# Meaning of well regulated, meaning of shall, meaning of infringe



## miketx (Jun 4, 2021)

What did it mean to be well regulated? 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." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.



			https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf
		




> What does “well regulated” in the Second Amendment mean?


In a word? Standardized.

If one’s State’s Militia was to fight along side the militia of another, it is helpful if all parties involved understand and have the same chain of command, and same types of drill, orders and nomenclature. And where possible, as similar types of equipment as possible, to mitigate the issues of logistics.

It does not now, nor ever has meant, to “regulate” as in “a rule or mechanism that limits, steers, or otherwise controls” the militia.









						What does “well regulated” in the Second Amendment mean?
					

Answer (1 of 12):  > What does “well regulated” in the Second Amendment mean? In a word? Standardized.  If one’s State’s Militia was to fight along side the militia of another, it is helpful if all parties involved understand and have the same chain of command, and same types of drill, orders and...




					www.quora.com
				




*Shall:*

What does the word shall mean?​

What does shall mean legally?
when drafting a *legal* document, the term *shall* is used to say that something must be done, as opposed to the term may which simply means that something is allowed (ie that it can be done, but *does* not have to be done)



			what does shall mean - Google Search
		


Definition of _shall_​
auxiliary verb
1a—used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future, we shall have to be ready, we shall see
b—used to express simple futurity, when shall we expect you
2—used to express determination. they shall not pass
3a—used to express a command or exhortation, you shall go

a*: *will have to *: *MUST
b*: *will be able to *: *CAN

*Infringe:*

infringe​verb


in·fringe | \ in-ˈfrinj  \
infringed; infringing
Definition of _infringe_​
transitive verb
1*: *to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, infringe a patent

intransitive verb
*: *ENCROACH —used with _on_ or _upon _infringe on our rights



SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED


----------



## toobfreak (Jun 4, 2021)

miketx said:


> What did it mean to be well regulated? 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.



That is quite right, Mike.  A well-regulated militia meant a well trained and armed band of the citizenry.  Since defense of our borders from enemies without by our federal military was already engendered elsewhere in the Constitution, it made no sense to suggest the 2A was intended to give our armies defense powers in the Bill of Rights!

The 2A is a blueprint for the citizenry on what to do, a fallback, if or when all else fails and the government stops serving the people.

Time for the People to take back their country when things like stolen elections happen.

In WWII, the Japanese later admitted that their generals had dissuaded the emperor from attacking our mainland telling him that they would face a gun from behind every rock and tree!


----------



## excalibur (Jun 4, 2021)

The right of the People. All you need to know.


----------



## Oddball (Jun 4, 2021)




----------



## danielpalos (Jun 4, 2021)

miketx said:


> What did it mean to be well regulated? 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." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States. 

And, 

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> And,
> 
> SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


.

The Federal, State and Local Governments can write laws that form, arm and regulate a militia, without restricting or infringing the individual's right to bear arms.
Any absence of such a law cannot be construed as granting the Federal Government the power to restrict or infringe on the rights of the individual.

.​


----------



## miketx (Jun 4, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > What did it mean to be well regulated? 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." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
> ...


Total bullshit! Can't you read what the words I posted mean?


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 4, 2021)

miketx said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> ...


.

Really about the only part he got wrong was when he assigned some authority or obligation to the Federal Government.
There is nothing in the Second Amendment that forbids the Federal, State or Local governments from forming, arming or regulating a militia.

The problem people have is not in the wording, it comes when they try to make it mean something it doesn't.



*Example:*
The Florida State Legislature could write a law that allows any willing Citizen of the State of Florida to join the Florida State militia.
In doing so, they could arm that Citizen with an AR-15 and 1000 rounds of ammunition.
They could require that Citizen to follow the constructs and chain of command in the newly established Florida State Militia.

That would in no way violate the Second Amendment or even the desire to defend the Free State of Florida.

However, any absence of that law, does not grant the Federal Government the power to violate or infringe upon
the individual citizen's right to own an AR-15 and 1000 rounds of ammunition, whether or not they are in the Florida State Militia.



The law he stated simply says the citizen or a corporation cannot create a militia.
That in itself still doesn't grant the Federal Government the power to fringe upon the citizen's individual right to own a firearm.

Any actual definition of regulated is ambiguous and unnecessary,
When that regulation is attempting to violate the other provisions mentioned in the Second Amendment,

.​


----------



## miketx (Jun 4, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> The problem people have is not in the wording, it comes when they try to make it mean something it doesn't.


We know what it means. Come get them.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 4, 2021)

miketx said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > The problem people have is not in the wording, it comes when they try to make it mean something it doesn't.
> ...


.

Come get what, silly.

What I posted, could suggested that not only is the Federal Government attempting to overstep their bounds and violate the Second Amendment.
they have already been successful in doings so because nit-wits pretend the Second Amendment means something it doesn't, and fight over the words.

You should know what it means, it's not that hard to understand.

.​


----------



## 2aguy (Jun 4, 2021)

miketx said:


> What did it mean to be well regulated? 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." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Leftists can barely speak current english, so how would you expect them to understand anything the Founders said?


----------



## miketx (Jun 4, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> You should know what it means, it's not that hard to understand.


You're the one playing a word game, Nazi. To the shit pile with you where you belong.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 4, 2021)

miketx said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> > You should know what it means, it's not that hard to understand.
> ...


.

What word game ... Feel free to expound.

What word did you disagree with?
What part of the example I gave was incorrect in your view?

Shit ... Even in the portion you quoted in your first response,
What exactly do you think was incorrect about the fact people having a problem understanding the Constitution
happens when their desires try to make it mean something it doesn't?

I mean seriously, that's what the people trying to take your guns away are doing, you nit-wit ...  

