• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

How many firearm owners belong to a well regulated militia?

I used to think more about this phrase and it's application but one does not necessarily lead to the other. IOW, the right to arms does not mean only for a well regulated militia. It is a reason for creating the right, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" really stands on it's own. SCOTUS has agreed, I think more than once.

There are other countries where citizens have gun rights, but the USA is unique in it's level of gun fetish.
 
It's regulated by two commas after your question. In other words, your allowed to keep guns so you could join a militia against a tyrannical government at any time.

It says nothing about quantity, quality or type.
 
Airyaman said:
I used to think more about this phrase and it's application but one does not necessarily lead to the other. IOW, the right to arms does not mean only for a well regulated militia. It is a reason for creating the right, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" really stands on it's own. SCOTUS has agreed, I think more than once.

There are other countries where citizens have gun rights, but the USA is unique in it's level of gun fetish.
Click to expand...
If one has nothing to do with the other, why are they together or for that matter why is a well regulated militia even mentioned? Why does the second amendment just state folks have the right to keep and bear arms?
 
bongsaway said:
If one has nothing to do with the other, why are they together or for that matter why is a well regulated militia even mentioned? Why does the second amendment just state folks have the right to keep and bear arms?
Click to expand...
Because it gives the reason the right was created. It does not say one is necessary for the other.
 
Schweddy said:
It's regulated by two commas after your question. In other words, [B\you’re allowed to keep guns so you could join a militia against a tyrannical government at any time.[/B]

It says nothing about quantity, quality or type.
Click to expand...
1 sentence: That’s a stretch, IMO,

2nd sentence: type is already limited/regulated
 
I don't think I need to continue arguing for more and better gun control. Gun owners are making the argument for me by pointing their guns at innocent people and pulling the trigger.

There will come a reckoning.
 
Airyaman said:
Because it gives the reason the right was created. It does not say one is necessary for the other.
Click to expand...

But now that reason is long gone. So why do we still have the 2A? Sounds like it’s obsolete.

If it’s now just for self defense, many other countries do that- without it being in their Constitution that anyone off the street can carry around any military grade weapon of their choice anywhere they want. With modern weaponry, that’s just crazy.

The 2A is dangerously obsolete both in terms of the purpose for which it was created and the technology it was referring to.
 
bongsaway said:
AKA is that the kennel club thingy? Who regulates the militias, as in ATF?
Click to expand...
In your view you interpret regulated to mean supervised. In my view and I think the more likely intent, regulated means practiced.

It is our right to maintain a well-practiced, armed militia
 
When the Founding Fathers drafted the 2nd Amendment an expert marksman could fire maybe three rounds a minute. In between he had to ream out and reload giving people a chance to tackle him before he became a mass murderer.

How many rounds can you load in a Glock these days? I've lost count.

What does the well regulated part of the 2nd Amendment mean? Nothing at all? The Founding fathers had a reason for it did they not?
 
All of them.
 
trouble13 said:
In your view you interpret regulated to mean supervised. In my view and I think the more likely intent, regulated means practiced.

It is our right to maintain a well-practiced, armed militia
Click to expand...

“Practice” and regulate” are very different things. The English language has not changed that much. You can be a highly trained, well-practiced criminal or terrorist. That’s not the same thing as being “well-regulated”.

“Regulated” means being supervised and held accountable and answerable to some authority, disciplined, having regulations and standards you have to meet, consequences if you don’t, etc…
 
I love the arguments made about "rights." Having a right doesn't mean you have to exercise it. Owning a firearm is still a choice. Don't use the argument "I have a right" to own firearms, say instead the truth "I want to or I chose to" own firearms.

I have a right to be an asshole. I really do. As long as I don't harm anyone else by being an asshole, I have that right. Freedom of expression and speech and all that. But I chose NOT to be an asshole. (I know I know some of you Righties will say I am anyways, but we would have to regard the source for saying something like that).

People are so wound up about their "rights" nowadays they actually will do things against their own safety or health just to say they got to exercise their "rights." It's so childish. I hate to burst anyone's bubbles on here, but Canada has rights, Australia has rights, most of Europe has rights. It's what you DO with your rights that defines you, not bragging about it.

Reminds me of this meme:

3d5e0b6f8445673e5e92bc68c7da209b183e4ec6645e71cb76826d866a927adb.webp
 
Beating a dead horse argument, Supreme Court decision on this is fairly consistent on what the 2nd Amendment means.

At this point the only alternative is a Constitutional Amendment for the 2nd Amendment, some sort of update to achieve something better than the "well regulated militia" argument.
 
bongsaway said:
Who is your militia regulated by?
Click to expand...
Got this on a Google search:


One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings
of words change or diverge.
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed,
well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in
that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was
in an effective shape to fight
 
trouble13 said:
How does that work exactly?
Do you all get together and share 1 gun that you collectively own?
😝
Click to expand...
😂

Surprisingly close to that, actually. You pays dues to be a member that helps pay for ammo and stuff. When we meet up the people that own guns bring theirs and let the people that don't use them to get some training on safety and basic functions.
 
Airyaman said:
It is a reason for creating the right, but "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" really stands on it's own.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. It's cherry picking an amendment for special interests.
 
There's a Militia Act somewhere. Well-regulated would include:

Background checks
Mandatory training
Licensed/Registered

And in the one act that was shown to me on another thread, enrollment was mandatory in a militia.

I don't know what the current act says, but I'd be for all of the above.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom