# What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?



## candycorn (May 21, 2022)

"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."






						The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution
					

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.



					constitutioncenter.org
				




What is *your* definition of a "well regulated Militia"?


----------



## aaronleland (May 21, 2022)

Seven people who know how to hide behind trees while wearing camoflauge.


----------



## Ringtone (May 21, 2022)

What Does "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean in the Second Amendment?
					

Think back to when the Founders were living. Britain was a powerful government oppressing the American colonists. The Founding Fathers didn't like the fact that the government was so powerful. Many were opposed to the idea of a standing army for fear that it would one day be turned against the...




					www.carryuniversitytraining.com


----------



## MINDLESS (May 21, 2022)

Try to take it away


----------



## fncceo (May 21, 2022)

A potential pool of armed men and women capable of acting effectively as a unit.


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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's the common definition at the time it was written that mattered and in the 18th century well regulated meant in proper working order not government controlled


----------



## Penelope (May 21, 2022)

The states were fighting amongst themselves. Now we have the NG, the military wing to protect us.

But for those who did the Jan 6th they are traitors and should be treated as necessary, esp the congressmen.


----------



## gipper (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Doesn’t matter. We use the definition that they provided. Do you know what it was?


----------



## Esdraelon (May 21, 2022)

aaronleland said:


> Seven people who know how to hide behind trees while wearing camoflauge.


You left out the part about them being able to effectively neutralize threats to their freedom and families.  Also, if any of them are good enough, they can handle the task from so far away that camo is optional


----------



## Esdraelon (May 21, 2022)

fncceo said:


> A potential pool of armed men and women capable of acting effectively as a unit.


I'd differ only in that the burden to be "well regulated" or competent, is assumed to be on the individual.  IMO, all adult Americans should understand how to care for and safely use firearms.
A pool of that type could then easily be trained to work as a team.


----------



## Esdraelon (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It's the common definition at the time it was written that mattered and in the 18th century well regulated meant in proper working order not government controlled


Right.  Back then it was just assumed that men WOULD own and use firearms and that as free men they had a duty to be proficient so they could be depended on in defense of their freedom.


----------



## Esdraelon (May 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> The states were fighting amongst themselves. Now *we have the NG, the military wing to protect us*.


Which states?  2A was written nearly 100 years prior to the Civil War.  You've described the one belief by Leftists that assures me that they'll never succeed in disarming America.  Anytime I hear extremists on the Left who are talking trash about taking guns from their neighbors (think nutjob "Beto") I remind myself that with that crowd it is simply understood when they say "we" they mean better men and women than themselves will do it for them.  It never occurs to them that our military, whether federal or guard and reserve, can't necessarily be counted on to violate our Constitution.

The same can be said of cops in the vast part of flyover America.  They simply will refuse the order and if a fight comes (AND IT WILL) they will likely join their neighbors.  Those who refuse to support the Constitution are no longer protected by the badge.  They'd better be good with the tools of oppression.  Those tools will be all they have.  They and their families will be hated by the rest of their communities.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It's the common definition at the time it was written that mattered and in the 18th century well regulated meant in proper working order not government controlled



How is a militia in proper working order?

Well trained, command structure, well equipped, you know who is in it 

All militias have been under government control either state or local


----------



## Hellokitty (May 21, 2022)

Esdraelon said:


> Which states?  2A was written nearly 100 years prior to the Civil War.  You've described the one belief by Leftists that assures me that they'll never succeed in disarming America.  Anytime I hear extremists on the Left who are talking trash about taking guns from their neighbors (think nutjob "Beto") I remind myself that with that crowd it is simply understood when they say "we" they mean better men and women than themselves will do it for them.  It never occurs to them that our military, whether federal or guard and reserve, can't necessarily be counted on to violate our Constitution.
> 
> The same can be said of cops in the vast part of flyover America.  They simply will refuse the order and if a fight comes (AND IT WILL) they will likely join their neighbors.  Those who refuse to support the Constitution are no longer protected by the badge.  They'd better be good with the tools of oppression.  Those tools will be all they have.  They and their families will be hated by the rest of their communities.



Right, liberals are promoting the Russian military not following orders and turning against Putin, but they seem to believe US military would have no issue with going to war against US citizens.


----------



## gipper (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How is a militia in proper working order?
> 
> Well trained, command structure, well equipped, you know who is in it
> 
> All militias have been under government control either state or local


You make a common mistake. The 2A must be read in it’s entirety not piece meal, to comprehend it’s meaning.

You forgot this part…”…being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

gipper said:


> You make a common mistake. The 2A must be read in it’s entirety, not piece meal to comprehend it’s meaning.
> 
> You forgot this part…”…being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


Absolutely 
We cannot have the security of a free state without well regulated militias

A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean much in the context of the 2A. It's a desire to have a militia that is well regulated, rather than saying it must be.

The Amendment is about the militia, about protecting the militia.

You protect the militia by protecting the arms (keep arms) and the personnel (bear arms).

It's not a difficult amendment to understand, what's difficult is that everyone's trying to get it to fit their own agenda.


----------



## surada (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Disciplined.


----------



## gipper (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Absolutely
> We cannot have the security of a free state without well regulated militias
> 
> A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated


You’re not good at comprehending the written word, but I knew that already.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

gipper said:


> You’re not good at comprehending the written word, but I knew that already.


Why do you hate a secure free state?

Why would you oppose regulating militias?


----------



## gipper (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why do you hate a secure free state?
> 
> Why would you oppose regulating militias?


I don‘t.


----------



## SweetSue92 (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Absolutely
> We cannot have the security of a free state without well regulated militias
> 
> A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated



When are economy completely caves in let's see who survives shall we?? The urban brunch set or the rednecks with hunting guns


----------



## BlackSand (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


.

Well Regulated ... When any State or Local government writes a law that forms, arms, and provides for a Militia.
Any absence of such a law does not grant the Federal Government the power to infringe upon the individual's rights.

.​


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

SweetSue92 said:


> When are economy completely caves in let's see who survives shall we?? The urban brunch set or the rednecks with hunting guns



I have been preparing for the eventual collapse of our economy

I have been stockpiling canned Beer 
When the Zombie Apocalypse hits, canned Beer will become the currency of choice.

Bitcoin on Steroids


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How is a militia in proper working order?
> 
> Well trained, command structure, well equipped, you know who is in it
> 
> All militias have been under government control either state or local



Where does it say that command structure had to be the government?  Nowhere.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Where does it say that command structure had to be the government?  Nowhere.


Why Government?
Because state and local Government had the money to fund local militias.

Didn‘t see many privately funded militias


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why Government?
> Because state and local Government had the money to fund local militias.
> 
> Didn‘t see many privately funded militias


You mean the militias where everyone brought their own guns and equipment?


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> You mean the militias where everyone brought their own guns and equipment?



They were funded by their local communities


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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's irrelevant because "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" only means one thing.


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> They were funded by their local communities



Funded by does not mean controlled by.  And like I said people brought their own weapons and gear to the fight it wasn't provided by the town.  Maybe some foodstuffs or other minimal support but that's about it

There were no governmental employees in most towns so the commander of the militia was most likely NOT on any government payroll but was rather a common citizen


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

Penelope said:


> The states were fighting amongst themselves. Now we have the NG, the military wing to protect us.
> 
> But for those who did the Jan 6th they are traitors and should be treated as necessary, esp the congressmen.


Where was the "military wing" at that grocery store in Buffalo, NY?


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> Funded by does not mean controlled by.  And like I said people brought their own weapons and gear to the fight it wasn't provided by the town.  Maybe some foodstuffs or other minimal support but that's about it
> 
> There were no governmental employees in most towns so the commander of the militia was most likely NOT on any government payroll but was rather a common citizen



Depending on the size of the community, militias were provided with uniforms, small artillery, ordinance 
Many had a local arsenal of supplies 

Militia leaders were normally well connected local citizens


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Depending on the size of the community, militias were provided with uniforms, small artillery, ordinance
> Many had a local arsenal of supplies
> 
> Militia leaders were normally well connected local citizens


So they were not led by government employees like I said


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Absolutely
> We cannot have the security of a free state without well regulated militias
> 
> A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated


And they aren't the militia.  Never were intended to be.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms is intended the give the people the ability to defend themselves.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So they were not led by government employees like I said



National Guard is not led by Government employees


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> "A well regulated militia" doesn't mean much in the context of the 2A. It's a desire to have a militia that is well regulated, rather than saying it must be.
> 
> The Amendment is about the militia, about protecting the militia.
> 
> ...


The Bill of Rights are the rights of the people, not rights of the government.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> National Guard is not led by Government employees


The fuck it isn't...lol


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> And they aren't the militia.  Never were intended to be.  The right of the people to keep and bear arms is intended the give the people the ability to defend themselves.


The second amendment never says that


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The second amendment never says that


It absolutely does.  It makes a stark distinction between the militia and the people.


----------



## gipper (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The second amendment never says that


Why do you want to take away rights from Americans?  Are you an authoritarian or a Fascist?


----------



## ThisIsMe (May 21, 2022)

Look, if you want to get rid of guns, there is nothing stopping you from turning yours in.  Why don't you do that?

You'll never see a lefty voluntarily taking all their firearms to the local sheriff office, but you will certainly see them demanding all right wingers get rid of theirs.

How about it?  Post videos of you guys taking your firearms to the local police and turning them in.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

ThisIsMe said:


> Look, if you want to get rid of guns, there is nothing stopping you from turning yours in.  Why don't you do that?
> 
> You'll never see a lefty voluntarily taking all their firearms to the local sheriff office, but you will certainly see them demanding all right wingers get rid of theirs.
> 
> How about it?  Post videos of you guys taking your firearms to the local police and turning them in.



I don’t have any firearms
I don’t need one

I have a big stick with a nail in it
Nobody fuks with rightwinger


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

ThisIsMe said:


> Look, if you want to get rid of guns, there is nothing stopping you from turning yours in.  Why don't you do that?
> 
> You'll never see a lefty voluntarily taking all their firearms to the local sheriff office, but you will certainly see them demanding all right wingers get rid of theirs.
> 
> How about it?  Post videos of you guys taking your firearms to the local police and turning them in.


The anti-gunners aren't surrendering their protection by armed security.  They know guns are the perfect tool for self defense.









						'Squad' Dems spent over $325K on private security last year, despite defund police rhetoric
					

Rep. Cori Bush and other members of the "Squad" spent over $300,000 on private security in 2021 despite promoting the defund the police movement during the George Floyd unrest of 2020, according to FEC records reviewed by Fox News Digital.




					www.foxnews.com


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I don’t have any firearms
> I don’t need one
> 
> I have a big stick with a nail in it
> ...


If you don't need one, then the country isn't as dangerous as you claim.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If you don't need one, then the country isn't as dangerous as you claim.


When did I claim it was dangerous

Don‘t see me needing a firearm to walk around in public


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Ask George Mason, one of the Founding Fathers

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> What is *your* definition of a "well regulated Militia"?


The reference to ‘militia’ in the Second Amendment is an anachronism, of course – there are no more ‘militia,’ not since 1903, hence the _Heller_ Court’s individual right ruling.

And Supreme Court rulings prior to 1903 have held that the Second Amendment’s reference to ‘the militia’ concerns solely ‘militia’ sanctioned and authorized only by state governments or the Federal government.

A collection of armed private citizens does not constitute a ‘militia’; a collection of armed private citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ claiming to be ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures.

Last, private citizens have no ‘right’ to access the same firearms as a state’s national guard or the Federal military.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It's the common definition at the time it was written that mattered and in the 18th century well regulated meant in proper working order not government controlled


The reference to ‘regulated’ implies government control, in that firearms be ‘in proper working order.’

And the Supreme Court in _Presser_ reaffirmed the fact that ‘militia’ exist only when sanctioned by the states or Federal government – i.e., government controlled.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated


...nor a militia.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> When did I claim it was dangerous
> 
> Don‘t see me needing a firearm to walk around in public


Why do you want guns more regulated and certain guns to be banned?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ...nor a militia.


They're the people and their right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Well regulated simply means free citizens who know how to fight against a repressive government,  foreign or domestic


----------



## Natural Citizen (May 21, 2022)

See Federalist, numbers 28 and 46, by Hamilton and Madison.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> "A well regulated militia" doesn't mean much in the context of the 2A. It's a desire to have a militia that is well regulated, rather than saying it must be.
> 
> The Amendment is about the militia, about protecting the militia.
> 
> ...


Correct.

Indeed, those hostile to firearm regulatory measures had a perfect understanding of the meaning of the Amendment, that it codified solely a collective – not individual – right.

And because the reference to ‘militia’ didn’t apply to private armed individuals, both the states and Federal government were at liberty to regulate firearms, including prohibiting the possession of certain types of weapons.

The _Heller_ Court likewise understood this, thus contriving the individual right to possess firearms and the right to self-defense unconnected to militia service.

With the collective (‘militia’) right now discarded, the Court applied the individual right paradigm to the states and local jurisdictions in _McDonald_, establishing the legal foundation to overturn state firearm regulatory measures contrary to the Founders’ original intent and contrary to states’ rights dogma.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Why do you want guns more regulated and certain guns to be banned?


Still not a ‘militia.’

And firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not ‘infringement.’


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

ThisIsMe said:


> Look, if you want to get rid of guns, there is nothing stopping you from turning yours in.  Why don't you do that?
> 
> You'll never see a lefty voluntarily taking all their firearms to the local sheriff office, but you will certainly see them demanding all right wingers get rid of theirs.
> 
> How about it?  Post videos of you guys taking your firearms to the local police and turning them in.


No one wants to ‘get rid of guns’ – this is just another ridiculous rightwing lie.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Still not a ‘militia.’
> 
> And firearm regulatory measures consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not ‘infringement.’


The 2nd Amendment doesn't require militia membership


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No one wants to ‘get rid of guns’ – this is just another ridiculous rightwing lie.


Feinstein does.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Natural Citizen said:


> See Federalist, numbers 28 and 46, by Hamilton and Madison.


…where Madison explains that lawfully authorized state militias, organized and regulated by state governments, not armed private citizens, would provide initial defense from outside invasion or internal rebellion.


----------



## Failzero (May 21, 2022)

Ability to form up quickly and moderate training previously .


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How is a militia in proper working order?
> 
> Well trained, command structure, well equipped, you know who is in it
> 
> All militias have been under government control either state or local


Except they weren’t.  Militias could come and go as they pleased.  They elected their own officers.  They provided their own weapons and ammunition.  If they were lucky, the Continental Congress would pay to feed them and replace the ammo they used.  More often than not, congress failed to properly provide for either the Continentials or the Militia.  Militia fell under the OPERATIONAL control of the generals appointed by congress, but they answered to their own officers.


----------



## Failzero (May 21, 2022)

Ca


Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Ask George Mason, one of the Founding Fathers
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." California State Constitution only say who is not Militia ( Current Duty Military ) ( Current Duty Law Enforcement ) ( Members of the State Legislature ) all other Males 18-54 are Militia


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why Government?
> Because state and local Government had the money to fund local militias.
> 
> Didn‘t see many privately funded militias


Read some history.  Almost all militias were privately funded.  Even as late as the Spanish American War there were privately funded militias serving alongside the army.  Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders were raised, equipped and paid by him.  They were trained and equipped better than the regular army units they were attached to in Cuba.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> They were funded by their local communities


They were funded by contributions from private citizens, not usually governments.  There were rare exceptions.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger


rightwinger said:


> National Guard is not led by Government employees


Pardon me?  NG units are led by officers trained by the regular army and paid for from state coffers.  Many officers are full time state employees, most commanders are full time NG employees.


----------



## Woodznutz (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How is a militia in proper working order?
> 
> Well trained, command structure, well equipped, you know who is in it
> 
> All militias have been under government control either state or local


Leaders with military experience or training were provided/commissioned by the government to train and lead militias. The government didn't 'control' the militias.


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Doesn't matter.  At the time that it was written the phrase meant "in good working order".