.​


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
> ...


Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2021)

miketx said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)


.

I am not going to sue the State of Illinois in court to protect their rights.

In the State where I live, we have a State Constitutional Amendment protecting our citizens rights to bear arms 
That avoided any language someone may want to argue about, and that was ratified by the People with a 75% margin.

.​


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2021)

BlackSand said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.  (Illinois State Constitution)
> ...


Criminals of the People get infringed all the time. 

This is the common law for the common defense:

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Criminals of the People get infringed all the time.
> 
> This is the common law for the common defense:
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


.

You don't have to tell me ... We handled that when the Amendment was added to our State Constitution.
Almost immediately a convicted felon sued for his rights under the State Constitution.
It made it all the way to State Supreme Court.

You know what ... Should he meet the requirements of his parole and probation, 
he can petition the Governor for a Firearms Pardon.

See ... That's problem with you silly people.
You just keep trying to figure out how things cannot be done, and how to grant the Government power over your Freedoms.

That garbage you added about militias isn't even worth arguing.
The legislature can form, arm and regulate a militia providing for their obligation ... Without infringing on the rights of the individual citizen.

.​


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2021)

The right of the People to keep and bear Arms!  It is just a right wing slogan.


----------



## BlackSand (Jun 5, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms!  It is just a right wing slogan.


.

That's blatantly untrue ... You can come over and see what I am keeping.
I not only have the Freedom and the Right ... I have the firearms.

They are real ... Not a slogan.
.​


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 5, 2021)

Criminals of the People get infringed all the time.


----------



## Stryder50 (Jun 28, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> > What did it mean to be well regulated? 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." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
> ...


Where does his SECTION 24 come from?
No such thing in any copy of the U.S. Constitution that I've seen.

Someone forgot to tell Teddy about this Section 24*;
...
* The most famous of all the units fighting in Cuba, the "Rough Riders" was the name given to the First U.S. Volunteer Cavalry under the leadership of Theodore Roosevelt. ...
...




__





						Rough Riders - The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War (Hispanic Division, Library of Congress)
					

Rough Riders - The World of 1898: The Spanish-American War (Hispanic Division, Library of Congress)



					www.loc.gov
				



Also, some last minute civilian supplied weaponry;
...A last-minute gift from a wealthy donor were a pair of modern tripod mounted, gas-operated M1895 Colt–Browning machine guns in 7mm Mauser caliber.
...








						Rough Riders - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Stryder50 (Jun 28, 2021)

From the dumbest POTUS ever, elected by the dumbest half of our nation to date (assuming all was legally done)  we now get this gem;
...
Biden’s false claim that the 2nd Amendment bans cannon ownership​...
_“And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”
..._
The president offered this aside as he made a litany of his regular points about the need for background checks and what he says was the effectiveness of bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that expired.

Parenthetical asides from a prepared text often trip up presidents, especially Biden. In this case, he repeated a claim — that Americans were prohibited from owning cannons — that has already been fact-checked as false when he made it during the presidential campaign.

The Facts​The cannon element is what mostly interests us here, but we should also address Biden’s framing about the Second Amendment, which was part of the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791.

The meaning of the Second Amendment — “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” — has long been debated. But experts said Biden especially mischaracterized it.

“Everything in that statement is wrong,” said David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the Independence Institute. After 1791, “there were no federal laws about the type of gun you could own, and no states limited the kind of gun you could own.” Not until the early 1800s were there any efforts to pass restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, he said.
...
Interestingly, during the campaign, Biden had asserted that the cannon restrictions happened during the Revolutionary War. “From the very beginning you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons,” Biden told Wired magazine in May 2020. “You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.”

Historians at the time told PolitiFact there was no evidence this was the case. The Biden campaign could not point to any laws but seemed to suggest Biden’s point was more metaphorical than grounded in reality.

Now Biden has moved the cannon metaphor to some 20 years after the Revolutionary War — and it’s still wrong.
...
In fact, you do not have to look far in the Constitution to see that private individuals could own cannons. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. But there is another element of that clause that might seem strange to modern ears — Congress also had the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.”

What’s that? These were special waivers that allowed private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it. The “letter of marque” allowed a warship to cross into another country’s territory to take a ship, while a “letter of reprisal” gave authorization to bring the ship back to the home port of the capturer.

Individuals who were given these waivers and owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle.

The White House did not provide an explanation of Biden’s comment.
...


			Biden’s false claim that the 2nd Amendment bans cannon ownership
		

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course if Trump had made a statement like this, the Left and MSM would be shouting to the rafts it's another example of Trump lying ...


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > miketx said:
> ...


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, a*nd the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;*

Article 2, Section 26. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, *but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men.*  (Arizona State Constitution)


----------



## whitehall (Jun 29, 2021)

Despite CNN's efforts to parse words and phrases in the 2nd Amendment it's a moot point since the Supreme Court upheld the Amendment in numerous decisions.


----------



## Stryder50 (Jun 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Stryder50 said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


You are halfway there on being a responsible poster here.  
Your first paragraph remains undocumented, un-cited, and for all we know a fabrication of your imagination.

