The individual mandate for guns--from 1792

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2011 3:20 AM GMT
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-founding-fathers-indi_b_523001.htmlThe mandate was included in a series of laws known as the Militia Acts. Early Americans were were fearful of a standing army so they relied on ordinary citizens organized into state militias to fight off Natives and invading armies. States, however, couldn't always be counted on to send their militias to help out other states. Comity was an unreliable basis for national security. And ordinary citizens couldn't always be relied upon to have the equipment they would need to be an effective fighting force.

    Congress sought to rectify these problems by passing federal legislation. In the first Militia Act, Congress gave the President authority to call out the militias and imposed penalties on any militiaman who refused to obey orders. In the second Militia Act, Congress included an individual mandate: all free, able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 "shall, within six months... provide himself with a good musket or firelock" or "a good rifle." All men of age were also ordered to equip themselves with ammunition and "a knapsack" to carry supplies. Many citizens already had these items. Those who didn't had to go out and buy them, like it or not, presumably from a private seller.

    In many ways this individual mandates was much more burdensome than the requirement that individuals buy health insurance. In early America, rural people had little consumable income and many people only used or ate what they themselves made. In cities, many people had no personal need for a military-style firearm. Regardless of the burden, people had to equip themselves, even if they might never have any need to use that equipment.
    ...
    Of course, opponents say, the Framers never imagined national health care legislation. Or did they? The Militia Acts also provided that "if any person whether officer or soldier... be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Feb 01, 2011 3:34 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-founding-fathers-indi_b_523001.htmlThe mandate was included in a series of laws known as the Militia Acts. Early Americans were were fearful of a standing army so they relied on ordinary citizens organized into state militias to fight off Natives and invading armies. States, however, couldn't always be counted on to send their militias to help out other states. Comity was an unreliable basis for national security. And ordinary citizens couldn't always be relied upon to have the equipment they would need to be an effective fighting force.

    Congress sought to rectify these problems by passing federal legislation. In the first Militia Act, Congress gave the President authority to call out the militias and imposed penalties on any militiaman who refused to obey orders. In the second Militia Act, Congress included an individual mandate: all free, able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 "shall, within six months... provide himself with a good musket or firelock" or "a good rifle." All men of age were also ordered to equip themselves with ammunition and "a knapsack" to carry supplies. Many citizens already had these items. Those who didn't had to go out and buy them, like it or not, presumably from a private seller.

    In many ways this individual mandates was much more burdensome than the requirement that individuals buy health insurance. In early America, rural people had little consumable income and many people only used or ate what they themselves made. In cities, many people had no personal need for a military-style firearm. Regardless of the burden, people had to equip themselves, even if they might never have any need to use that equipment.
    ...
    Of course, opponents say, the Framers never imagined national health care legislation. Or did they? The Militia Acts also provided that "if any person whether officer or soldier... be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


    Try as they may many will try to triangulate guns and healthcare.

    Congress needs to try again and not pass unconstitutional mandates.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2011 3:43 AM GMT
    No need to triangulate. Knapsacks are not guns. icon_razz.gif

    "musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack"--are these not made by private companies? Does the federal act not force all able-bodied males to buy them?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2011 3:43 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-founding-fathers-indi_b_523001.htmlThe mandate was included in a series of laws known as the Militia Acts. Early Americans were were fearful of a standing army so they relied on ordinary citizens organized into state militias to fight off Natives and invading armies. States, however, couldn't always be counted on to send their militias to help out other states. Comity was an unreliable basis for national security. And ordinary citizens couldn't always be relied upon to have the equipment they would need to be an effective fighting force.

    Congress sought to rectify these problems by passing federal legislation. In the first Militia Act, Congress gave the President authority to call out the militias and imposed penalties on any militiaman who refused to obey orders. In the second Militia Act, Congress included an individual mandate: all free, able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 "shall, within six months... provide himself with a good musket or firelock" or "a good rifle." All men of age were also ordered to equip themselves with ammunition and "a knapsack" to carry supplies. Many citizens already had these items. Those who didn't had to go out and buy them, like it or not, presumably from a private seller.

    In many ways this individual mandates was much more burdensome than the requirement that individuals buy health insurance. In early America, rural people had little consumable income and many people only used or ate what they themselves made. In cities, many people had no personal need for a military-style firearm. Regardless of the burden, people had to equip themselves, even if they might never have any need to use that equipment.
    ...
    Of course, opponents say, the Framers never imagined national health care legislation. Or did they? The Militia Acts also provided that "if any person whether officer or soldier... be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


    Try as they may many will try to triangulate guns and healthcare.

    Congress needs to try again and not pass unconstitutional mandates.


    You don't need to triangulate, the precedent is obvious to anyone who reads it. Actually, this appears to go further than HCR.
  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Feb 01, 2011 3:47 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    musclmed said
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-founding-fathers-indi_b_523001.htmlThe mandate was included in a series of laws known as the Militia Acts. Early Americans were were fearful of a standing army so they relied on ordinary citizens organized into state militias to fight off Natives and invading armies. States, however, couldn't always be counted on to send their militias to help out other states. Comity was an unreliable basis for national security. And ordinary citizens couldn't always be relied upon to have the equipment they would need to be an effective fighting force.

    Congress sought to rectify these problems by passing federal legislation. In the first Militia Act, Congress gave the President authority to call out the militias and imposed penalties on any militiaman who refused to obey orders. In the second Militia Act, Congress included an individual mandate: all free, able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 "shall, within six months... provide himself with a good musket or firelock" or "a good rifle." All men of age were also ordered to equip themselves with ammunition and "a knapsack" to carry supplies. Many citizens already had these items. Those who didn't had to go out and buy them, like it or not, presumably from a private seller.

    In many ways this individual mandates was much more burdensome than the requirement that individuals buy health insurance. In early America, rural people had little consumable income and many people only used or ate what they themselves made. In cities, many people had no personal need for a military-style firearm. Regardless of the burden, people had to equip themselves, even if they might never have any need to use that equipment.
    ...
    Of course, opponents say, the Framers never imagined national health care legislation. Or did they? The Militia Acts also provided that "if any person whether officer or soldier... be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


    Try as they may many will try to triangulate guns and healthcare.

    Congress needs to try again and not pass unconstitutional mandates.


    You don't need to triangulate, the precedent is obvious to anyone who reads it. Actually, this appears to go further than HCR.


    Just because a law is old doesn't mean its constitutional.

    A old unconstitutional law doesnt bolster a thing. Just like old jim crow laws dont bolster discrimination.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2011 4:36 AM GMT
    musclmed said
    Christian73 said
    musclmed said
    q1w2e3 said
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/adam-winkler/the-founding-fathers-indi_b_523001.htmlThe mandate was included in a series of laws known as the Militia Acts. Early Americans were were fearful of a standing army so they relied on ordinary citizens organized into state militias to fight off Natives and invading armies. States, however, couldn't always be counted on to send their militias to help out other states. Comity was an unreliable basis for national security. And ordinary citizens couldn't always be relied upon to have the equipment they would need to be an effective fighting force.

    Congress sought to rectify these problems by passing federal legislation. In the first Militia Act, Congress gave the President authority to call out the militias and imposed penalties on any militiaman who refused to obey orders. In the second Militia Act, Congress included an individual mandate: all free, able-bodied male citizens between the ages of 18 and 45 "shall, within six months... provide himself with a good musket or firelock" or "a good rifle." All men of age were also ordered to equip themselves with ammunition and "a knapsack" to carry supplies. Many citizens already had these items. Those who didn't had to go out and buy them, like it or not, presumably from a private seller.

    In many ways this individual mandates was much more burdensome than the requirement that individuals buy health insurance. In early America, rural people had little consumable income and many people only used or ate what they themselves made. In cities, many people had no personal need for a military-style firearm. Regardless of the burden, people had to equip themselves, even if they might never have any need to use that equipment.
    ...
    Of course, opponents say, the Framers never imagined national health care legislation. Or did they? The Militia Acts also provided that "if any person whether officer or soldier... be wounded or disabled, while in actual service, he shall be taken care of and provided for at the public expense."


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Acts_of_1792The second Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company overseen by the state. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[3] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.


    Try as they may many will try to triangulate guns and healthcare.

    Congress needs to try again and not pass unconstitutional mandates.


    You don't need to triangulate, the precedent is obvious to anyone who reads it. Actually, this appears to go further than HCR.


    Just because a law is old doesn't mean its constitutional.

    A old unconstitutional law doesnt bolster a thing. Just like old jim crow laws dont bolster discrimination.


    Dude - The people who passed this law and the president who signed wrote the constitution. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Feb 01, 2011 4:43 AM GMT
    Pass me my blunderbuss, I'm off to shoot some of those varmints!

  • musclmed

    Posts: 3274

    Feb 01, 2011 5:31 AM GMT
    Christian73 said
    musclmed said
    Christian73 said
    musclmed said
    q1w2e3 said
    blockquote>

    Dude - The people who passed this law and the president who signed wrote the constitution. icon_rolleyes.gif



    Ah The alien and sedition act was also written by the same vintage of representatives.

    If you think that is a valid legal argument. I suggest you email David Plough the idea. Because as far as I know , it wasnt included in the administrations case briefs.

    What a interesting new political marriage.
    Something old.something new, something borrowed ( from Lenin) something BLue? ( shrinking blue map)

    But if its a interesting story to nash teeth at, go ahead be my guest.