- Joined
- Oct 14, 2015
- Messages
- 64,299
- Reaction score
- 62,749
- Location
- Massachusetts
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
Well, no, not necessarily. Acts passed in the founding area on a subject also addressed by the constitution logically should carry weight in constitutional interpretation, but they certainly aren't the be-all/end-all.
It shows original intent.
Any schizophrenic can buy whatever they want through the gun show loopholes. Why the fierce opposition to closing them?
Because it might hurt sales for NRA members. That's why.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."
Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?
Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.
If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?
Thoughts?
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."
Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?
Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.
If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?
Thoughts?
Loopholes have absolutely no relevance to the thread, just so you know.Any schizophrenic can buy whatever they want through the gun show loopholes. Why the fierce opposition to closing them?
Because it might hurt sales for NRA members. That's why.
Militia is the term used for a defense force comprised of ordinary citizens and well regulated means trained and equipped. What is equally important, in the context of the 2A, is whether the people refers to only those people currently (or likely to be) engaged in militia activities.
The Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v Heller, asserts that the Constitution’s right to bear arms is an individual right to armed self-defense held by law-abiding “citizens.”
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", would be clear. Is the reason really necessary to be stated here? It seems to me that the stating of the reason is what causes the confusion. If it's meant to be absolute, then it should be stated absolutely.The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."
Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?
Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.
If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?
Thoughts?
Seriously?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
SO...you just affirmed that the passage of the 2nd had nothing to do with the Militia Act. On that we agree.Seriously?
The 2nd amendment was ratified December 15, 1791.
1st militia act: May 2, 1792.
For those with wanting math skills: that's less than 5 months difference. And yet nothing about an "unregulated militia". :lamo
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", would be clear. Is the reason really necessary to be stated here? It seems to me that the stating of the reason is what causes the confusion. If it's meant to be absolute, then it should be stated absolutely.
How is that not absolute? The 2nd is not affirming the right to self defense. It is not affirming the right to hunt. It is affirming the rights of the people to keep and bear military arms (military grade firearms in line with their role as militia)."The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", would be clear. Is the reason really necessary to be stated here? It seems to me that the stating of the reason is what causes the confusion. If it's meant to be absolute, then it should be stated absolutely.
Not sure if you understand the purpose of the thread. Yes, I see what *you* did there. Does everybody do the same? Not just anybody, do people in positions of relevance, i.e. lawmakers and judges, all do the same?Μολὼν λαβέ;1066995104 said:Its pretty clear as stated in the 2A.
A "well-regulated Militia" is formed from, and refers to, "the people."
See what I did there?
How is that not absolute? The 2nd is not affirming the right to self defense. It is not affirming the right to hunt. It is affirming the rights of the people to keep and bear military arms (military grade firearms in line with their role as militia).
How is that not absolute? The 2nd is not affirming the right to self defense. It is not affirming the right to hunt. It is affirming the rights of the people to keep and bear military arms (military grade firearms in line with their role as militia).
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
Not sure if you understand the purpose of the thread. Yes, I see what *you* did there. Does everybody do the same? Not just anybody, do people in positions of relevance, i.e. lawmakers and judges, all do the same?
I understand what you meant it as. The problem is we have people...today...that are completely ignoring the military intent of the 2nd Amendment and solely focusing on the rights to self defense and hunting. That has enabled democrat senators to propose bans on over 160 specific commonly owned weapons. That has allowed states like New York and Connecticut to enact gun bans on military style weapons. The Militia statement I believe MUST be included.Are we on the same wavelength? I meant that as an absolute statement, but I read your comment as questioning that. Maybe I'm missing something.
I understand what they have done with interpretation...I just think its kind of crazy. To assume that the founding fathers would have EVER sacrificed their ability to defend themselves or provide for their families is just not logical knowing what we know about them. Pretty much everything I have ever seen written by them states clearly their intent was to protect the citizens rights to weapons of war.Μολὼν λαβέ;1066995143 said:
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."
Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?
Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.
If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?
Thoughts?
Ok, gotcha. But I don't agree on the militia statement. The shortened version just says 'shall not be infringed', period, and as such is all-inclusive without needing to explain. All the militia statement has done is to confuse people and/or give them what they see as an "out".I understand what you meant it as. The problem is we have people...today...that are completely ignoring the military intent of the 2nd Amendment and solely focusing on the rights to self defense and hunting. That has enabled democrat senators to propose bans on over 160 specific commonly owned weapons. That has allowed states like New York and Connecticut to enact gun bans on military style weapons. The Militia statement I believe MUST be included.
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066995163 said:I'm not sure you understand the purpose of my post.
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."
Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?
Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.
If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?
Thoughts?
The Second Amendment to the Constitution: "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."
Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?
Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.
If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?
Thoughts?
Actually, no, they can't. It is illegal to sell a gun to a schizophrenic. That is the law. Doesn't matter if its at a gun show or at a gun store. The "gun show loophole" is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by those that are trying to regulate guns as much as possible.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?