That is all that matters.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> The second amendment never says that


I know that you are challenged, but exactly what do you think the words “the security of a free states” means?


----------



## Woodznutz (May 21, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> rightwinger
> Pardon me?  NG units are led by officers trained by the regular army and paid for from state coffers.  Many officers are full time state employees, most commanders are full time NG employees.


NG weapons are locked in an armory, which means it doesn't meet the muster of the 2A militia.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> What is *your* definition of a "well regulated Militia"?


NRA


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The reference to ‘regulated’ implies government control, in that firearms be ‘in proper working order.’
> 
> And the Supreme Court in _Presser_ reaffirmed the fact that ‘militia’ exist only when sanctioned by the states or Federal government – i.e., government controlled.


it does not imply government control.

In the 18th century a well regulated clock was one that kept accurate time and worked as it should.

No government needed  and there was no Supreme court during the Revolution


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why Government?
> Because state and local Government had the money to fund local militias.
> 
> Didn‘t see many privately funded militias




Bullshit.  The first artillery unit in the colonies was a private club.


----------



## Failzero (May 21, 2022)

We train legally and have Former Leo & Military ( or both ) in Leadership and we pay associates to assist in special
Training . We equip ourselves and we liaise with local Sheriffs & regional State & Federal agencies ( BLM / DFW / USFS / Park Service ... on search & rescue


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2022)

gipper said:


> Why do you want to take away rights from Americans?  Are you an authoritarian or a Fascist?




Yes to both.  Aren't all progressives?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


18th century well regulated meant, in working order as to be expected.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Absolutely
> We cannot have the security of a free state without well regulated militias
> 
> A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated


Is they are training they are in working order as to be expected.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> 18th century well regulated meant, in working order as to be expected.


LOL

Working order means properly organized, trained and lead


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> I know that you are challenged, but exactly what do you think the words “the security of a free states” means?



It means that in order to have a secure, free state…..we need “well regulated militias”


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Woodznutz said:


> Leaders with military experience or training were provided/commissioned by the government to train and lead militias. The government didn't 'control' the militias.


In the confederated states (13 colonies) the militia was under the control of the local government, and consisted of able bodied men who could come to their defense against enemies foreign and domestic.

_Minutemen were a small hand-picked elite force which were required to be highly mobile and able to assemble quickly. Minutemen were selected from militia muster rolls by their commanding officers. Typically 25 years of age or younger, they were chosen for their enthusiasm, reliability, and physical strength._


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Why do you want guns more regulated and certain guns to be banned?



I want certain guns, bullets and magazines banned because they serve no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> Read some history.  Almost all militias were privately funded.  Even as late as the Spanish American War there were privately funded militias serving alongside the army.  Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders were raised, equipped and paid by him.  They were trained and equipped better than the regular army units they were attached to in Cuba.


You are confusing mercenaries with militia.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I want certain guns, bullets and magazines banned because they serve no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers


If they aren't creating a danger, then there's no need to ban them.  If they are creating a danger, then we need to be armed so we can defend ourselves.  You can't have it both ways.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> LOL
> 
> Working order means properly organized, trained and lead


Yes we train as to be expected in working order.
Why would the founders hand firearms over to tyranny when they just fought for the freedom to have a firearm for self-defense?


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If they aren't creating a danger, then there's no need to ban them.  If they are creating a danger, then we need to be armed so we can defend ourselves.  You can't have it both ways.



Yes we can

We can ban weapons that have no purpose other than slaughter young children

When was the last time an AR-15 with 35 round magazine was used to stop a mass killing?


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes we train as to be expected in working order.
> Why would the founders hand firearms over to tyranny when they just fought for the freedom to have a firearm for self-defense?



That is NOT why they fought for freedom

They fought to have a say in how they were governed


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I want certain guns, bullets and magazines banned because they serve no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers


Imagine if private citizens had the right to bear 105mm recoilless rifles?


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If they aren't creating a danger, then there's no need to ban them.  If they are creating a danger, then we need to be armed so we can defend ourselves.  You can't have it both ways.


You just gave a reason for letting Iraq have nuclear weapons.

Congratulations on your logic.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> it does not imply government control.
> 
> In the 18th century a well regulated clock was one that kept accurate time and worked as it should.
> 
> No government needed  and there was no Supreme court during the Revolution


See post #59

It was never the intent of the Framers that the ‘militia’ be devoid of government oversight and control.

Both the original intent of the Amendment and its subsequent case law codify a ‘militia’ pursuant solely to government authorization.

Armed private citizens may not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent government authorization and claim ‘extra rights’ under the Second Amendment or that they are ‘exempt’ from state or Federal firearm regulatory measures or government control.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> It means that in order to have a secure, free state…..we need “well regulated militias”


…authorized and controlled by government – and government alone.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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 is the original framers intent that the term "well Regulated" meant that the arms of the standing militia were held and owned by the people. That the government kept the ammunitions and equipment necessary for those arms in good supply and available to those people and gave training when needed.  "well regulated" does not mean regulating goods, it means that the militia was well trained and functional to protect our country.

The left is clueless into the real meaning of these words.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yes we can
> 
> We can ban weapons that have no purpose other than slaughter young children
> 
> When was the last time an AR-15 with 35 round magazine was used to stop a mass killing?


It happens slot.









						8 Times Law-Abiding Citizens Saved Lives With an AR-15
					

Law-abiding citizens purchase millions of AR-15s (and similar rifles) for one very important reason: They are great for self-defense.




					www.dailysignal.com
				




When was the last time a gun free zone stopped a mass shooting?


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> …authorized and controlled by government – and government alone.


NO!...  This means it was trained and given the supplies to defend... In military terms, it means well trained and supplied.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> See post #59
> 
> It was never the intent of the Framers that the ‘militia’ be devoid of government oversight and control.
> 
> ...


One has only to read the constitution to see what the framers intended

_Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, *and of the Militia of the several States,*_* when called into the actual Service of . . .*


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> …authorized and controlled by government – and government alone.


But, that doesn't apply to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Blues Man (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> See post #59
> 
> It was never the intent of the Framers that the ‘militia’ be devoid of government oversight and control.
> 
> ...


The amendment clearly says it is the peoples' right to keep and bear arms.

So the Second Amendment is not really about militias.

I think the framers were intelligent enough that if they wanted to write an amendment codifying militias they would have.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

My gawd the left in here has twisted history.  THE PEOPLE were the militia. They owned the cannons and guns to protect their rights.  The government kept them supplied with gun powder and other necessities to keep them operational and trained to use them. That is why the government was told they could not limit what they hold and operate.  "Shall not be infringed"


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It happens slot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Actually every day there isn't a mass shooting in them, is a day a gun free zone stopped a mass shooting.

So the last time was just now.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> One has only to read the constitution to see what the framers intended
> 
> _Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, *and of the Militia of the several States,*_* when called into the actual Service of . . .*


The Milita is "WE THE PEOPLE" it was not a standing army. SO, it meant the average PEROSON not a state-run organization. It was the states obligation to the citizens not to infringe on their rights but give them training and the items necessary to keep them functional.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> But, that doesn't apply to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


The 2nd gave the reason why the people had the right to keep and bear arms.
If that right was unfettered, the first clause would be unnecessary.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The amendment clearly says it is the peoples' right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> So the Second Amendment is not really about militias.
> 
> I think the framers were intelligent enough that if they wanted to write an amendment codifying militias they would have.


Militias were in article 2 of the constitution, before any amendments were added.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Actually every day there isn't a mass shooting in them, is a day a gun free zone stopped a mass shooting.
> 
> So the last time was just now.


Bull shit...  Your thought pattern is twisted...


----------



## Natural Citizen (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> …where Madison explains that lawfully authorized state militias, organized and regulated by state governments, not armed private citizens, would provide initial



This topic has been intrduced here many, many times, Clayton. I've shared my thoughts on it in great detail at times. And just in casual passing at other times.

The conversation has been had. 

I'm just not doing it again, respectfully. 

