is only constitutionally permissible under the Militia clauses.

and have no problem whatsoever considering the disciplined portion to be unambiguously a part of the Militia.

That portion being the “whole nation”.

If Congress does indeed reinstate assembly to properly arm and equip every member of the People,

What if I argue that Congress found a different way to ensure the population was “properly armed and equipped” that didn’t require annual assembly?

What if Congress found a method by which so many members of the militia would be armed that assembly would not be required to verify?

Congress did establish the Federal Firearm Licensee system, which regulates the commercial sale of firearms to the general public. It can be reasonably argued that the FFL system was enacted but just under their power to regulate interstate commerce, but also under their power to arm the militia.

Does that satisfy your pedantry?

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines