2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..." (1 Viewer)

[exoplanet]

Re: 2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

Because the Framers obviously felt it necessary to point out. They must have felt strongly about it.

And it was necessary because...? They had feelings?

 

[Aberration]

Re: 2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

After you point out the part that states that you do not have to be in the militia when for owning a gun.

The Constitution is a document that defines the government and the rights it will protect. It doesnt enumerate what dont have to do.

The first IS A contract. That people can say what they want to in the United States... or practice their religion. What you are conflating for some reason is Freedom of Religion. The 1st states nothing about any Church so your repeated comments that we are part of a church, or whatever, is way off, as is your comment about Speech and the Press... TWO SEPARATE entities that have SEPARATE RIGHTS>

Point out the part that states one does not have to be a member of a church to practice their religion. Point out the part that says one does not have to be a member of the press to speak freely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

The government HAS stepped in... on both accounts, placing limitations on the people's rights.

I find it interesting that the Constitution enumerates the proper path to limit those rights, yet courts created out of thin air their power to limit those rights based on a compelling government interest.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

And it was necessary because...? They had feelings?

It was necessary for a free State. To me it implies a right of the people, armed, to organize for a common defense. They didnt believe in standing armies. I also believe it implies a duty of the State to regulate that militia. Yes they also felt strongly about it.

IMO every citizen should be free to attend the National Guard training, without contract, to get that regulation. They bring their own equipment. The State covers the cost of training.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Aberration]

And yet we know historically that well regulated simply meant having the ability to function. We know historically that there was a loose command structure and that citizens responded. We know historically that they did NOT have an organized and structured militia when the BoR was written so we pretty much know everything you might say to imply thats what they REALLY meant is kinda silly. We know the intent of the founders was to ensure that 'the people' were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. SO if we all agree that the Bill of Rights was written and included to ensure the rights of the people and to limit the power of the government then we can say that we are making progress.

We also know historically that the militia was mustered and were required to have and maintain equipment other than arms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TurtleDude]

Look. ALL OF YOU... The Founders were classically educated. They know that they wrote an Ablative Absolute Clause. The 2nd reads:

“Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.”

The Amendment is about protecting militias... people are allowed to own guns, but for the purpose of being in the militia.

stop lying. what pre-existing natural right was recognized by the founders in the second amendment?

 

[TurtleDude]

A command structure, no matter how loose, is not some dude with a gun. A functioning militia is not just a bunch of people with guns.


And there was a very specific reason for this. We don't need a reason for the free practice of religion or of the press or to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to bear arms has one purpose spelled out specifically and clearly for us.

There are generally accepted First Amendment limitations for example, some speech is considered dangerous and therefore it is limited. Even though the Constitution clearly states that free speech will not be abridged. This is not controversial at all. Arms, being inherently dangerous, needed a purpose to begin with so that reasonable restrictions could have a guideline that would keep them from endangering the security of the free state.

the bannerrhoid movement constantly confuses use restrictions with possession restrictions. truth is not dangerous. if you scream fire in a crowded theater and there is no fire you might be prosecuted. if there is a fire than not. the use of firearms can be dangerous and thus certain types of use can be regulated. that's very different than mere possession

 

[Bodi]

stop lying. what pre-existing natural right was recognized by the founders in the second amendment?

Irrelevant. They wrote what they wrote and what they wrote is that owning a gun is dependent on being in the militia....

 

[sear]

B. O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

" No where does the 2A say anything about the right of a militia. " A quoted from #372

a) This particular sentence appears in a document known as "the Bill of Rights".

b) And the word "Militia" is explicitly enumerated within it.

So we know it's about rights, and it specifies "Militia".

" No where does the 2A say anything about the right of a militia. " A quoted from #372

That is at best a hasty opinion on shaky footing.

I understand.
There's no such thing as a one-sided coin.
And the opposing argument, when adequately made, can be persuasive.
But I see no need to over-state a legitimate case.

" It merely says its necessary to a free State. " A quoted from #372

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." Kris Kristofferson

Would you say those in the U.K., those in Canada, or Australia are not free? Their civilian access to guns is extremely restricted.

 

[TurtleDude]

Irrelevant. They wrote what they wrote and what they wrote is that owning a gun is dependent on being in the militia....

you're just making that up. Its idiotic how you spew nonsense just designed to bait people. I know you don't know what you are talking about and you don't even believe it. It is undisputed that the founders based the bill of rights on natural law. The first wave of legal commentators (St George Tucker being the most prestigious, with Rawls probably being second) all noted that the bill of rights was designed to guarantee rights the founders believed were endowed by the creator and pre-existed the government. How can anyone with even a rudimentary bit of honesty claim that a natural right only vests once you join a government run organization? So your moronic interpretation of what those words say is both mendacious and it conflicts with the entire underlying premise and foundation that the founders built the constitution and the BOR upon

I know you know this but there might be some noobs who actually take the swill you spew seriously

 

[TurtleDude]

B. O. R. ARTICLE #2: Ratified December 15, 1791
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

a) This particular sentence appears in a document known as "the Bill of Rights".

b) And the word "Militia" is explicitly enumerated within it.

So we know it's about rights, and it specifies "Militia".

That is at best a hasty opinion on shaky footing.

I understand.
There's no such thing as a one-sided coin.
And the opposing argument, when adequately made, can be persuasive.
But I see no need to over-state a legitimate case.

"Freedom's just another word for nothin' left to lose." Kris Kristofferson

Would you say those in the U.K., those in Canada, or Australia are not free? Their civilian access to guns is extremely restricted.

disarmed people are subjects, not free citizens. I have no use nor respect for governments that don't trust the citizenry access to the same weapons that civilian police are issued

 

[VanceMack]

A command structure, no matter how loose, is not some dude with a gun. A functioning militia is not just a bunch of people with guns.


And there was a very specific reason for this. We don't need a reason for the free practice of religion or of the press or to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to bear arms has one purpose spelled out specifically and clearly for us.

There are generally accepted First Amendment limitations for example, some speech is considered dangerous and therefore it is limited. Even though the Constitution clearly states that free speech will not be abridged. This is not controversial at all. Arms, being inherently dangerous, needed a purpose to begin with so that reasonable restrictions could have a guideline that would keep them from endangering the security of the free state.

Do you doubt that if need were to arise, citizens would be capable of uniting, organizing, and fighting effectively?

And have we agreed yet that the Bill of Rights was written for 'the people' and as a limitation on government powers?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[exoplanet]

the bannerrhoid movement constantly confuses use restrictions with possession restrictions. truth is not dangerous. if you scream fire in a crowded theater and there is no fire you might be prosecuted. if there is a fire than not. the use of firearms can be dangerous and thus certain types of use can be regulated. that's very different than mere possession

I'm going to need some more context here. Almost every use of a firearm can be dangerous. Even the act of keeping a loaded gun around can be dangerous. If dangerous use were the only consideration, then possession could be rendered moot through use restrictions.

 

[TurtleDude]

I'm going to need some more context here. Almost every use of a firearm can be dangerous. Even the act of keeping a loaded gun around can be dangerous. If dangerous use were the only consideration, then possession could be rendered moot through use restrictions.

a loaded gun requires additional action to be dangerous. you apparently don't undersigned libel laws vs firearms laws. If we applied bannerrhoid ideas to speech then you would NEVER EVER be able to SAY some words no matter what the context

 

[VanceMack]

We also know historically that the militia was mustered and were required to have and maintain equipment other than arms.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That other equipment wasnt seen as a target of elimination by a tyrannical future government. Thats probably why the 2nd Amendment addressed the right for the people to keep and bear arms and not compass, camping gear, first aid kits, etc.

 

[TurtleDude]

That other equipment wasnt seen as a target of elimination by a tyrannical future government. Thats probably why the 2nd Amendment addressed the right for the people to keep and bear arms and not compass, camping gear, first aid kits, etc.

anyone who actually reads St George Tucker, the writings of the founders and the Court cases -most importantly Cruikshank (which was used by bannerrhoid judges to pretend there is no second amendment right guaranteed to individuals) cannot HONESTLY pretend that the second amendment is anything BUT an individual right

 

[VanceMack]

A command structure, no matter how loose, is not some dude with a gun. A functioning militia is not just a bunch of people with guns.


And there was a very specific reason for this. We don't need a reason for the free practice of religion or of the press or to be protected from unreasonable search and seizure. The right to bear arms has one purpose spelled out specifically and clearly for us.

There are generally accepted First Amendment limitations for example, some speech is considered dangerous and therefore it is limited. Even though the Constitution clearly states that free speech will not be abridged. This is not controversial at all. Arms, being inherently dangerous, needed a purpose to begin with so that reasonable restrictions could have a guideline that would keep them from endangering the security of the free state.

Yes...I agree. The reason why the citizens of the US were guaranteed the right to keep and bear military grade firearms is precisely because it was anticipated that at some point they would be expected to form and use them as citizen members of the militia.

Sounds like we are finally reaching this point of agreement. The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure rights to hunt. That was a given. It was not meant to preserve the right to defend oneself. Also a given. No...the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the rights of the people...the people...to keep and bear military grade firearms were guaranteed should the need arise that the citizen militia be formed to defend the country.

Whew...took us a while to get there...but we got there. Good job!

 

[VanceMack]

anyone who actually reads St George Tucker, the writings of the founders and the Court cases -most importantly Cruikshank (which was used by bannerrhoid judges to pretend there is no second amendment right guaranteed to individuals) cannot HONESTLY pretend that the second amendment is anything BUT an individual right

Thats fact. But then...their rhetoric isnt honest...and they know it. They are trying to manipulate what is factual and known into their ideology. It fails on every level. The mere thought that the founders wrote an Amendment in the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of THE GOVERNMENT...its just stupid beyond words. SO...they lie...for cause.

 

[TurtleDude]

Thats fact. But then...their rhetoric isnt honest...and they know it. They are trying to manipulate what is factual and known into their ideology. It fails on every level. The mere thought that the founders wrote an Amendment in the Bill of Rights to protect the rights of THE GOVERNMENT...its just stupid beyond words. SO...they lie...for cause.

some of the things-that if someone says it-I permanently relegate them to the "never take this person serious on any constitutional issue again"

1) well regulated in the second amendment is where the congress/federal government was given the power to regulate small arms in private hands

2) one has to be an active member of an acting militia for the second amendment to apply to them


3) congress having the power to determine what arms an active militia uses, means congress has the power to regulate or restrict what arms private citizens can own or use in their own several states

 

[VanceMack]

some of the things-that if someone says it-I permanently relegate them to the "never take this person serious on any constitutional issue again"

1) well regulated in the second amendment is where the congress/federal government was given the power to regulate small arms in private hands

2) one has to be an active member of an acting militia for the second amendment to apply to them


3) congress having the power to determine what arms an active militia uses, means congress has the power to regulate or restrict what arms private citizens can own or use in their own several states

For a while Exo and Bodhi introduced a new level of stupid...but they backed away pretty quickly. They went to the 'the founding fathers were racists! rhetoric.

 

[TurtleDude]

For a while Exo and Bodhi introduced a new level of stupid...but they backed away pretty quickly. They went to the 'the founding fathers were racists! rhetoric.

I haven't seen that silliness from one, the other is just trying to stir crap up.

 

[exoplanet]

Do you doubt that if need were to arise, citizens would be capable of uniting, organizing, and fighting effectively?

Quite plainly, yes, I do doubt that. Unless you count the National Guard as citizens, we have nothing approaching the Patriot militias. Certainly nothing that would, in James Madison's words, be "officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by (state) governments possessing their affections and confidence."

We've already been down that road with the War of 1812. Now we (should) know that it's not a terribly effective plan. Let's face it: we've raised a permanent standing army and placed the militias under government control because it's just the most efficient way to do things. Consequently, we are not prepared in any respect as a populace.

And have we agreed yet that the Bill of Rights was written for 'the people' and as a limitation on government powers?

Most certainly. Although limitations of rights are also clearly spelled out in a number of amendments.

 

[TurtleDude]

Quite plainly, yes, I do doubt that. Unless you count the National Guard as citizens, we have nothing approaching the Patriot militias. Certainly nothing that would, in James Madison's words, be "officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by (state) governments possessing their affections and confidence."

We've already been down that road with the War of 1812. Now we (should) know that it's not a terribly effective plan. Let's face it: we've raised a permanent standing army and placed the militias under government control because it's just the most efficient way to do things. Consequently, we are not prepared in any respect as a populace.

Most certainly. Although limitations of rights are also clearly spelled out in a number of amendments.

you seem to think that the bill of rights were a grant of rights rather than a negative restriction on the government preventing it from interfering with rights the founders accepted and believed were inherent in free citizens since the dawn of time. Exactly what limitations are contained in say the first or second amendments?

 

[exoplanet]

Sounds like we are finally reaching this point of agreement. The 2nd Amendment was not written to secure rights to hunt. That was a given. It was not meant to preserve the right to defend oneself. Also a given. No...the 2nd Amendment was written to ensure the rights of the people...the people...to keep and bear military grade firearms were guaranteed should the need arise that the citizen militia be formed to defend the country.

Military grade at the time, pretty much meant a decent, straight shooting gun. Are you sure you want to stick with that? Because the military uses of a snubnose .38, for example, are pretty limited. Nor would this interpretation cover things like concealed carry.

 

[TurtleDude]

Military grade at the time, pretty much meant a decent, straight shooting gun. Are you sure you want to stick with that? Because the military uses of a snubnose .38, for example, are pretty limited. Nor would this interpretation cover things like concealed carry.

can you fashion an argument-based on Miller and Heller-that a state can ban people from merely possessing the same firearms that the same state issues to its own civilian law enforcement personnel?