Which is why I left it at advising those who are interested in the topic to see Federalist numbers 28 and 46.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Actually every day there isn't a mass shooting in them, is a day a gun free zone stopped a mass shooting.
> 
> So the last time was just now.


Well, by that logic, places where concealed carry is allowed are very rarely attacked, if ever.  That means gun permissable zones are far more safer.  How many times have gun stores, where all the employees are armed, was attacked?


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The Milita is "WE THE PEOPLE" it was not a standing army. SO, it meant the average PEROSON not a state-run organization. It was the states obligation to the citizens not to infringe on their rights but give them training and the items necessary to keep them functional.


Absolutely wrong.  The militas were military units organized by the colonies (states).
We the people, would not be member of the militia, as they would instead be conscripted into the army or the navy,


----------



## ThisIsMe (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I don’t have any firearms
> I don’t need one
> 
> I have a big stick with a nail in it
> ...


Awesome, then it wouldn't apply to you.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The 2nd gave the reason why the people had the right to keep and bear arms.
> If that right was unfettered, the first clause would be unnecessary.


The first clause justifies the right to infringed gun ownership.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> It happens slot.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


When was the last time a mass shooting occurred at a major sports stadium or airport?

Those are gun free zones


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> Bull shit...  Your thought pattern is twisted...


It's no different than asking when was the last time speed limits, stopped somebody from speeding.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Absolutely wrong.  The militas were military units organized by the colonies (states).
> We the people, would not be member of the militia, as they would instead be conscripted into the army or the navy,


NO!  This is wrong.  In the beginning, at the time of founding and writing of the Constitution the militias were groups of citizens not organized groups. That occurred later in the timeline. The people held the arms to protect themselves. The states were required to give them training and supply them with powder and lead to keep them functional.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Absolutely wrong.  The militas were military units organized by the colonies (states).
> We the people, would not be member of the militia, as they would instead be conscripted into the army or the navy,


The states held their own drafts during the Civil War.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> If they aren't creating a danger, then there's no need to ban them.  If they are creating a danger, then we need to be armed so we can defend ourselves.  You can't have it both ways.


You don’t 'need' an AR 15 to defend yourself – there are other firearms much better suited for that purpose, such as handguns and shotguns.

And the notion of needing an AR 15 to ‘defend against’ the government is ignorant idiocy; neither the Second Amendment nor its case law support insurrectionist dogma.

But that’s not why AR 15s shouldn’t be banned.

You and others on the right need to stop with ignorant nonsense about ‘defending yourself’ and opposing ‘government tyranny’ in opposition to AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions.

The valid and compelling reason to oppose AWBs and magazine capacity restrictions is advocacy of limited government and opposition to government excess and overreach.

Moreover, bans on assault weapons and magazine capacity restrictions should be opposed because they simply don’t work, bans rarely do – whether it’s abortion, drugs, or guns, ‘bans’ are ineffective and useless.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Well, by that logic, places where concealed carry is allowed are very rarely attacked, if ever.  That means gun permissable zones are far more safer.  How many times have gun stores, where all the employees are armed, was attacked?


Wrong again.  The numbers have far more impermissible zones, than permissible zones, hence they accumulate more "mass murder" free occurrences.
Making them numerically safer.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

The whole point of the 2nd Amendment was to keep "we the people" armed and functional.  This was meant to be a national approach to deterring any standing army from attacking us. It was meant to keep anyone, including our own government from taking our rights, given by God. That is why it was few words and very succinct in its verbiage.  "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed". The term "keep" is to own.  The term "bear" means the ammunitions, parts, and other things necessary to keep the arms functional could not be regulated. It is not possible to gain any government authority to "regulate" any of this and it was written this way on purpose.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> It's no different than asking when was the last time speed limits, stopped somebody from speeding.


Wrong, the framers were very succinct for a reason. here


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> LOL
> 
> Working order means properly organized, trained and lead





Nope.  It means in good working order.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yes we can
> 
> We can ban weapons that have no purpose other than slaughter young children
> 
> When was the last time an AR-15 with 35 round magazine was used to stop a mass killing?


Again, ‘bans’ won’t work.

Just as women in red states will continue to have abortions after _Roe_ is struck down, so too will private citizens continue to possess and have access to AR 15s and similar rifles and carbines if those weapons were to be ‘banned.’

Although it’s true that there’s no valid justification for private citizens to possess AR 15s, that’s not a legitimate reason to seek they be ‘banned’ – more government is rarely the answer, particularly when such regulation is ineffective and useless.


----------



## ThisIsMe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The reference to ‘regulated’ implies government control, in that firearms be ‘in proper working order.’
> 
> And the Supreme Court in _Presser_ reaffirmed the fact that ‘militia’ exist only when sanctioned by the states or Federal government – i.e., government controlled.


I don't think that's what it means. 

A well regulated militia,  being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Ok, so, what is well regulated?  The Militia.  For what reason?  The security of a free state. What is needed?  The people to have free access to firearms. 

So, to me, if access to firearms is what is needed to have a well regulated militia, then it's not about government rules, it's about being properly trained, armed, and prepared.  That's what "well regulated" appears to mean in this context, no?


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> …authorized and controlled by government – and government alone.






A laughable assertion given this.....


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> That is NOT why they fought for freedom
> 
> They fought to have a say in how they were governed


The men at Lexington and Concord would tar and feather your lying ass


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> …authorized and controlled by government – and government alone.


Joe Stalin agrees with you.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The men at Lexington and Concord would take and feather your lying ass



Nowhere in the 27 Grievances against England in the Declaration of Independence does it mention access to firearms


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The 2nd gave the reason why the people had the right to keep and bear arms.
> If that right was unfettered, the first clause would be unnecessary.


James Mason asked" who is the Militia the people are the militia.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You don’t 'need' an AR 15 to defend yourself – there are other firearms much better suited for that purpose, such as handguns and shotguns.
> 
> And the notion of needing an AR 15 to ‘defend against’ the government is ignorant idiocy; neither the Second Amendment nor its case law support insurrectionist dogma.
> 
> ...


I need a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine to insure that have equal, or superior firepower.


----------



## rightwinger (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> I need a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine to insure that have equal, or superior firepower.


to who?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Wrong again.  The numbers have far more impermissible zones, than permissible zones, hence they accumulate more "mass murder" free occurrences.
> Making them numerically safer.


Show us how many gun zones have been attacked vs gun free zones.

The Buffalo shooter picked his target because it was a gun free zone.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

ThisIsMe said:


> I don't think that's what it means.
> 
> A well regulated militia,  being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> ...


We the People are that militia...  IT is not an organization by the government.  The government is however responsible for its training and access to everything needed to keep it well functioning.  Our current leadership wants to deprive us of this making us ripe for subjugation, the very thing it was meant to keep us from.


----------



## Billy_Bob (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> to who?


TO any other standing army or idiot who wants to subjugate us.


----------



## ThisIsMe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You don’t 'need' an AR 15 to defend yourself – there are other firearms much better suited for that purpose, such as handguns and shotguns.
> 
> And the notion of needing an AR 15 to ‘defend against’ the government is ignorant idiocy; neither the Second Amendment nor its case law support insurrectionist dogma.
> 
> ...


Ok, let's take defense against government off the table.  Let's just say it's for self defense only.

Are you going to convince criminals to give up their guns and high capacity magazines?  

What is going to happen if all the law abiding citizens give up their "assault weapons", and only carry magazines with 8 rounds?  The criminals, those who, by their very nature, don't care about laws, are going to be the only ones with the kind of firepower that you want to outlaw.

Those criminals, now have the upper hand in any confrontation. 


You can ban all of the weapons you want, but since there are millions of them in circulation, they will always be available.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Nowhere in the 27 Grievances against England in the Declaration of Independence does it mention access to firearms


Why were British troops going to Lexington and Concord?


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You are confusing mercenaries with militia.


No I'm not.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You are confusing mercenaries with militia.


Actually no he's not.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> When was the last time a mass shooting occurred at a major sports stadium or airport?
> 
> Those are gun free zones


And both are protected by metal detectors and armed guards.  In 2014 there was a mass shooting INSIDE a terminal at LAX.


----------



## Failzero (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You are confusing mercenaries with militia.


Mercenaries get paid ( usually in advance)


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> to who?






"Enemies, foreign, and domestic"


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> One has only to read the constitution to see what the framers intended
> 
> _Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, *and of the Militia of the several States,*_* when called into the actual Service of . . .*


Hence the right’s ‘militia’ canard, the failed, inane attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment, its case law, and necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures where private citizens should have access to the same weapons as the Federal military.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Billy_Bob said:


> The left is clueless into the real meaning of these words.


Wrong.

The ‘left’ follows settled accepted Second Amendment case law; whereas the right has nothing but contempt for that case law.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Absolutely wrong.  The militas were military units organized by the colonies (states).
> We the people, would not be member of the militia, as they would instead be conscripted into the army or the navy,


Correct – and controlled by their respective governments.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

ThisIsMe said:


> I don't think that's what it means.
> 
> A well regulated militia,  being necessary for a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> ...


Access to firearms has nothing to do with regulation; and there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the notion of armed citizens ‘self-regulating’ completely absent government control and oversight.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to do so in the service and defense of the state, as authorized and controlled by government.

That’s why the _Heller_ Court saw fit to contrive the individual right unconnected with militia service, because the Second Amendment recognized a collective right.

And the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment would allow banning individuals from possessing firearms because they weren’t in the service of a militia – which is why the _Heller_ Court invalidated the collective right interpretation.

Indeed, _Heller_ was about the individual right versus the collective right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> I need a semi-automatic rifle with a detachable magazine to insure that have equal, or superior firepower.


No, you don’t.

You’ll never have ‘equal or superior firepower’ to the ‘government.’

And no one says you can’t have an AR 15, there’s simply no ‘need’ for one for effective self-defense.

Conservatives need to stop with this “I need an AR 15” nonsense – it’s ridiculous and in no way compelling.

AR 15s shouldn’t be banned because it’s unwarranted government excess and overreach as well as being ineffective and pointless.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Show us how many gun zones have been attacked vs gun free zones.
> 
> The Buffalo shooter picked his target because it was a gun free zone.


This is a lie.

The rightwing racist picked the store solely to murder Americans of color.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> The rightwing racist picked the store solely to murder Americans of color.


And because it was a gun free zone.  He says so in his manifesto.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, you don’t.
> 
> You’ll never have ‘equal or superior firepower’ to the ‘government.’
> 
> ...


Im not talking about the government.  I'm talking about criminal attackers.

Like this guy who had FIVE armed intruders claiming to be cops, one with his own AR-15...









						Home Invasion Victims Use AR–15 To Defend Themselves Against Five Armed Intruders
					

Three men were asleep inside their Glen St. Mary, FL, mobile home when five young intruders claiming to be sheriffs broke down the front door at 4:00 a.m...




					dailycaller.com


----------



## Natural Citizen (May 21, 2022)

Natural Citizen said:


> The conversation has been had. I'm just not doing it again, respectfully.
> 
> Which is why I left it at advising those who are interested in the topic to see Federalist numbers 28 and 46.



By the way. Just to add to that, do also see Federalist number 51.

There's a reason the Founders referred to our form of government as a "compound Republic" when framing the constitution.

This particular discussion is precisely one of the reasons why it was imperative to acknowledge the separation between the State Republics (who hold the majority of power) over the central, Federal Republic, particularly with regard to the State Republics' right_ and duty _to defend itself against being usurped by the central, federal Republic.

The phrase 'Constitutional Republic', while widely and inappropriately used (much the same as terms like liberal and conservative are so widely bastardized and misused these days,) is a non sequitur, as a true Republic, by default, is dependent upon a written constitution.

Intelligent choice between 1776 Americanism and conflicting isms, primarily Socialism in the USA today (aka the 'our Democracy' spew) requires thorough knowledge of this and commitment to the broader nature of the discussion in scope, if dialogue is to be expected to be taken seriously.

The Federalist, of course, being widely regarded as the blueprint for the Constitution for the United States.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The first clause justifies the right to infringed gun ownership.


The first clause explains the reasons (limits) on the second clause.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The first clause explains the reasons (limits) on the second clause.


Wrong, because the word "infringe" means "to limit".  Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Wrong, because the word "infringe" means "to limit".  Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited.


From the UXB field manual.  Disable the trigger by cutting the blue wire, but only after cutting the red wire to disable the failsafe.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The Bill of Rights are the rights of the people, not rights of the government.



And where did that come from?

Did I say anything about it not being an individual right? No....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The Bill of Rights are the rights of the people, not rights of the government.


The Bill of Rights codifies both the rights of the people and government:

“Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker, immune from free speech challenges. It can assert its own ideas and messages without being subject to First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination.”









						Government Speech Doctrine
					

Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker that can assert its own messages, immune from challenges of viewpoint discrimination.




					mtsu.edu


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> And because it was a gun free zone.  He says so in his manifesto.


You’re a liar, like most on the right.


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Bill of Rights codifies both the rights of the people and government:
> 
> “Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker, immune from free speech challenges. It can assert its own ideas and messages without being subject to First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination.”
> 
> ...






The Bill of Rights, is nine limitations on what government can do to the PERSON, and one, final option.


----------



## westwall (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You’re a liar, like most on the right.





And you are a pseudo intellectual liar.  Like most on the left.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> And where did that come from?
> 
> Did I say anything about it not being an individual right? No....


Actually not all rights in the bill of rights are "individual" rights.

Best example is the right to peaceably assemble.  This is a right that can't be exercised by a single person.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

westwall said:


> The Bill of Rights, is nine limitations on what government can do to the PERSON, and one, final option.


Really, how does the 6th only limit government action?

... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense....

This actually grants a right that obligates the government.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Actually not all rights in the bill of rights are "individual" rights.
> 
> Best example is the right to peaceably assemble.  This is a right that can't be exercised by a single person.



Well..... the rights aren't individual or collective, they're limiting the power of the US government. 
However, the right to peacefully assemble is individual. An individual might not be able to do it alone, HOWEVER the individuals are the ones who have the right, they have a right to be in the group. 

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. It's not the militia that has the right. It's not a collective right. It's a right of an individual to be in that group. If it were collective, it'd make no sense and the government would stop all people from being in the group.


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 21, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I think this is a fair point, even if from a fanatical anti-gunner.

Of all the amendments, the second kind of interprets itself.  That amendments specifically forbids government on any level from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms.  But its purpose is to allow each state to encourage and regulate militias within it. 

That isn't the National Guard, which is . . . national.  Texas has the Texas State Guard, which is more what the founders would have had in mind if they could have predicted how the nation would grow.  For their time, they expected that each state would keep track of available armed citizens as it saw fit, and train, equip and organize them as it saw fit.   But they cannot do any of that at the cost of infringing on an individual person's right to keep and bear arms.

The fact that the post-civil war amendments gave that same right to freed slaves, was what first drove the Democratic Party to become fanatical gun regulators.  At first they assumed that the new gun control laws would never be applied to good 'ol boys, but the modern Democratic party fears armed whites as much as armed blacks.

Anyone can form a militia, counting on the arms that they are guaranteed the right to keep and bear.  Suppose there is a grumpy old man in town who keeps lots of firearms, but says they are to protect himself against anyone trying to get him  to join their dang militia, or anyone claiming that he is a one-man militia and trying to regulate him.  "I'll regulate on them, the dad-burned whippersnappers!"  You could argue that he was not acting in the  spirit of the second amendment.  But, the amendment says clearly "shall not be infringed," so he's good.

Even if the court ruled that one must be a member of a militia, or intend to join one, for the second to apply, the ninth and tenth would still protect the right to purchase, store, practice with and carry, firearms.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Bill of Rights codifies both the rights of the people and government:
> 
> “Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker, immune from free speech challenges. It can assert its own ideas and messages without being subject to First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination.”
> 
> ...


And, the 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from infringing (limiting) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You’re a liar, like most on the right.


Nope!  I'm not lying...









						Buffalo Shooter Reportedly Chose a New York Target Because of the State's Gun Control Laws - The Truth About Guns
					

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶   The officially unidentified shooter who opened fire at a Buffalo, New York grocery store reportedly published a racist, anti-semitic 180-page manifesto justifying his efforts to “show to the replacers that as long as the White man lives, our land will never be...




					www.thetruthaboutguns.com


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well..... the rights aren't individual or collective, they're limiting the power of the US government.
> However, the right to peacefully assemble is individual. An individual might not be able to do it alone, HOWEVER the individuals are the ones who have the right, they have a right to be in the group.
> 
> The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. It's not the militia that has the right. It's not a collective right. It's a right of an individual to be in that group. If it were collective, it'd make no sense and the government would stop all people from being in the group.


You seem to be confused about rights granted to a collective, that devolve down to the individuals who are members of that collective.   Such as if a group of adults hold an assemblage on a public school playground, they can do so.  But a lone adult hanging around a school playground claiming his right to assemble would be removed or arrested.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> That isn't the National Guard, which is . . . national.  Texas has the Texas State Guard, which is more what the founders would have had in mind if they could have predicted how the nation would grow.  For their time, they expected that each state would keep track of available armed citizens as it saw fit, and train, equip and organize them as it saw fit.


You couldn't be more wrong.  From the very birth of our nation, they had state level militias which were intended to serve the nation when called upon.  They saw from the start the need for common training and equipping of those militias, in order that they could be formed into coherent units, and integrated with the army under a single commander-in-chief.


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You couldn't be more wrong.  From the very birth of our nation, they had state level militias which were intended to serve the nation when called upon.  They saw from the start the need for common training and equipping of those militias, in order that they could be formed into coherent units, and integrated with the army under a single commander-in-chief.


Yes, that's what the Texas State Guard is.  The difference between it and the Texas National Guard, is that the Texas National Guard can be federalized at any time.  It essentially is federal and on loan to the state of Texas, for approved purposes.  

I'm a little surprised that Biden has not federalized the Texas National Guard on the border to stand them down.  But, he certainly has the ability to do that, so the Texas National Guard has nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Yes, that's what the Texas State Guard is.  The difference between it and the Texas National Guard, is that the Texas National Guard can be federalized at any time.  It essentially is federal and on loan to the state of Texas, for approved purposes.


The Texas state guard is not a "militia" as defined in the constitution, or it could be federalized under Article 2 of the US Constitution.   It was set up like a domestic police force, so as not to be a militia.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Nowhere in the 27 Grievances against England in the Declaration of Independence does it mention access to firearms





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Access to firearms has nothing to do with regulation; and there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the notion of armed citizens ‘self-regulating’ completely absent government control and oversight.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to do so in the service and defense of the state, as authorized and controlled by government.
> 
> ...





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Hence the right’s ‘militia’ canard, the failed, inane attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment, its case law, and necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures where private citizens should have access to the same weapons as the Federal military.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> 
> The ‘left’ follows settled accepted Second Amendment case law; whereas the right has nothing but contempt for that case law.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Correct – and controlled by their respective governments.


You are one ignorant piece of shit


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You seem to be confused about rights granted to a collective, that devolve down to the individuals who are members of that collective.   Such as if a group of adults hold an assemblage on a public school playground, they can do so.  But a lone adult hanging around a school playground claiming his right to assemble would be removed or arrested.


That group holding the assemblage would only be able to do so with authorization from the school, just like a lone adult would.  Being a group doesn't give them any more right than the lone individual.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Mercenaries get paid ( usually in advance)


So did militias.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> No, you don’t.
> 
> You’ll never have ‘equal or superior firepower’ to the ‘government.’
> 
> ...


How did that fire power work out in Afghanistan? 
Again you ignorant leftist terrorist show the word need in the Bill of Rights? It's fucking nonsense for you too give your unwarranted opinion


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The Texas state guard is not a "militia" as defined in the constitution, or it could be federalized under Article 2 of the US Constitution.   It was set up like a domestic police force, so as not to be a militia.


Article two does not say a militia can be "federalized," it says it can be "called into the actual Service of the United States."  The Texas State Guard's mission statement says:

*The mission of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) is to provide mission-ready military forces to assist state and local authorities in times of state emergencies; to conduct homeland security and community service activities under the umbrella of Defense Support to Civil Authorities, and to augment the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard as required.*

If the president federalized the Texas National Guard, he could also request that the state guard be called into the actual Service of the United States, to augment the National Guard, or to perform the NG's missions in Texas, freeing them up to go fight in Ukraine or whatever other foreign hell-hole he wants to send them to.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 21, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> The rightwing racist picked the store solely to murder Americans of color.


He picked a place that would have the least resistance liar.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> That group holding the assemblage would only be able to do so with authorization from the school, just like a lone adult would.  Being a group doesn't give them any more right than the lone individual.


Wrong.  Public school grounds are just that public.  They have laws, rules and regulations regarding their use.









						Can the school playground be used for the public?
					

Answer (1 of 4): School playground can be used publicaly but after the school timings.The safety of students is what comes first.Using school playgrounds in school timings van destract students from study.




					www.quora.com
				




_A public schools playground is public property- it is property paid for by taxes - However the school can restrict its use during school hours for child safety etc._

The regulations to exclude adults would have to be greater than the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

A lone adult, without an assemblage can be excluded as a danger to the students.


----------



## meaner gene (May 21, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> If the president federalized the Texas National Guard, he could also request that the state guard be called into the actual Service of the United States, to augment the National Guard, or to perform the NG's missions in Texas, freeing them up to go fight in Ukraine or whatever other foreign hell-hole he wants to send them to.


Wrong.  The Texas State Guard is under the exclusive control of the Governor of Texas, who could transfer them to the Texas National Guard.  But the commander in chief can't make that transfer.

The Texas State Guard can't be "federalized", just like the Texas State Police, can't be federalized.


----------



## Failzero (May 21, 2022)

AZrailwhale said:


> So did militias.


From 2011 2015 I was never paid a Dime ( And as far as I know as an Inactive Reserve in the current  California State Militia no one is paid either ( except some members of the Cottonwood Platoon & Redding Platoon who have been Extras& starred in 3-4 Regionally Produced & Made B Movies (Action/ Horror Films )


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Wrong.  The Texas State Guard is under the exclusive control of the Governor of Texas, who could transfer them to the Texas National Guard.  But the commander in chief can't make that transfer.
> 
> The Texas State Guard can't be "federalized", just like the Texas State Police, can't be federalized.


You're the one who keeps saying "federalized," not me.  They can be called into the actual service of the United States, or state why they could not be.  That isn't federalizing them, as has been done in the past to National guards against the will of the governors.


----------



## Ringtone (May 21, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> It's the common definition at the time it was written that mattered and in the 18th century well regulated meant in proper working order not government controlled


*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.​
*What is the Militia?*​
The Founders believed that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 who were physically capable were members of the Militia. It was up to these men to be the first line of defense against any enemy attack.
​In United _States v. Miller_, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."   —Supreme Court of the United States (_District of Columbia v. Heller_) Page 22​​​*The Militia is not created by Congress, nor is Congress empowered to create a militia. *

Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), *the Militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence.*   Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the Militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" Militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16.  This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the Militia as all able-bodied men.   —Supreme Court of the United States (_District of Columbia v. Heller_) Page 23​
*What does well regulated mean?*​Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.  —Supreme Court of the United States (_District of Columbia v. Heller_) Page 23​


----------



## whitehall (May 21, 2022)

Why isn't the 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms regulated enough for the left?


----------



## Failzero (May 21, 2022)

whitehall said:


> Why isn't the 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms regulated enough for the left?


They want Guns only for themselves ?


----------



## Ringtone (May 21, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> *"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean much in the context of the 2A. It's a desire to have a militia that is well regulated, rather than saying it must be.*
> 
> The Amendment is about the militia, about protecting the militia.
> 
> ...


Not quite!

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (_District of Columbia v. Heller_) Page 23

The Founders presupposed that the able-bodied citizenry of which the Militia is comprised would necessarily be subject to and commonsensically know they were subject to proper discipline and training.


