Tulsi Gabbard Flips On "Common Sense" Gun Control Stance

[Mungo Jerry]

Right: the purpose of 2A is to protect individual liberties, and in this case the right to keep and bear arms. So why's militia even mentioned?

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved

 

[VanceMack]

Right: the purpose of 2A is to protect individual liberties, and in this case the right to keep and bear arms. So why's militia even mentioned? That's not an individual liberty.

If it's not organized, then why is "regulated" even mentioned?

And the reference to clocks is absurd: We, the people, give individuals the right to keep and bear arms because that's an individual liberty. But we also want you to form militia that work with clockwork precision because you are the people. Oh, BTW, those are two separate points. I know, it's supposed to be two separate statements, and one has nothing to do with individual liberties, but what the heck.

Individual: What if we want to form militia that don't work with clockwork precision?

The people: No, you can't do that. It has to be regulated.

Individual: What if I don't want to join a militia? That's part of individual liberties, too, right?

The people: No, you have to do join one because we see you as a "citizen-soldier".

Good grief.

Its already been explained to you. You either cant or wont comprehend.

I'm starting to lean towards 'cant'. Thats OK. I understand.

 

[ralfy]

Its already been explained to you. You either cant or wont comprehend.

I'm starting to lean towards 'cant'. Thats OK. I understand.

No, you didn't. Your only response is that regulated militia is a people's militia, and not only does 2A not refer to that, it doesn't even make sense as that's not an individual liberty. And then on top of that the sources you gave to prove your point did the opposite.

 

[JMB1911A1]

No, you didn't. Your only response is that regulated militia is a people's militia, and not only does 2A not refer to that, it doesn't even make sense as that's not an individual liberty. And then on top of that the sources you gave to prove your point did the opposite.

Of course it is an individual liberty. Just like every other right in the Bill of Rights which protected individual liberties from government overreach.

The BoR was written TWO YEARS after the Constitution. If the 2A was supposed to only apply to the militia you keep talking about in Article 1, Section 8, it would have been very easy to write “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

They did not write that because the RKBA belongs to the PEOPLE as individuals.

 

[ralfy]

Of course it is an individual liberty. Just like every other right in the Bill of Rights which protected individual liberties from government overreach.

The BoR was written TWO YEARS after the Constitution. If the 2A was supposed to only apply to the militia you keep talking about in Article 1, Section 8, it would have been very easy to write “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

They did not write that because the RKBA belongs to the PEOPLE as individuals.

A regulated militia has nothing to do with individual liberties. Why, then, is it part of the BoR?

It's not something I am supposing but actually said in 2A: "well regulated militia".

Why is Art. 1 Sec. 8 based on 2A? Because the idea of using militia to serve the federal government precedes both: the framers wanted to avoid having a large standing army and instead supplement it with militia.

Why regulated? Because the militia that served during the Revolution had mixed results, with some leaving the battle because they had to take care of their crops and families.

What did they think would solve that problem? Training and regulations from the federal government.

What right allowed them to do that? Art. 1 Sec. 8.

What spelled that out? The Militia Acts.

What's the amendment that justified it? 2A.

Why is "regulated" not simply about being "maintained properly" and why is it not a "people's militia"? Because that makes no sense whatsoever:

Framers (F): You have the right to form militia, and to use that militia to prevent government tyranny. But it has to be regulated: in short, you have to take good care of it.

Individual (I): How is that an individual liberty?

F: It protects you from us in case we become tyrannical.

I: What happens if we don't maintain it properly?

F: Then we can't allow you to do that.

I: What if I don't want to join?

F: You can't because you're part of the people, and therefore part of the militia. After all, it's a "people's militia".

Seriously, just read the context of 2A and you'll see my points:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[JMB1911A1]

A regulated militia has nothing to do with individual liberties. Why, then, is it part of the BoR?

It's not something I am supposing but actually said in 2A: "well regulated militia".

Why is Art. 1 Sec. 8 based on 2A?

How the hell is Art 1 Section 8 based on a document that was written TWO YEARS LATER? You do know that the Constitution was written first, right? Your entire premise is ludicrous.

Because the idea of using militia to serve the federal government precedes both: the framers wanted to avoid having a large standing army and instead supplement it with militia.

Why regulated? Because the militia that served during the Revolution had mixed results, with some leaving the battle because they had to take care of their crops and families.

What did they think would solve that problem? Training and regulations from the federal government.

What right allowed them to do that? Art. 1 Sec. 8.

What spelled that out? The Militia Acts.

What's the amendment that justified it? 2A.

Why is "regulated" not simply about being "maintained properly" and why is it not a "people's militia"? Because that makes no sense whatsoever:

Framers (F): You have the right to form militia, and to use that militia to prevent government tyranny. But it has to be regulated: in short, you have to take good care of it.

Individual (I): How is that an individual liberty?

F: It protects you from us in case we become tyrannical.

I: What happens if we don't maintain it properly?

F: Then we can't allow you to do that.

I: What if I don't want to join?

F: You can't because you're part of the people, and therefore part of the militia. After all, it's a "people's militia".

Seriously, just read the context of 2A and you'll see my points:

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ralfy]

How the hell is Art 1 Section 8 based on a document that was written TWO YEARS LATER? You do know that the Constitution was written first, right? Your entire premise is ludicrous.

What I mean is that they have the same precedence: the need for a regulated militia to supplement a small standing army.

They found out during the Revolution that militia were not well-trained, e.g., some would go home during a battle to take care of their families and crops. That's why they called for regulated militia:

Article I

www.law.cornell.edu

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

That's the meaning of the term. It doesn't refer to a militia running with clockwork precision or even one of the people.
The regulated militia mentioned in 2A refers to the same and not a "people's militia" meant to go against the government.

That regulated militia involved mandatory service:

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The second Militia Act of 1792 was passed on May 8, 1792, and provided for the organization of state militias and the conscription of every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45:

"... each and every free able-bodied white male citizen of the respective States, resident therein, who is or shall be of age of eighteen years, and under the age of forty-five years (except as is herein after excepted) shall severally and respectively be enrolled in the militia, by the Captain or Commanding Officer of the company, within whose bounds such citizen shall reside ..."

Potential and actual enemies of the union include whites rebelling:

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Native Americans challenging the union:

Northwestern Confederacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

European invaders:

War of 1812 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and more:

Slave patrol - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In short, 2A does not have to do with the right of people to rebel against the government, etc. If any, it led to the opposite.

 

[JMB1911A1]

What I mean is that they have the same precedence: the need for a regulated militia to supplement a small standing army.

They found out during the Revolution that militia were not well-trained, e.g., some would go home during a battle to take care of their families and crops. That's why they called for regulated militia:

Article I

www.law.cornell.edu

That's the meaning of the term. It doesn't refer to a militia running with clockwork precision or even one of the people.
The regulated militia mentioned in 2A refers to the same and not a "people's militia" meant to go against the government.

That regulated militia involved mandatory service:

Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Potential and actual enemies of the union include whites rebelling:

Whiskey Rebellion - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Native Americans challenging the union:

Northwestern Confederacy - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

European invaders:

War of 1812 - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

and more:

Slave patrol - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

In short, 2A does not have to do with the right of people to rebel against the government, etc. If any, it led to the opposite.

Well, I am convinced. You are obviously a legal scholar who is much smarter than a SCOTUS that has affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to militia service since the Civil War.


Nah. You are just looking for a rational to infringe on our rights.

 

[CLAX1911]

Common sense should never be prohibited---------------you just lost some credibility ol' Skychief

If common Sense should never be prohibited why are anti-gun people prohibiting it all the time.

To lie to yourself and say that something you were told to think is common sense is really the lack thereof.

 

[ralfy]

Well, I am convinced. You are obviously a legal scholar who is much smarter than a SCOTUS that has affirmed the individual right to keep and bear arms unrelated to militia service since the Civil War.


Nah. You are just looking for a rational to infringe on our rights.

You don't understand: the right to keep and bear arms is natural. That's why people were doing that even without 2A. It can be seen in light of English common law and even castle doctrine: people have the right to defend themselves and their loved loves, and even their abode.

If you're in a forest and are attacked by a bear, then you don't wait for the government to give you permission to keep and bear arms to defend yourself. You do it because you don't want to get hurt or die.

That's why SCOTUS is right in affirming that right. What's the problem, then? The same 2A refers to regulated militia. Why is that mentioned when it has nothing to do with the right to keep and bear arms or even individual liberties?

I think this is the reason: the framers wanted to show that because people have the natural right to defend themselves, and thus the right to keep and bear arms, not only only each state but the states, forming a union, has, like an individual, the right to defend itself against others. That, I think, is the logic behind adding it in 2A, but that still doesn't prove that it's an individual liberty. Here's what I mean:

You have the right to keep and bear arms because you want to defend yourself against anyone, whether it's crooks, wild animals, or even "tyranny". But "you" refers to yourself and your loved ones: if there is a situation where you have to choose to defend your family or strangers, then you will likely choose the former. That's individual liberty.

But you also know that if you are dealing with a much larger and more powerful foe, then it work if each member of the militia ends up fending for himself. That foe will simply pick on each one, one after the other. It'd be like each state fending for itself while a large invader takes down the union, one state after another.

Given that, I think what the framers are implying is that defending individual liberties are based on a social contract where several will have to give up theirs to preserve those of others. And that social contract, in this case, involves regulated militia. Notice how this point works in contrary to the one where several think that in order to keep and bear arms one has to be part of a militia. It didn't occur to them that the framers probably meant the other way round.

Lastly, there's no rationale for infringing on rights, but abridgment is a norm. That's why prison inmates are not allowed to keep and bear firearms, and in several states, minors.

 

[Wry Catcher]

"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."

It seems the last phrase misses the point: ARMS shall not be infringed! IF THE ARMS ARE NOT TO BE INFRINGED, ALL ARMS OUGHT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE: THE FELONES, THE INSANE, THOSE WITH TWO OR MORE DRUNK OR ADDICTED TO DRUGS, THOSE WHO COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENT CRIMES TO MEMBERS OF FAMILIES, ETC. ETC. ETC.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

It seems the last phrase misses the point: ARMS shall not be infringed! IF THE ARMS ARE NOT TO BE INFRINGED, ALL ARMS OUGHT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE: THE FELONES, THE INSANE, THOSE WITH TWO OR MORE DRUNK OR ADDICTED TO DRUGS, THOSE WHO COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENT CRIMES TO MEMBERS OF FAMILIES, ETC. ETC. ETC.

The USSC will hear United States v. Rahimi, on appeal.
The Fifth Circuit found the [felon] ban to be facially unconstitutional because no historical analogue allowed disarming a person based on a civil protective order rather than a criminal proceeding.
If the USSC meant what it said in Bruen, it will uphold the 5th circuit's ruling and effective strike the provisions in GCA1968s prohibiting felons from owning firearms.

And when they do, you will, apparently, agree with them.

 

[RF667799]

The USSC will hear United States v. Rahimi, on appeal.
The Fifth Circuit found the [felon] ban to be facially unconstitutional because no historical analogue allowed disarming a person based on a civil protective order rather than a criminal proceeding.
If the USSC meant what it said in Bruen, it will uphold the 5th circuit's ruling and effective strike the provisions in GCA1968s prohibiting felons from owning firearms.

And when they do, you will, apparently, agree with them.

And in large font and all caps. So we know he really means it.

 

[bomberfox]

Everyone loves Tulsi

Even our resident banned neo nazi….

 

[bomberfox]

There is still no requirement any more than the First Amendment means you need to join a religion to enjoy the rights of the 1st Amendment.
Because it's called the Bill of Rights which enumerates certain rights.
In addition, you are advocating contrary to the 9th Amendment.

No other amendment has the same prefatory clause.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

And in large font and all caps. So we know he really means it.

I don't expect he will respond.

 

[RF667799]

I don't expect he will respond.

A lot of the emotionally overwrought gun control zealots won't. I don't care. I get to make my points off their posts without all the interminable rabbit hole digging they often tend to favor.

 

[L88]

No other amendment has the same prefatory clause.

So if you are going on that theory. It's one reason why the right is needed and still not a requirement.

 

[L88]

"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."

It seems the last phrase misses the point: ARMS shall not be infringed! IF THE ARMS ARE NOT TO BE INFRINGED, ALL ARMS OUGHT TO BE IN THE HANDS OF ALL OF THE PEOPLE: THE FELONES, THE INSANE, THOSE WITH TWO OR MORE DRUNK OR ADDICTED TO DRUGS, THOSE WHO COMMIT VIOLENT CRIMES AND DOMESTIC VIOLENT CRIMES TO MEMBERS OF FAMILIES, ETC. ETC. ETC.

Um no. Those people have had their rights formally removed by due process or by admission of criminal activity.
Are you going to let a child molester teach in grade schools?
An animal abuser work at a dog shelter?

 

[bomberfox]

So if you are going on that theory. It's one reason why the right is needed and still not a requirement.

Sure…. If you can tell me how entry guidelines somehow makes every individual part of a militia and how an individual is a militia…

 

[L88]

Sure…. If you can tell me how entry guidelines somehow makes every individual part of a militia and how an individual is a militia…

Membership is not required in the milita. There is no expressed requirement.

 

[Daddyo]

Full on magidiot wingnuts are a danger to our society so in that respect I do care.

Conservatism vs liberalism. Which one has this country on the brink of destruction? Now banana republic democrats are trying to jail and censor and silence conservatives. What your comrades try to claim Trump was trying to do Jan 6th is NOTHING compared to this. Never mind the endless attacks on gun right, the unrestricted illegal immigration, the constant threat of tax increases, the war of fossil fuels, the woke garbage, and so much more.

We are a danger to your socialist dreams not this country. Your comrades have that all locked up already.

When I found out that 50 percent of democrats actually wanted to jail the unvaxxed it became official for us. Leftists/democrats/progrssives/ liberals, whatever the current title being used, are the biggest threat this country faces by far. We, as a country, will be killed from within by your comrades not MAGA.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Conservatism vs liberalism. Which one has this country on the brink of destruction? Now banana republic democrats are trying to jail and censor and silence conservatives. What your comrades try to claim Trump was trying to do Jan 6th is NOTHING compared to this. Never mind the endless attacks on gun right, the unrestricted illegal immigration, the constant threat of tax increases, the war of fossil fuels, the woke garbage, and so much more.

We are a danger to your socialist dreams not this country. Your comrades have that all locked up already.

When I found out that 50 percent of democrats actually wanted to jail the unvaxxed it became official for us. Leftists/democrats/progrssives/ liberals, whatever the current title being used, are the biggest threat this country faces by far. We, as a country, will be killed from within by your comrades not MAGA.

Hyperbole much. Good luck with your Christian nationalist authoritarian utopia. You can take away the vote for women. Keep them barefoot and pregnant. You can imprison or burn at the stake anyone with LBGTQ tendancies. Maybe require everyone own and carry a firearm. You will need "papers" to cross state lines and just eliminate non internal trade. I'm sure it will be great.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Conservatism vs liberalism. Which one has this country on the brink of destruction? Now banana republic democrats are trying to jail and censor and silence conservatives. What your comrades try to claim Trump was trying to do Jan 6th is NOTHING compared to this. Never mind the endless attacks on gun right, the unrestricted illegal immigration, the constant threat of tax increases, the war of fossil fuels, the woke garbage, and so much more.

We are a danger to your socialist dreams not this country. Your comrades have that all locked up already.

When I found out that 50 percent of democrats actually wanted to jail the unvaxxed it became official for us. Leftists/democrats/progrssives/ liberals, whatever the current title being used, are the biggest threat this country faces by far. We, as a country, will be killed from within by your comrades not MAGA.

Almost forgot, you can shoot dogs and goats and whatever with no repercussions. Someone has to do it

 

[Daddyo]

Hyperbole much. Good luck with your Christian nationalist authoritarian utopia. You can take away the vote for women. Keep them barefoot and pregnant. You can imprison or burn at the stake anyone with LBGTQ tendancies. Maybe require everyone own and carry a firearm. You will need "papers" to cross state lines and just eliminate non internal trade. I'm sure it will be great.

Conservative women vote. Conservatives love everyone you just don’t get special rights because you are different. Conservative could care less if you choose not to carry or own a gun. Just leave us to choose for ourselves. Not all conservatives are religious. Those that are simply want the freedom to worship.

I mean if you want to go back in time to when democrats were lynching blacks and forming the KKK we can. I was listing recent history.