JS-Kit/Echo comments for article at http://smallestminority.blogspot.com/2006/05/prof.html (11 comments)

  Tentative mapping of comments to original article, corrections solicited.

jsid-1147361777-363369  DJ at Thu, 11 May 2006 15:36:17 +0000

Dang it, Kevin, you keep on lettin' facts git in the way of unnerstannin' things ...

jsid-1147362794-363371  -B at Thu, 11 May 2006 15:53:14 +0000

Mr. Baker,

Please excuse my abruptness with this response, but does the Professor have a fucking clue?

He states:

"Tucker's primary concern is with the danger posed by disarmament of the militias during the Alien and Sedition Crisis,"


I don't care what your definition of militia is Professor, I have my own, and I will NOT be subjugated by YOUR definition thereof! As for being "disarmed," again, I don't give two licks of a dead, wet rat's ass what your definition of that is either.


Sorry, just had to get that out. Thank you for allowing me to vent on your site.

jsid-1147370317-363380  Mastiff at Thu, 11 May 2006 17:58:37 +0000

In England, the people have been disarmed, generally, under the specious pretext of preserving the game: a never failing lure to bring over the landed aristocracy to support any measure, under that mask, though calculated for very different purposes.

Our dear professor might want to tell us which militias were involved in hunting game.

jsid-1147370515-363382  BobG at Thu, 11 May 2006 18:01:55 +0000

He's just another paid shill for the hoplophobes...

jsid-1147378123-363391  KCSteve at Thu, 11 May 2006 20:08:43 +0000

Doesn't seem like you even need to bring in Clayton Cramer and David Hardy to take his arguments apart but you might alert them anyway. Sounds like they'd have a lot of fun.

jsid-1147381588-363401  Kevin Baker at Thu, 11 May 2006 21:06:28 +0000

Yeah, I imagine Clayton would love to get a job similar (but opposite in orientation) to Cornell's. Maybe the NRA can give him a $400k grant to establish a "Second Amendment Research Center" at the University of Idaho.

jsid-1147406015-363440  Deamon at Fri, 12 May 2006 03:53:35 +0000

Kevin, Might we try another thought exercise? Devils advocate: Lets grant that 2nd Amendment had been drafted for the purpose of preventing a Federal Government from disarming lawful state Militias. (This is the most heinously Statist reading I can muster, I don't know what the Profs is though.)

I don't see any of the current crop of Gun regulations focused on prohibiting weapons that Lack military application, usually "military style" weapons are the focus of attention.

Furthermore, its illogical to try to limity the 2nd amendment protections to the National Guard. That entity did not exist at the time of the founding, and I find no other instance where congress can redefine "The People" to apply only to State or Federal organization.

Finally Section the militia act of 1792 defines the Militia as:
" Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America, in Congress assembled, That each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside, and that within twelve months after the passing of this Act"
and volume 10 section 311(a) of the US code differentiates between the National Guard as the organized militia, and the separate, disorganized Militia.

What more do we need to say?

jsid-1147542001-363562  PhilB at Sat, 13 May 2006 17:40:01 +0000


You haven't learned AT ALL from the good Professor, creatively interpreting what Tucker wrote.

What the Professor means (as opposed to what he says and writes) is that as the 2nd Amendment refers to Militia, every American male should be given a current issue Government rifle ...

Or have I somehow got that wrong? I hope not ....

jsid-1147553527-363575  Kevin Baker at Sat, 13 May 2006 20:52:07 +0000

Phil, you must have missed the good Professor's pronouncement that "the Constitution (is) a living document that must respond to changing times."

Since the militia, as envisioned by the Founders, has been supplanted by the standing military that they abhored, and the National Guard, then having the government arm each military-age American male (and, I would assume, female) would be an anachronism, you silly man!

jsid-1147581983-363603  Deamon at Sun, 14 May 2006 04:46:23 +0000

but it would be FUN!

jsid-1147597671-363608  PhilB at Sun, 14 May 2006 09:07:51 +0000

Ah! I knew I got it wrong somewhere along the line.

So does the "living document" definition refer to books too? It could explain why my "living" books seem to be breeding in captivity. }:¬)

 Note: All avatars and any images or other media embedded in comments were hosted on the JS-Kit website and have been lost; references to haloscan comments have been partially automatically remapped, but accuracy is not guaranteed and corrections are solicited.
 If you notice any problems with this page or wish to have your home page link updated, please contact John Hardin <jhardin@impsec.org>