This.
I forgot CountingBeans is still here. Ugh.
The great thing would be if you actually debated instead of just acting like everyone’s too stupid. You’re not in the college bar anymore.
1 Like
This is interesting, and thanks for the link. At the link is an example of some of the stuff I’ve been talking about:
November 1762— An Act for amending and further continuing the act for the better regulating and disciplining the Militia.
I. Whereas the act of assembly… [passed in 1757 and continued in 1759]… will expire on the eight day of June next, it is necessary that the said act should be further continued, with some amendments.
II. …That from and after the passing of this act the several persons herein after-mentioned shall be, and are hereby declared, to be free and exempt from appearing or mustering either in private or general muster of their respective counties, that is to say: All his majesty’s justices of the peace within this colony…(except [those commissioned] as officers of the militia), all persons bred to and actually practicing physick or surgery, and all inspectors at the public warehouses appointed for the inspection of tobacco; and they shall not be subject or liable to any fine…
III. Provided always, That the persons so exempted from mustering shall provide complete sets of arms, as are by the said act required for soldiers, for the use of the county, city or borough, wherein they shall respectively reside; and if they shall fail or refuse so to do, within one year… [the county courts are ] …required, to levy the value of such arms on each of them respectively.
So the law carves out some exceptions of people who don’t have to muster (doctors, justices of the peace, etc.) but requires that those folks had to give up their own arms to help supply and be used by the militia, and if they didn’t, there was a penalty. This is the kind of stuff states did - they managed this stuff internally.
And to put it on modern terms so “tacti-cool” bros can understand the implications - a state is requiring a private citizen to surrender his firearm to the state to help the militia, and ownership is tied to militia service (if you’re exempt, you have to serve up some guns).
If this law is in effect day one after the 2A is ratified, does that private citizen have a constitutional right of action against the Commonwealth of Virginia for denying him his right to unfettered keeping and bearing of arms?
Of course not.
1 Like
Those exempted from service didn’t have to give up their own arms. It just says to “provide a set of arms” like buying a substitute as they did in the civil war. It doesn’t say they had to turn in all of their arms, nor does it say that they couldn’t own more than one set.
4 Likes
This is all prior to the drafting of the BOR…?
1 Like
So the State owes me a gun?!?
Cool. I want an FAL with all kinds of rails and lights and lasers &shit.
3 Likes
I never said it required them to give all of them up. And it’s perfectly fine if they use the substitute rule too. But this is a requirement that if you are a owner of a firearm and you are exempt from militia duty, you have to provide said firearm in service of the militia. It’s not a massive restriction on keeping and bearing arms. What it is is an example of a state not permitting unfettered access two firearms when they have a public policy priority.
Hence the question that I posed at the bottom of my post. This law is on the books and is enforced after the second amendment is ratified. Does a private citizen have a constitutional cause of action against the Commonwealth of Virginia that this is a restriction on their right to keep and bear arms?
The irony here is thick.
Stop projecting.
It violates the 5th for shit sure.
No it doesn’t, it says:
What it does NOT say:
"shall provide ALL sets of arms, as are by said act IN POSSESSION of the INDIVIDUAL, for use of the county, city or borough.
Too bad us “tacti-cool” kids can read I guess.
No it’s not lol. If someone could afford two sets of arms that “as are by the said act required for soldiers” they only had to give up one. Like today, the only thing restricting access was $.
Certainly under the 5th they do.
I fail to see where the access to arms were ever fettered.
2 Likes
It wasn’t, by any stretch. TB’s reaching.
What it did was legislate confiscation of property which would be in violation of the 5th.
So it doesn’t violate the 2A is what you’re telling me?
I never said it said that. I’ll put it in practical terms:
VA: “Doctor Jedidiah, you’re exempt from militia service. You have three Kentucky long rifles and two pistols. We the need the rifles. You can keep the pistols.”
If that still isn’t clear, see how your feelz feel when stated with a modern analog:
“You have three AK-47s and two handguns. We need the AK-47s. You can keep the handguns.”
Still cool with the law?
I have reasons to be skeptical.
Another dodge. So you’re telling me it doesn’t violate the 2A?
1 Like
No, because it doesn’t say they can’t go out and buy more now that they are exempt from militia duties.
No, because it is confiscating my property without just compensation.
With just compensation for 3 used rifles I’ll be able to go buy at least one more new one at the corner market. While I’m pissed and feel cheated, my right to keep and bear has NOT been stepped on here.
My right to property on the other hand…
You’re not reading my post if this is still the line you’re holding on to.
Fair enough, I have the same reservations with commie, multicultureists, gun grabbers and a whole host of enemies of freedom and truth.
LOL, Come on man, you just quoted the law. It says provide a set of arms. It doesn’t say all arms. It doesn’t say anything about confiscation. It defines what a set of arms is for a footman, a horseman, and an officer, and requires those exempted to provide a set. Period. Those who fail to provide a set, will be fined the cost of a set.
Your little story about doctor and his three Kentucky rifles was utter bullshit for 3 reasons.
1- You just made it up.
2- Kentucky wasn’t a thing in 1762, he may have had 3 Virginia or Pennsylvania rifles, it nobody called them Kentucky rifles until well after the turn of the century (1800).