----------



## Ringtone (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Why do you hate a secure free state?
> 
> Why would you oppose regulating militias?


What do you mean by regulating militias?  And what entity is supposed to regulate _the Militia_ referred to in the 2nd Amendment?


----------



## Ringtone (May 21, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> How is a militia in proper working order?
> 
> Well trained, command structure, well equipped, you know who is in it
> 
> All militias have been under government control either state or local


False.

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (_District of Columbia v. Heller_) Page 23


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 21, 2022)

Failzero said:


> From 2011 2015 I was never paid a Dime ( And as far as I know as an Inactive Reserve in the current  California State Militia no one is paid either ( except some members of the Cottonwood Platoon & Redding Platoon who have been Extras& starred in 3-4 Regionally Produced & Made B Movies (Action/ Horror Films )


Inactive reserve doesn't get paid unless activated.  Active reserve and NG get paid.  Militia on active duty got paid as much as Continentials when congress got around to actually having money to pay them.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 21, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Wrong.  Public school grounds are just that public.  They have laws, rules and regulations regarding their use.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Yeah, sure, show up at a school house, with a group of 10 people without permission to occupy the playground and see how many rights you have...lol.  The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney maybe.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You seem to be confused about rights granted to a collective, that devolve down to the individuals who are members of that collective.   Such as if a group of adults hold an assemblage on a public school playground, they can do so.  But a lone adult hanging around a school playground claiming his right to assemble would be removed or arrested.



I might seem a lot of things to you. 

The reality is if you have a group of people and you say "the group has the right, not the individual" then the government can come along and take individuals out of the group and say "well, the group still has the right, but you have no right, so shut up and get out of the group"

You're saying that because individuals have to be in a group for there to be a right, that only the group has the right.
I'm saying that if only the group has the right, then no individuals do, which means the government can stop ALL INDIVIDUALS from peacefully assembling, as long as it doesn't stop "the group". So if 100,000 people want to protest, they can choose two people who are "the group" and tell everyone else to go away. 

Your way DOESN'T WORK.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Wrong.  Public school grounds are just that public.  They have laws, rules and regulations regarding their use.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



The White House is "public", doesn't mean you have free reign to do what you like there


----------



## Blues Man (May 22, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> *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.​
> *What is the Militia?*​
> The Founders believed that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 who were physically capable were members of the Militia. It was up to these men to be the first line of defense against any enemy attack.
> ​In United _States v. Miller_, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense."   —Supreme Court of the United States (_District of Columbia v. Heller_) Page 22​​​*The Militia is not created by Congress, nor is Congress empowered to create a militia. *
> ...


The Second amendment was not about the militia it was about the people's right to keep and bear arms.

And where does it state in the Heller decision that discipline must be the government that provided by the fucking government?


----------



## Ringtone (May 22, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> *[1]* The Second amendment was not about the militia it was about the people's right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> *[2]* And where does it state in the Heller decision that discipline must be the government that provided by the fucking government?


Dude, you're talking to a staunch defender of the individual's right to keep and bear arms!  You're reading things into my post that aren't there. 

*Response to point 1:   *

For the sake of accuracy, I think what you meant to say is that the Second Amendment pertains to the Militia's role vis-a-vis the security of a the several free states of our constitutional Republic, but the main clause strictly pertains to the inalienable "right of the people to keep and bear Arms".

Where did I say anything to the contrary?

*Response to point 2:   *

I'm quoting _Miller_ and _Heller_ verbatim!  The real question is what kind of drugs are you on?  

Given that neither _Heller_ nor I specified that the government (local, state, or federal) is to provide the fucking discipline for the Militia, why did you ask me that question?   

National Vision provides affordable eye exams and glasses.  Check it out.


----------



## Ringtone (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The reference to ‘militia’ in the Second Amendment is an anachronism, of course – there are no more ‘militia,’ not since 1903, hence the _Heller_ Court’s individual right ruling.
> 
> And Supreme Court rulings prior to 1903 have held that the Second Amendment’s reference to ‘the militia’ concerns solely ‘militia’ sanctioned and authorized only by state governments or the Federal government.
> 
> ...


Except for the last paragraph, everything in the above is total bullshit! All one need do is read _United_ _States v. Miller _and_ District of Columbia v. Heller_ to know that once again you are a lying ass dog of a leftist bootlicking whore.

You're a faggot, a baby killer, and a homofascist to boot.


----------



## ThisIsMe (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Access to firearms has nothing to do with regulation; and there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the notion of armed citizens ‘self-regulating’ completely absent government control and oversight.
> 
> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to do so in the service and defense of the state, as authorized and controlled by government.
> 
> ...


Regulation has different meanings. One of them being "to bring order, method, or uniformity", not necessarily restrictions or limitations. Why would the militia, to secure a free state, require the government to rule it, or to make laws for it?  

The security of a free state would require the people to be ready for defense should the need arise, and have certain provisions, one of them being a firearm. I think there were other things required, like a nap sack, a certain amount of gun power, lead shot, and a few other things.

The 2A was indeed referring to everyone, but it was not a collective or a group.  It's just a wording thing, if it had said "the right of the person to keep and bear arms" might have been confusing I guess. "The people" doesn't have to refer to a specific group, the people can refer to every individual.


----------



## Failzero (May 22, 2022)

Statist Progressives & Maxist /Socialist Trotskyites are UNITED in the Gungrabbin


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2022)

candycorn said:


> What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?


It means, fundamentally, whether one subscribes to the collective theory or the individual theory, that it was the Framers’ original intent that the possession of arms by the people would be subject to government regulation and control.

The people have a right to bear arms – but not an unlimited or absolute right, a right subject to government limits and restrictions.


----------



## ThisIsMe (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It means, fundamentally, whether one subscribes to the collective theory or the individual theory, that it was the Framers’ original intent that the possession of arms by the people would be subject to government regulation and control.
> 
> The people have a right to bear arms – but not an unlimited or absolute right, a right subject to government limits and restrictions.


Well, if you read other documents and quotes from people in that time, it would point to a different conclusion. They often cited protecting one's self from the tyranny of government. Being restricted by a government that would be tyrannical would be quite contradictory.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Even if the court ruled that one must be a member of a militia, or intend to join one, for the second to apply, the ninth and tenth would still protect the right to purchase, store, practice with and carry, firearms.


The Supreme Court has already made that ruling, _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886), holding that a militia can exist solely as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.

If a state or local jurisdiction prohibits the open carrying of firearms, claiming to be a member of a ‘militia’ does not void that prohibition.

Again, private armed citizens cannot ‘unilaterally’ declare themselves a ‘militia’; there is no such thing as a ‘stand-alone’ militia.

And those private individuals would be subject to the same government limits and restrictions as any other gunowner.

Last, the 9th and 10th Amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with possessing or carrying firearms.


----------



## Failzero (May 22, 2022)

It means when we form up and fall in with Sheriffs to protect our Towns & Counties we won't shoot your ass ( Unless you shoot first )


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> I'm a little surprised that Biden has not federalized the Texas National Guard on the border to stand them down.


Nothing ‘surprising’ about it – President Biden is correct to not do such an idiotic thing.

We know such a move is idiotic because Abbott did exactly that – and it was an unmitigated failure.



			https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ7J98c4pi58AASjdXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzUEdnRpZANMT0NDRjAxQ18xBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1653269500/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2022%2f01%2f19%2fus%2ftexas-national-guard-greg-abbott.html/RK=2/RS=8UAS4jkpgNAPZvuhFtHg87mpnzc-


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2022)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> He picked a place that would have the least resistance liar.


You’re another rightwing liar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I might seem a lot of things to you.
> 
> The reality is if you have a group of people and you say "the group has the right, not the individual" then the government can come along and take individuals out of the group and say "well, the group still has the right, but you have no right, so shut up and get out of the group"
> 
> ...


You’re both right in many respects; both making valid points.

Does an individual have the right to peaceably assemble when he’s alone? Perhaps not – but his right to free speech would still protect him from government preemption.