Your second paragraph can be found here;




__





						View Document
					






					www.azleg.gov
				



Within the larger context of here;




__





						Arizona State Constitution
					






					www.azleg.gov
				



Within the full content of the Arizona State Constitution;




__





						Arizona State Constitution
					






					www.azleg.gov
				




For someone who's been around for nearly six years you still don't play the game very well, but then Leftists usually aren't up to speed on details, accuracy, accountability, or responsibility. 
(For example, you originally cited Section 24, not Section 26 ...    )


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2021)

Stryder50 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > Stryder50 said:
> ...


lol.  There is no appeal to ignorance of our federal Constitution.  You could have easily done a search of the terms.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 29, 2021)

A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR used a letter by Jefferson around 1948 to create the fake "separation of Church/State we live with today. A later Court found a "right to privacy" that did not appear in the Constitution to authorize the murder of the unborn. My point is that (mostly) lefties argue about the wording of the 2nd Amendment even though it is well established but they don't seem concerned about decisions that are taken out of thin air.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2021)

whitehall said:


> A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR used a letter by Jefferson around 1948 to create the fake "separation of Church/State we live with today. A later Court found a "right to privacy" that did not appear in the Constitution to authorize the murder of the unborn. My point is that (mostly) lefties argue about the wording of the 2nd Amendment even though it is well established but they don't seem concerned about decisions that are taken out of thin air.


My point is right-wingers don't understand Constitutional law and appeal to ignorance all the time.

_All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)_

Due process applies in federal venues.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > A former KKK member appointed to the Supreme Court by FDR used a letter by Jefferson around 1948 to create the fake "separation of Church/State we live with today. A later Court found a "right to privacy" that did not appear in the Constitution to authorize the murder of the unborn. My point is that (mostly) lefties argue about the wording of the 2nd Amendment even though it is well established but they don't seem concerned about decisions that are taken out of thin air.
> ...


Due process? Is the left going to lecture us on due process when FDR issued an executive order authorizing the arrest of American citizens without due process? You almost gotta laugh that the former KKK member he appointed to the Court validated the most notorious violation of Constitutional law in history. I worry about the future of the 2nd Amendment because we have a left wing administration, a timid Court and a fawning media that will sustain any violation of Constitutional law as long as democrats are in power.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2021)

whitehall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


Yes.  Segregation was unConstitutional but still happening back then.


----------



## whitehall (Jun 29, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> > danielpalos said:
> ...


Due process wasn't about segregation. FDR is a democrat icon, perhaps the greatest democrat icon of the 20th century, his image is on a freaking U.S. coin but his executive order #9066 authorized the arrest of American citizens and denied them due process. If the media could create a hero out of a 20th century tyrant who violated half a dozen Amendments to the Constitution, what are they capable of in the 21st century when so many freedoms are at stake?


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 29, 2021)

whitehall said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > whitehall said:
> ...


A world war had no impact whatsoever?   

And, well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jun 30, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> My point is right-wingers don't understand Constitutional law and appeal to ignorance all the time.
> 
> _All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy. (California State Constitution)_
> 
> Due process applies in federal venues.



I don't live in Arizona or California.  What you don't understand is that those constitutions don't apply outside of their states.  The even bigger issue that you fail to understand is that the US Constitution trumps the state constitutions:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.


----------



## danielpalos (Jun 30, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> I don't live in Arizona or California. What you don't understand is that those constitutions don't apply outside of their states. The even bigger issue that you fail to understand is that the US Constitution trumps the state constitutions:


What You fail to understand is that y'all only appeal to ignorance of the (Constitutional) law.  All State Constitutions say something similar; and:

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.


----------



## woodwork201 (Jul 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> woodwork201 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't live in Arizona or California. What you don't understand is that those constitutions don't apply outside of their states. The even bigger issue that you fail to understand is that the US Constitution trumps the state constitutions:
> ...


And you interpret that to mean that the rules or laws of the other states apply to all the states?  The Privileges and Immunities clause of the 14th Amendment is useless and redundant.  The US Constitution already applied.  It was intended to remove any doubt about the applicability of the Constitution but it didn't actually do anything.


----------



## danielpalos (Jul 2, 2021)

woodwork201 said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> > woodwork201 said:
> ...


What State are you from?   There is no appeal to ignorance of (the Constitutional) law.


----------



## Doc7505 (Feb 4, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> Criminals of the People get infringed all the time.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 4, 2022)

miketx said:


> *Infringe:*
> 
> infringe​verb
> 
> ...



  The word _“infringe”_ is related to the word _“fringe”_, referring to the barest edge of a thing, or in more common modern usage, to a form of decoration commonly applied to the edge of something.

  As used in the Second Amendment, its meaning is stronger than most people realize.  It means that government is forbidden from even touching the barest edge of the right which this Amendment affirms.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

miketx said:


> What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. . . .



Which is why we should always remain tethered to foundational principles.

For "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, the most important principle is one that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed multiple times for nearly a century and a half . . .   That is, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right _in no manner_ depends on the Constitution for its existence.

That means examining words upon which the right _does not depend_, is useless and dangerous.


----------



## miketx (Feb 4, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Which is why we should always remain tethered to foundational principles.
> 
> For "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, the most important principle is one that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed multiple times for nearly a century and a half . . .   That is, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right _in no manner_ depends on the Constitution for its existence.
> 
> That means examining words upon which the right _does not depend_, is useless and dangerous.


Come take them.


----------



## Flash (Feb 4, 2022)

These Moon Bats are so goddamn stupid they don't even know what the phrase "shall not infringe" means.  In their demented and confused little minds they read it as "shall infringe".


----------



## Abatis (Feb 4, 2022)

miketx said:


> Come take them.



Hahahahaha . . .

Someday you might learn that what I wrote is a stronger statement of inviolate gun rights than 1000 volumes of 1000 pages, filled with your ridiculous dictionary definitions.


----------



## Dadoalex (Feb 4, 2022)

miketx said:


> What did it mean to be well regulated? 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." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


So what's your point?


----------



## Dadoalex (Feb 4, 2022)

Oddball said:


> View attachment 497400


A right of "the people"
and
An individual right are not the same.

Until the stupidity of the SCOTUS decision that words have nil meaning and we can assign meaning to words not even present that is...

Go look up the occurrences of "people" and "person" in the Constitution for clarification.


----------



## Dadoalex (Feb 4, 2022)

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> Come get what, silly.
> 
> ...


We did, for over 200 years.

Then "conservatives."


----------



## miketx (Feb 4, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Hahahahaha . . .
> 
> Someday you might learn that what I wrote is a stronger statement of inviolate gun rights than 1000 volumes of 1000 pages, filled with your ridiculous dictionary definitions.


Come get them commie.


----------



## Doc7505 (Feb 5, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> What State are you from?   There is no appeal to ignorance of (the Constitutional) law.


So, you are claiming that the 50 States and/or Commonwealths within the union don't have their individual Constitutions and laws? 




__





						State Constitutions? Why Would Each State Need Its Own Constitution? Part 2 – Constituting America
					






					constitutingamerica.org
				



**********​




__





						State Constitutions vs. The United States Constitution |
					

The United States Constitution defines the structure of the national government and dictates the scope and limitation of its powers. The Constitution is known




					www.paralegaledu.org
				



**********​




__





						What are the differences between the California state Constitution and the United States Constitution? | Los Angeles | Sacramento | Kassouni Law
					

Constitutional Attorneys expound on the differences between the California state Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, including rights imparted.




					www.kassounilaw.com


----------



## Abatis (Feb 5, 2022)

miketx said:


> Come get them commie.


Now I'm a 'commie'?

What did I say that would lead you to believe I oppose gun rights and want to take them away?


----------



## Markle (Feb 5, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> Yes.  Segregation was unConstitutional but still happening back then.


Thanks to Democrats.


----------



## Markle (Feb 5, 2022)

Curious.

Another whining "ban the gun" thread.

Why?

None of this would even be an issue if Democrats had just not skipped middle or elementary school when they taught punctuation.

It really is that simple.


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Feb 5, 2022)

miketx said:


> What did it mean to be well regulated? 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." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
> 
> 
> 
> ...







Am I the only one who misses fps
POOR bastard lol


I should be allowed to have a fully operational one


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 6, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Which is why we should always remain tethered to foundational principles.
> 
> For "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, the most important principle is one that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed multiple times for nearly a century and a half . . .   That is, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right _in no manner_ depends on the Constitution for its existence.
> 
> That means examining words upon which the right _does not depend_, is useless and dangerous.


And, even if the  2nd Amendment were repealed, the right exists and is protected by the 10th Amendment.  And even if that were repealed, or even if anti-gun language were added to the Constitution, the right would exist.  It is an inalienable right because it protects the rights to life and liberty.  The right to keep and bear arms exists in China, in North Korea, and even in the Communist country of Australia.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 6, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> A right of "the people"
> and
> An individual right are not the same.
> 
> ...


Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, aren't an individual right?


----------



## Abatis (Feb 6, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> And, even if the  2nd Amendment were repealed, the right exists and is protected by the 10th Amendment.  And even if that were repealed, or even if anti-gun language were added to the Constitution, the right would exist.



I agree. my core point was the RKBA does not need any constitutional acknowledgement or recognition to exist.  We need to return to the principle of demanding government prove it possesses the power being claimed to restrict, instead of the citizen being forced to prove standing and the burden being on the citizen to prove why he needs to exercise the right.

Why the disagree on *my post #43?*


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 6, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Why the disagree on *my post #43?*


Because MikeTX didn't make any ridiculous dictionary definitions of the 2nd Amendment; it seemed to me that he was agreeing with you.  And what you wrote, while accurate, is not a stronger statement than a thousand volumes of a thousand pages.


----------



## Dadoalex (Feb 7, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, aren't an individual right?


Do you need a permit to have a parade? Yes
The "freedom of the press" is limited by libel laws and government sanctions for publishing forbidden materials.

So....care to try again.

Why is it that when defining an individual right the Constitution uses "person" but when speaking to collective rights it uses "people?"

Do you think the authors were ignorant of the language?
OR
MAYBE
Sometimes they're talking about individual rights and sometimes collective rights?

Do you think people in prison should be allowed firearms?
Do you think the press should be exempt from all libel and slander laws?
If a religion allows its leaders to rape children should that be allowed?

OR

Is there a difference between individual rights and collective?

AND

THIS is why Heller is so stupid.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 7, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Do you need a permit to have a parade? Yes
> The "freedom of the press" is limited by libel laws and government sanctions for publishing forbidden materials.
> 
> So....care to try again.
> ...


A parade permit can't be denied because the government doesn't like the people holding the parade, nor the message the parade conveys, provided that message doesn't invite violence, or cause harm.  Doing so violates the 1sr Amendment.

Rape is illegal.  Not the religion.  If a priest rapes little girls, he'll be charged with rape.  He won't be charged with practicing a religion.  That's how that works.

A person's rights end when their actions cause harm.  Simply owning, or possessing a gun doesn't cause harm.  That's why assault and murder aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment.  But, convicting someone for owning a gun is unconstitutional.

Does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to own surface-to-air missiles, or nuclear weapons?  Of course not, but then, no one ever brings that up but the dumbass anti-gunners.

The 2nd Amendment does, however, protect the right to keep and bear pistols and rifles.  That includes semi-automatics and automatics with normal capacity to high capacity magazines.

The NFA is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed.  It taxes a right, which is unconstitutional.  It also established a registry which is illegal, by law.


----------



## Missourian (Feb 7, 2022)

miketx said:


> "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.


Exactly... Regulated like regulating a clock....









						Regulating your mechanical clock – its easier than you think
					

Regulating your clock is the act of making repeated adjustments to your clock with the intent of achieving a desired affect, that is, making your clock a more reliable timekeeper. Three things will…




					antiquevintageclock.com


----------



## Abatis (Feb 8, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Because MikeTX didn't make any ridiculous dictionary definitions of the 2nd Amendment; it seemed to me that he was agreeing with you.



 Yes, it appears miketx supports gun rights so he's on "my side" but that doesn't mean his reasoning isn't subject to criticism, there are wrong foundations in pro-gun opinion. 

My criticism of his OP is about his focus on the meaning of words to "interpret" what the 2ndA is and what it does.  From a "rights" perspective, that is illegitimate . . .  The founders and framers founded this republic on the principle of inherent rights, not that rights flow from the legislative acts of man and thus defined and precisely circumscribed by the words chosen to acknowledge (and maybe protect) the right.  That subjectivity and fragility and insecurity was a primary argument of the Federalists against adding a bill of rights.  They envisioned and feared the creativity of future generations to misconstruct the words used in the provisions, and invent powers to restrict our rights.

This inspection of words in the OP removes the right to arms from the domain of the rights theory of the founders and framers and foundational constitutional principles and the determinations of SCOTUS applying and enforcing those principles . . .  Instead it obliterates that, covering it with sand and allows new truths to be written because it puts the right in the domain of political operatives wordsmithing the right into nothingness (or worse, into an express justification for violating the right).  The treatment the 2nd Amendment received in the 20th Century, _that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right of the state_, is undeniable proof that the fears Federalists articulated were valid.

The OP's answer to the question he presented, "_What does “well regulated” in the Second Amendment mean?_", is facially wrong and then wanders off into utter confusion. 

He presents, "_In a word? Standardized._" as the "meaning" of "well regulated" but the standardization, as the explains it, is the intent and effect of regulation. But then, he says that "well regulated", "_does not now, nor ever has meant, to “regulate” as in “a rule or mechanism that limits, steers, or otherwise controls” the militia_".

Huh?

That end statement sitting alone is correct, the 2ndA has no legal action that speaks to, or establishes any regulatory operation.  The power to regulate the *organized* militia is only found in the body of the Constitution; in those clauses *only* the regulatory authority dwells allowing Congress to write the Militia Act of 1792, standardizing the organization, command, training and deployment of the *organized* militia.

Note I repeat "_*organized*_ militia" being the entity under regulations . . .  That is because "the people", the protected entity named in the 2nd Amendment, are set apart in law from enrolled members of the militia.  Private citizens are under no impressment of militia law, they are excluded from any action of militia regulation.

Because the Militia Act only commands specific citizens as obligated to serve and then only directs those who were "enrolled and notified" to provide themselves with an appropriate firearm and muster when called, the long established legal canon, _expressio unius est exclusio alterius_ ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others") applies. 

The government has no claims on citizens not enrolled or their personal arms; for those private citizens, their choosing to arm themselves (or not) is an exercise of a right, an exemption from powers not granted, a right recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

It must be understood, *NOTHING* an enrolled, mustered militia member does is an exercise of a right, nor does he need any immunity from any government power to fulfill his duty -- he is _*entirely*_ under the control of law.  He has been armed according to the mandate / obligation in law, as set-out by Congress which is preemptive of any state law possibly interfering.



woodwork201 said:


> And what you wrote, while accurate, is not a stronger statement than a thousand volumes of a thousand pages.



But it is stronger because the inspection of words, _upon which the right in no manner depends_, is useless to determine or define the right.


----------



## BackAgain (Feb 8, 2022)

One infamous Democrap politician is famed for not even grasping the meaning of the verb “is.”


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 8, 2022)

toobfreak said:


> That is quite right, Mike.  A well-regulated militia meant a well trained and armed band of the citizenry.  Since defense of our borders from enemies without by our federal military was already engendered elsewhere in the Constitution, it made no sense to suggest the 2A was intended to give our armies defense powers in the Bill of Rights!
> 
> The 2A is a blueprint for the citizenry on what to do, a fallback, if or when all else fails and the government stops serving the people.
> 
> ...


Pretty straightforward


----------



## miketx (Feb 8, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Yes, it appears miketx supports gun rights so he's on "my side" but that doesn't mean his reasoning isn't subject to criticism, there are wrong foundations in pro-gun opinion.
> 
> My criticism of his OP is about his focus on the meaning of words to "interpret" what the 2ndA is and what it does.  From a "rights" perspective, that is illegitimate . . .  The founders and framers founded this republic on the principle of inherent rights, not that rights flow from the legislative acts of man and thus defined and precisely circumscribed by the words chosen to acknowledge (and maybe protect) the right.  That subjectivity and fragility and insecurity was a primary argument of the Federalists against adding a bill of rights.  They envisioned and feared the creativity of future generations to misconstruct the words used in the provisions, and invent powers to restrict our rights.
> 
> ...


Double talking bullshit.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 8, 2022)

miketx said:


> Double talking bullshit.


Well, that's a slight improvement over "Come get them commie".


----------



## miketx (Feb 8, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Well, that's a slight improvement over "Come get them commie".


Come get them commie.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 8, 2022)

miketx said:


> Come get them commie.



You're acting like a emotional anti-gun wacko.  Move past your feelings and get to a place where your arguments are based in foundational constitutional principles and grounded in and guided by law.  

Gun rights people should endeavor to have their arguments be as solid and factual as possible; yours are limp and wrong.


----------



## miketx (Feb 8, 2022)

Abatis said:


> You're acting like a emotional anti-gun wacko.  Move past your feelings and get to a place where your arguments are based in foundational constitutional principles and grounded in and guided by law.
> 
> Gun rights people should endeavor to have their arguments be as solid and factual as possible; yours are limp and wrong.


Fuck you.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 8, 2022)

miketx said:


> Fuck you.








Calm down


----------



## Dadoalex (Feb 8, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> A parade permit can't be denied because the government doesn't like the people holding the parade, nor the message the parade conveys, provided that message doesn't invite violence, or cause harm.  Doing so violates the 1sr Amendment.
> 
> Rape is illegal.  Not the religion.  If a priest rapes little girls, he'll be charged with rape.  He won't be charged with practicing a religion.  That's how that works.
> 
> ...


BUUUUUT...

the parade permit can be denied.
"ILLEGAL?"  BWAHAHAHAHA  But but... BUT  It being illegal is a violation of that religion's 1st.  
So the 2nd DOES HAVE LIMITATIONS that amount to "infringement" to an individual...BUUUUT...Can a NG unit possess and use those weapons?  So, a PERSON's rights can be infringed as long as the PEOPLE'S rights are not.

Are you seeing where we're going here?
With every response you acknowledge the obvious while denying same.  That restrictions that do not unreasonably deny firearms to THE PEOPLE can be imposed to deny firearms to the individual.
BUT
Denial of legal representation in a criminal case?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Feb 9, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> BUUUUUT...
> 
> the parade permit can be denied.
> "ILLEGAL?"  BWAHAHAHAHA  But but... BUT  It being illegal is a violation of that religion's 1st.
> ...


A PERSON'S rights can only be taken away via due process of the law.  The "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  That's why gun control laws are unconstitutional.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Feb 9, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Do you need a permit to have a parade? Yes



  Parade permits are not about regulating free speech, assembly, or association; they are about regulating the use of the commons, to avoid allowing one group to dominate a public property to the exclusion of others being able to exercise their rights to use that same property.




Dadoalex said:


> The "freedom of the press" is limited by libel laws and government sanctions for publishing forbidden materials.



  Jurisprudence has established that prior restraint is forbidden.  Slander and libel can only be prosecuted after they have happened, when one party is able to establish actual unjustified harm as a result of being libeled or slandered.  Not about regulating freedoms of speech or the press, but about upholding one party's rights against another party's unjustified use of speech or press to violate the first party's rights.


----------



## miketx (Feb 9, 2022)

Abatis said:


> View attachment 598770
> 
> 
> Calm down


Eat shit.


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 9, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> BUUUUUT...
> 
> the parade permit can be denied.
> "ILLEGAL?"  BWAHAHAHAHA  But but... BUT  It being illegal is a violation of that religion's 1st.
> ...




No....you are trying to use word babble to try to push gun control........


----------



## 2aguy (Feb 9, 2022)

Bob Blaylock said:


> Parade permits are not about regulating free speech, assembly, or association; they are about regulating the use of the commons, to avoid allowing one group to dominate a public property to the exclusion of others being able to exercise their rights to use that same property.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yep...they want prior restraint on the Right to own and carry a gun...


----------



## Dadoalex (Feb 9, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> A PERSON'S rights can only be taken away via due process of the law.  The "right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".  That's why gun control laws are unconstitutional.


Got education?
Thought not.

Regulating firearms has been held to be constitutional since the 1830s.
It wasn't till the 1980's that the GQP decided they could win more elections by appealing to the nuts.
And just look at you now.


----------



## Dadoalex (Feb 9, 2022)

2aguy said:


> No....you are trying to use word babble to try to push gun control........


You mean like finding an individual where none exists?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Well, that's a slight improvement over "Come get them commie".


I thought that was a pretty clear and concise statement and, in the end, is the only answer to gun control so I'll sign on with Miketx.  Come and get them, commie.  That is a powerful statement that says more than a thousand books of a thousand words.  Your word salad was just wasted space on a screen.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> I thought that was a pretty clear and concise statement and, in the end, is the only answer to gun control so I'll sign on with Miketx.  Come and get them, commie.  That is a powerful statement that says more than a thousand books of a thousand words.  Your word salad was just wasted space on a screen.



It's OK if you don't understand what I wrote.

Ignorance is a luxury and leads one to be content that such "clear and concise" grunts of idiocy can represent their argument against gun control. 

You guys are lucky that all of the hard work has been done by people who do understand, so lucky that you need not bother yourself understanding how we (the gun rights side) freed ourselves from 66 years of collective right interpretation.

That invalidation was of dozens of court decisions holding that there was no individual right aspect of the 2ndA and that it only protected either the "right" of the state to form miliitas _and/or_ the 2ndA right is only a right for a citizen to possess a gun when serving in the (then non-existent) militia.

None of that advancement, none of that renunciation / invalidation of those collective right theories or the Court's re-affirmation of the individual right, came about by "pro-gun" idiots pointing to _their_ definition of the "_Meaning of well regulated, meaning of shall, meaning of infringe_" and especially not by furiously masturbating under a Gadsden Flag and yelling "come and take them commie!"

.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

Abatis said:


> It's OK if you don't understand what I wrote.
> 
> Ignorance is a luxury and leads one to be content that such "clear and concise" grunts of idiocy can represent their argument against gun control.
> 
> ...


Your problem here is not so much that you don't understand the problem but that you think no one other than you does.  You're far too impressed with what you think is your own unique set of knowledge.  You're really not as bright as you think you are and others around you are not as ignorant as you think they are.

But thank you for your good intention of coming in to save us all from our own ignorance.  I'm sure the intention is good even if the need is in error.


----------



## miketx (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Your problem here is not so much that you don't understand the problem but that you think no one other than you does.  You're far too impressed with what you think is your own unique set of knowledge.  You're really not as bright as you think you are and others around you are not as ignorant as you think they are.
> 
> But thank you for your good intention of coming in to save us all from our own ignorance.  I'm sure the intention is good even if the need is in error.


I said the same thing, just condensed down to A few words!


----------



## Abatis (Feb 11, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Your problem here is not so much that you don't understand the problem but that you think no one other than you does.



"The problem" is the same for both sides of the gun rights vs. gun control debate . . .   The loudest voices are the dumber ones and they shout legally immature / undeveloped positions. 

On the gun control side there are those who can only argue from emotion and their arguments rarely rise above declaring gun owners are puppy-stomping monsters willing to step over the dead bodies of kindergartners just to rub their penis extensions . . . 

Unfortunately, that's the level of sophistication of miketx and your arguments on the gun rights side.



woodwork201 said:


> You're far too impressed with what you think is your own unique set of knowledge.



Perhaps. I've enjoyed the gun control vs gun rights debate for 30+ years; I started on USENET on talk.politics.guns and migrated to the web as message boards came on. 

I bounce around on about 8 -12 boards looking in vain for the detailed legal debates I had back in the 90's, back when anti-gunners could actually form a coherent argument. Of course back then they had the standing case law on their side in the lower federal courts with the various "collective right" theories holding sway and focusing their attention. Even though they were completely wrong, their confidence in and familiarity with the cases was engaging and fun.   

Now I find the brains of anti-gunners are broken (and have been broken since 2001 after _Emerson_ came out of the 5th Circuit) and now, after _Heller_ and _McDonald_, anti-gunner argument is mostly monkeys throwing their scat on the screen.

I just feel that now that we are winning, gun rights people shouldn't be displaying brains broken by winning, presenting lousy, even dangerous arguments to gun rights.  We need to keep arguing what made us win, not revert to arguments we consistently lost . . .  Like accepting that the RKBA depends on the definition of the 2ndA's words, when SCOTUS has held for going on 150 years, the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution.



woodwork201 said:


> You're really not as bright as you think you are and others around you are not as ignorant as you think they are.



I know I know the law better than you and I know I remember seeing the real dangers of arguing the law from ignorance.  As I said earlier, gun rights people should endeavor to have their arguments be as solid and factual as possible; not limp and wrong.  If I get my chores done early maybe I'll rebut *this error of yours*.



woodwork201 said:


> But thank you for your good intention of coming in to save us all from our own ignorance.  I'm sure the intention is good even if the need is in error.



And I rebut with, you don't know yet what you don't know yet and you think that makes you smart.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 11, 2022)

Abatis said:


> "The problem" is the same for both sides of the gun rights vs. gun control debate . . .   The loudest voices are the dumber ones and they shout legally immature / undeveloped positions.
> 
> On the gun control side there are those who can only argue from emotion and their arguments rarely rise above declaring gun owners are puppy-stomping monsters willing to step over the dead bodies of kindergartners just to rub their penis extensions . . .
> 
> ...



Well, you're right about one thing.  The loudest are the dumbest, loudmouth.

You have no idea about what I know or don't know of the law, how long I have studied it, how much I have researched and read.  You assume that you're the only person who has done so.  You really are an idiot.

That every post is not a dissertation on the law and the Constitution does not mean that I, or anyone else here, is not capable of those dissertations or even that we haven't ever made them.  It means that we're hanging out here having some fun.  Sometimes we just talk and sometimes we joke around and sometimes we get on our soapbox.   You're still an idiot.

If you know so much about it and have done so much more research than all the rest of us, quit wasting time telling us all how stupid you think we are and simply share your knowledge.   Make the statements you want to make.  Trying to convince yourself that you're smart doesn't mean everyone else is stupid, stupid.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Feb 12, 2022)

Stryder50 said:


> From the dumbest POTUS ever, elected by the dumbest half of our nation to date (assuming all was legally done)  we now get this gem;
> ...
> Biden’s false claim that the 2nd Amendment bans cannon ownership​...
> _“And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”
> ...


Far beyond Privateers, the average merchant ship of those days carried cannon for self-defense.  Letters of Marque and Reprisal were more often issued by state governments than the federal one. Average merchant ships often carried Letters of Marque and Reprisal on the off chance they would fall in with a more lightly armed enemy merchant ship and could take it as a prize.  Stolen goods are never sold at a loss, as the old saying goes.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 22, 2022)

danielpalos said:


> Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.


That is a nonsense sentence with no actual meaning.

The skills of a well-regulated militia are earned through training.  Congress cannot confer such skills by prescribing them.




danielpalos said:


> The right of the People to keep and bear Arms!  It is just a right wing slogan.


No it isn't.  It is part of the Bill of Rights.




danielpalos said:


> My point is right-wingers don't understand Constitutional law and appeal to ignorance all the time.


Your point is wrong.  What you describe is the left.




Dadoalex said:


> We did, for over 200 years.
> Then "conservatives."


Just the opposite.  It is progressives who preach ignorance.


----------



## Dadoalex (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> .
> 
> 
> 
> Just the opposite.  It is progressives who preach ignorance.


Really?

Please describe:
How the 2020 election was stolen...
How God created the universe in 6 days
How the GOP devolved from the party of intellect and reason into, well, into you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 23, 2022)

Well Regulated doesn’t actually mean that.

Let us reference the actual documents of the era.









						Militia Acts of 1792
					

The Militia Acts of 1792 were a pair of statutes enacted by the second United States Congress in 1792. The acts provided for the organization of the state militias and provided for the President of the United States to take command of the state militias in times of imminent invasion or...




					military-history.fandom.com
				




Now. Well Regulated meant that the Militia members which was every able bodied White Man was required to obey Military type orders. And was subject to Military Disciple.

These orders would be given by Commissioned Officers. Officers received their Commissions from the Governors of the States.

Non Commissioned Officers. Or Sergeants. We’re selected and promoted by Officers.

So the Well Regulated Militia was similar to our National Guard today. Officers are are commissioned into the Guard. They obey the orders of Officers appointed above them. And orders from the Governor.

If you want to be a part of the Militia. That means subjecting yourself to the orders of the Governor. Even if he is a Democrat. It means obeying orders from officers appointed by that Democrat.

That is what a well regulated Militia meant to our founders. Not a bunch of yahoos who decide they are a militia and will defend the constitution based upon their juvenile ideals.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Mar 23, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Well Regulated doesn’t actually mean that.


"Well regulated" modifies "militia".
The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
But, the people.
So, whatever "well-regulated" means, it is irrelevant so to who holds the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd.


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

Dadoalex said:


> Really?
> Please describe:
> How the 2020 election was stolen...


I have no idea if it was stolen, much less how if it was.




Dadoalex said:


> How God created the universe in 6 days


Clearly that didn't happen literally.




Dadoalex said:


> How the GOP devolved from the party of intellect and reason into, well, into you.
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA


They didn't.  I'm a conservative Democrat.

The proper question would be: "How did the Democrats devolve from decent people like me into the insane rabble that they are today?"


----------



## Open Bolt (Mar 23, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Now. Well Regulated meant that the Militia members which was every able bodied White Man was required to obey Military type orders. And was subject to Military Disciple.


Alexander Hamilton disagrees.  His usage of the term well regulated militia clearly indicates that he thinks that "well regulated" refers to a militia that is an effective fighting force due to being well equipped and well trained.

You better go tell Alexander Hamilton that he doesn't know what he is talking about.


----------



## Dadoalex (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I have no idea if it was stolen, much less how if it was.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


DINO?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA


----------



## SavannahMann (Mar 23, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Alexander Hamilton disagrees.  His usage of the term well regulated militia clearly indicates that he thinks that "well regulated" refers to a militia that is an effective fighting force due to being well equipped and well trained.
> 
> You better go tell Alexander Hamilton that he doesn't know what he is talking about.



The link I posted was for the Militia Act. The act of Congress in the first actual Congress of these United States.

This was the Congress by the way that passed the Second Amendment and sent it to the States for Ratification.

So this allows us to see what they thought about the militia, and what was meant by Well Regulated.


----------



## Abatis (Mar 23, 2022)

SavannahMann said:


> Well Regulated doesn’t actually mean that.
> 
> Let us reference the actual documents of the era.
> 
> Now. Well Regulated meant that the Militia members which was every able bodied White Man was required to obey Military type orders. And was subject to Military Disciple.



No, not simply "every able bodied White Man" . . .  Only those who were free citizens between the age of eighteen years and forty-five years and who were enrolled and notified shall, after six months, have militia regulations impressed on them.

People who were not duty bound, AKA private citizens not enrolled because of age or other circumstances, were under no obligation to obey militia regulations. This was either because of the specificity in law exempting citizens from militia duty (there's quite a list) or because militia law just can't be extended to them.

This is the effect of the legal canon of, "_*expressio unius est exclusio alterius*_" --  the explicit mention of one thing is the exclusion of all others.  It is a principle in statutory construction that commands, when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned, others of the same class are excluded . . .  Since able-bodied White citizens, 18-45, enrolled and notified are the only people specified in the law, anyone *not* meeting that criteria is *excepted* from the law.



SavannahMann said:


> That is what a well regulated Militia meant to our founders. Not a bunch of yahoos who decide they are a militia and will defend the constitution based upon their juvenile ideals.



In the framers / founders mind, there were three militias. It does get confusing because in their speeches, writings and correspondence they often shift their focus seamlessly between these bodies without special notice . . .

 The first militia is the general militia; that was all able-bodied males able to bear arms and work in concert; this was at least 25% of the population.  *In 1788, Madison said*, with the total population about 3 million, the general militia numbered 750,000 and represented 25 times the largest number of Army soldiers the nation could muster and maintain.

The second militia is the one you are speaking of, the "organized" militia of the states, the militia set-out in Art I, Sec, 8, cl's 15 & 16 of the Constitution, the sub-part of the general militia who were obligated by the Militia Act of 1792 to serve and compelled by that law as to the type of arms and accoutrements one must provide yourself an bring when mustered.  *In 1788, Madison also said* this subset of the general militia numbered 17% of the total population of the nation, or about 500,000, 17 times the number of soldiers.

The third militia was a even a smaller subset of the second militia, the companies chosen from a state who are called up federally . . .   When *that *happens, a militia company being "_called into the actual Service of the United States_" is another separate, very specific status in law.

The President *ONLY *becomes the Commander in Chief of, "the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".

Similarly, only for the part of the militia who are truly drawing a paycheck from the federal government can Congress direct, "govern" their actions and affairs.

Additionally, just to show another level of federal control that can only be brought upon a militia member _that has been called into actual service of the nation in time of war or public danger_; if a member commits a crime, they come under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and are not afforded the grand jury protections of the 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger;  . . . "​
For the second militia NOT employed by the US government, Congress only possesses power to write the regulations for the organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia, and to write the training regimen.

As for the first militia (THE ONLY ONE THAT EXISTS _NOW_), any argument that Congress can direct, "govern" the arms, actions and affairs of citizens *NOT* enrolled in the militia, is simply usurpation.  Understand, for private citizens (the people) and their personal arms, (IOW, citizens who have no militia duty, obligation or impressment placed on them), they are three-times removed from having the federal powers you describe in your post, falling on them.

The only time private citizens (the people) and their arms are addressed in the Constitution is to forbid any federal powers over them and those arms, enforcing the right to keep and bear arms as recognized and secured in the 2nd Amendment.

.


----------