3- The actual law itself is just a few sentences longer than your bullshit story, so go take 3 minutes to read it, and quote the part that fetters anyone’s access to arms.
Just to be clear, I’m not into commie guns all that much.
It started as a principle thing (and I’m much more of a bench shooter than anything, so an AK wouldn’t be in my wheel house), but now it’s mostly that I simply that I can’t afford to stay comfortably stocked with yet another caliber of ammo.
Heh. So, it’s fine under your view of the 2A that the government can take your firearms as long as you have the right to go buy some other ones, assuming you have the money?
I can’t see any abuse of that by a government. Good talk.
Sad news to break to you - there would have been no right to fair compensation under the 5A. But, on the point of the 2A, I’m amazed at the position you’re taking - you’re a purported absolutist, but the government can take your guns, as long as you get paid for them (which you have no right to). Ok. The cognitive dissonance is dizzying. I’m any event, why wouldn’t the government just go buy guns from a supplier and not a citizen?
Ok. I show up with history, law, and logic, and you respond by lobbing libertarian bumper sticker slogans from a merch gun. Suit yourself.
2 Likes
Yup, I addressed that. Didn’t say it meant all guns. That’s a straw man.
Completely true, I did just make it up. That should be obvious to anyone reading that I was using an example, not actually quoting the Commonwealth of Virginia in a conversation with a real Doctor Jedidiah in 1790. Guilty as charged.
Wow. Just wow. Relevance when I’m just making a conversational example? In any event, if we’re going to insist on the playing by pedantic rules, the 2A was ratified in 1791, so my example is close in time to when the good people started calling long rifles “Kentucky long rifles”.
Already did. The law provides a compulsion, under certain circumstances, to give up (some or all) firearms in your possession to the state - which I’ve been told by the 2A absolutists can never, ever, ever be ok under said amendment, no exceptions, no degrees. We’re of course setting aside the fact that no Virginia citizen had a right under the 2A in the first place (didn’t apply to the states, revisionism aside). Here’s a perfect example of a law that infringed on the absolutist version of the right.
1 Like
Sigh… Talk about purposely missing my point. Again:
The confiscation of SOME, SPECIFIC firearms is not, IN THIS CASE, is not a declaration that you have to hand in ALL your firearms.
The law you’re trying to spin to your side does not preclude someone from owning firearms. It forces people to hand in SOME firearms in order to supply the Militia.
You better go easy with the “I bring logic” remarks, because this wasn’t an example of it. It’s an example of you pretending you don’t see what I’m saying, because god forbid you got something wrong.
There wouldn’t have been a second either, so sad to break it to you, if you want to use this to refute my argument, you have to refute your own.
I NEVER said that. I said it would be a violation of my rights. Period, full stop. So I never once said I’d be okay with the with the government taking firearms. I simply pointed out in your hypothetical it’s a violation of the 5th, because it doesn’t say I can’t own guns, just that I am forced by (bad) law to give SOME of them to the state. (To arm the army, btw, not to be destroyed.)
I know nuance is hard, but it isn’t hard for you. Stop with this.
Not even remotely close to an accurate statement. That you aren’t listening to what I’m saying doesn’t mean I’m the one with the problem.
No shit right?
I imagine because they would have to pay for them at that point, and we all know the FF’s while big talkers on “human rights” were perfectly fine with trampling on them when it suited their needs.
Sometimes, most times even, but that you posted this at the end of the post you did isn’t a good showing.
You threw out a Fudd & anti civil rights slur, what’s fair is fair man.
Oh the irony…
Wow man, did someone hack your account?
This is a strawman, and you know it.
The 2nd prevents the government from preventing you from obtaining, owning & using a firearm. And you’ve admitted, multiple times that the law you site doesn’t say one is prevented from obtaining, owning or using a firearm, outside of defacto situations were it would be effectively the case if someone couldn’t afford a replacement.
So, letter of the law, no it doesn’t violate the 2nd in a literal sense, other than in the defacto situation where someone couldn’t afford to buy another rifle.
HOWEVER it for shit sure violates personal property laws.
All this is painfully obvious to you, as you “bring law” to the discussion, so therefore you quoted claim can be nothing more than a purposeful strawman, or you making a human error.
Great, so we’re going to start listing examples of bad legislation to prove the intent of other legislation? Is that what you’re saying?
And what I’m saying is that doesn’t matter - it’s my understanding that 2A absolutists believe that the government can’t take even some guns - so now you’re saying that’s ok? Hence, my AK47 and handgun example - it’s acceptable if the government takes your “assault” rifles, as long as it leaves your handguns?
I thought governments couldn’t be trusted to restrict your ownership of guns at all, because even innocuous gun “grabs” opened the door to abuses?
Now, you’re saying some taking of guns is acceptable, just not all of them?
As I said earlier, ok.
I didn’t say there was a 2A right in this case - what do I need to refute exactly? I’m simply telling you that your made up 5A argument isn’t right.
There’s no nuance to figure out. You introduced an irrelevant diversion (the 5A) into a discussion about whether the VA we’ve been discussing violated the 2A or not. But, as I hear you, you’re saying the law doesn’t run afoul of the 2A. Ok, fine with me. On that, we agree.
Maybe so, but nothing you did showed that to be true.
I’m not offended you did it - I’m just saying it’s weak.