Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

jimmy the one

(2,717 posts)
30. taking rawle out of context
Tue Jan 17, 2017, 12:56 PM
Jan 2017

sarisak: William Rawle, A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 1825
Timothy Farrar, Manual of the Constitution of the United States of America 1872
Judge Thomas Cooley Treatise 1880


Only Wm Rawle should be considered knowledgeable of the original intent of the 2nd Amendment, the other two are dated & the dichotomy between the interpretations well established by then (1872, 1880) - so they could be individual rkba zealots by then, of which there were legion. So readers should disregard Farrar & Cooley, and any of the other hundreds of latter day aint's the pro heller people might provide.
Sarisak takes Wm Rawle out of context & quotes only a paragraph which appears to support the individual interpretation, but is based upon dialectic reasoning which cannot always be guaranteed as to validity.

Here is Wm Rawle in 1825 in fuller context, regarding the 2nd amendment. Not how often he mentions 'militia':

In the second article, it is declared, that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state; a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable; yet, while peace prevails, and in the commencement of a war before a regular force can be raised, the militia form the palladium of the country. They are ready to repel invasion, to suppress insurrection, and preserve the good order and peace of government. That they should be well regulated, is judiciously added. A disorderly militia is disgraceful to itself, and dangerous not to the enemy, but to its own country. The duty of the state government is, to adopt such regulations as will tend to make good soldiers with the least interruptions of the ordinary and useful occupations of civil life. In this all the Union has a strong and visible interest.
The corollary, from the first position, is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The prohibition is general. No clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give to congress a power to disarm the people. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both.


A corollary is something which is derived from a higher rule or law, enuff said?

Wrong discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2017 #1
um.. mac56 Jan 2017 #6
At the time of ratification sarisataka Jan 2017 #9
As my learned associate sarisataka has explained... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2017 #17
The Democratic party says the 2A supports an individual right to keep and bear arms. hack89 Jan 2017 #2
There is no basis to the popular myth needledriver Jan 2017 #3
You are right...the 2nd did NOT give the people the right to bear arms. jmg257 Jan 2017 #4
+1 Doug.Goodall Jan 2017 #13
errors in your reasoning jimmy the one Jan 2017 #29
Error in your reasoning: yagotme Jan 2017 #38
Never understood why sarisataka Jan 2017 #5
I believe the placement of the comma's yagotme Jan 2017 #7
+1 Doug.Goodall Jan 2017 #14
You overly complicated it in your "translation"... jmg257 Jan 2017 #8
Why does the word "arms" safeinOhio Jan 2017 #10
It doesn't refer only to firearms sarisataka Jan 2017 #11
taking rawle out of context jimmy the one Jan 2017 #30
Thank you for your support sarisataka Jan 2017 #33
sorry sari, wrong era webster's jimmy the one Jan 2017 #42
Cherry picking key words.. sarisataka Jan 2017 #44
It doesn't. Swords pistols accoutrements jmg257 Jan 2017 #12
Aw man. Ya' done opened up a can of worms now. Ya' done blasphemed flamin lib Jan 2017 #15
You mean Democratic Party talking points don't you? hack89 Jan 2017 #16
How many guns do you own, again? Or, shall I say, "cling to"? Marengo Jan 2017 #18
Your awkward question will no doubt go unanswered... friendly_iconoclast Jan 2017 #24
Might have saved yourself the effort. It's settled law now, at least for the foreseeable future. Marengo Jan 2017 #19
I just want to thank everyone for sharing their opinion.........n/t HAB911 Jan 2017 #20
You're welcome discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2017 #21
See post #19. It's a matter of *FACT* -- *not* opinion. NT pablo_marmol Jan 2017 #22
I just want to thank everyone for sharing their opinion.........n/t HAB911 Jan 2017 #23
I think there's an echo in here... discntnt_irny_srcsm Jan 2017 #25
No, the bill of rights "gives" nothing. X_Digger Jan 2017 #26
original wording was for the militia interpretation jimmy the one Jan 2017 #27
I'm really surprised no one has claimed HAB911 Jan 2017 #28
I think Hamilton was 1 of the 1st..the militia is much more of a defensive notion against tyranny jmg257 Jan 2017 #35
LOL, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, HAB911 Jan 2017 #36
You'll have to find someone who said it did. This is Hamilton's quote. jmg257 Jan 2017 #37
See: yagotme Jan 2017 #39
LOL!...........n/t HAB911 Jan 2017 #41
british scholars weighed in, after heller jimmy the one Jan 2017 #31
story & oliver support the militia view jimmy the one Jan 2017 #32
"probably" sarisataka Jan 2017 #34
They don't count. yagotme Jan 2017 #40
another sorry attempt re founding father quotes on 2ndA jimmy the one Jan 2017 #43
In all of your extended quotes sarisataka Jan 2017 #45
In your quote below, yagotme Jan 2017 #46
Latest Discussions»Issue Forums»Gun Control & RKBA»How is Meatloaf's 'Id Do ...»Reply #30