And both the right to free speech (individual) and the right to peaceably assemble (collective) would still be subject to government regulation, such as time, place, and manner restrictions.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You’re another rightwing liar


No lie on my part liar.


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Nothing ‘surprising’ about it – President Biden is correct to not do such an idiotic thing.


Given his record, it is surprising that Team Biden passed up a chance to do an idiotic thing.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> We know such a move is idiotic because Abbott did exactly that – and it was an unmitigated failure.
> 
> 
> 
> https://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=AwrJ7J98c4pi58AASjdXNyoA;_ylu=Y29sbwNiZjEEcG9zAzUEdnRpZANMT0NDRjAxQ18xBHNlYwNzcg--/RV=2/RE=1653269500/RO=10/RU=https%3a%2f%2fwww.nytimes.com%2f2022%2f01%2f19%2fus%2ftexas-national-guard-greg-abbott.html/RK=2/RS=8UAS4jkpgNAPZvuhFtHg87mpnzc-


As a former Army NCO and officers, I don't find it newsworthy that troops complain about something.


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court has already made that ruling, _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886), holding that a militia can exist solely as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> If a state or local jurisdiction prohibits the open carrying of firearms, claiming to be a member of a ‘militia’ does not void that prohibition.
> 
> ...


The Presser decision was another wrong decision by the USSC.  That's why it's important to go by the words of the constitution.  

It is no coincidence that the Presser decision came in the wake of the freeing of black people post Civil War and their being given the same rights as whites, including the right to keep and bear arms.

Do you think that freed slaves had the right to form a militia for the purpose of protecting themselves from the KKK?

Or do you go by _Presser v. Illinois?_

For a little background on Herman Presser, he was a German-American labor organizer who founded the Instruction and Defense Association in response to the private armies, Such as the Pinkerton Detective Agency in the hire of the company owners.



			http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/law_review_articles/presser.PDF
		








C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Last, the 9th and 10th Amendments have nothing whatsoever to do with possessing or carrying firearms.


They have to do with every right and power not specified in the U.S. Constitution.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Yeah, sure, show up at a school house, with a group of 10 people without permission to occupy the playground and see how many rights you have...lol.  The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney maybe.





frigidweirdo said:


> I might seem a lot of things to you.
> 
> The reality is if you have a group of people and you say "the group has the right, not the individual" then the government can come along and take individuals out of the group and say "well, the group still has the right, but you have no right, so shut up and get out of the group"
> 
> ...


Have you ever heard of a class action lawsuit.  The group has the right to sue, not the individual.  But as a member of the group, you can't be excluded from recovering as in your no individual right theory.
The fact is, tight to assemble is a group right, and being a member of the group (freedom of association) is what grants the individual the right to be in the group.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Have you ever heard of a class action lawsuit.  The group has the right to sue, not the individual.  But as a member of the group, you can't be excluded from recovering as in your no individual right theory.
> The fact is, tight to assemble is a group right, and being a member of the group (freedom of association) is what grants the individual the right to be in the group.


The individual has the right to sue, too.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> The individual has the right to sue, too.


The class action and individual lawsuits are mutually exclusive.  You can only be a member of one of them.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You’re both right in many respects; both making valid points.
> 
> Does an individual have the right to peaceably assemble when he’s alone? Perhaps not – but his right to free speech would still protect him from government preemption.
> 
> And both the right to free speech (individual) and the right to peaceably assemble (collective) would still be subject to government regulation, such as time, place, and manner restrictions.



It's still not collective. It might require two or more people, but the individual still has the right.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Have you ever heard of a class action lawsuit.  The group has the right to sue, not the individual.  But as a member of the group, you can't be excluded from recovering as in your no individual right theory.
> The fact is, tight to assemble is a group right, and being a member of the group (freedom of association) is what grants the individual the right to be in the group.



Well, again, this is individuals having the right to do something.

Individuals may have the right to sue from the First Amendment, we don't need to discuss whether this is or isn't  right, but we assume it is. 

If only the group has the "right to sue" then the government could prevent individuals within the class action lawsuit from suing as part of that group until there are few or no people left.

The fact is that if it were a "group right", then only the "group" and not the "individuals" would be able to have this right, which would mean none of the actual members would be protected. Which would mean the group would fall apart. 

Do you understand that concept? 


The reason I say this is because... ironically... the discussion of the Second Amendment way back in in 1789



			Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
		


They were discussing this clause to the Second Amendment: "_but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."_

Mr Gerry said "_Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."_

Literally, if you say "these people can be exempt from militia duty" then the government could say "well, we're making these people exempt from militia duty".

You're giving the government POWER to "take away" (not sure this is the right terminology here, but hopefully you get the idea) the right from individuals. Once you start exempting certain people from a right, it no longer is a right, it's a privilege, which can be taken away at will from everyone else. Hence why he said it would destroy the Constitution. Because then the collective would be unable to meet together.

In order to protect the collective, they gave INDIVIDUALS the right to own weapons (keep).

This meant that when called up into Federal service, the US govt could NOT take the arms from the soldiers because they were not government property. 

In order to protect the collective, they gave INDIVIDUALS the right to be in the militia (bear). This meant they could not throw out individuals from the group, to make it a privilege rather than a right, and therefore couldn't destroy the militia.

Ironically they did the opposite with the Dick Act, by making everyone in the "unorganized militia" and then made this militia redundant, and had the National Guard as a select militia.


----------



## AZrailwhale (May 22, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Given his record, it is surprising that Team Biden passed up a chance to do an idiotic thing.
> 
> As a former Army NCO and officers, I don't find it newsworthy that troops complain about something.


It's newsworthy and worrying when the troops STOP complaining.


----------



## Who_Me? (May 22, 2022)

_"A well regulated Militia",_ - certainly not the goat ropers that run around on the weekends wearing military garb and carrying their AR-15's.  These are called insecure men with undersized junk.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, again, this is individuals having the right to do something.


Individual citizens do not have the right to run for political office.
The law requires that they be part of a group (file nominating signatures).
So the right to run for political office is only a collective right.


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Individual citizens do not have the right to run for political office.
> The law requires that they be part of a group (file nominating signatures).
> So the right to run for political office is only a collective right.


You are describing the right to be on the ballot, not the right to run. 

I wonder if any polling places do not allow write in votes?  Now that I think of it, I do not remember being given that opportunity the last time I voted.


----------



## BackAgain (May 22, 2022)

Poorly regulated militias might not be effective.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> You are describing the right to be on the ballot, not the right to run.


You need to be part of a group, to get your name on the ballot, and you need to be part of a group to get your name on the write-in list to have ballots cast for you counted.

Without being part of a group, no-one can vote for you, and have that vote count.

So technically you have the right to campaign (tell people to vote for you) but it's a collective right to have people actually vote for you.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 22, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


If my understanding/definition of the phrase differs from those of the people who ratified the Constitution?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 22, 2022)

BackAgain said:


> Poorly regulated militias might not be effective.


As well as Well regulated ones. Define what constitutes An effective militia?


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You need to be part of a group, to get your name on the ballot, and you need to be part of a group to get your name on the write-in list to have ballots cast for you counted.
> 
> Without being part of a group, no-one can vote for you, and have that vote count.
> 
> So technically you have the right to campaign (tell people to vote for you) but it's a collective right to have people actually vote for you.


The "write-in list?"

Are you sure about that?

Well . . . I looked at ballotpedia and in some states, you are correct:

*As of 2020, most states allow voters to write in the name of a candidate who does not appear on the ballot. However, states have varying rules about which write-in votes they count. These rules can be grouped into three categories:
*

*No requirements for whom voters may write-in*
*Only write-in votes for registered candidates will be counted.*
*No write-in votes allowed[2]*
*Eight states do not have any requirements and will allow voters to write in any name as a write-in vote. This means that regardless of who you write in, the vote will be counted.[3] Those states are Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Thirty-three states will only accept votes for write-in candidates who have officially registered with the state. In order for the vote to be counted, the candidate must have submitted all the necessary registration documents by a specific deadline, either by filing paperwork, paying a fee, collecting signatures, or some combination of the aforementioned.[4] Conversely, if a voter writes in the name of a candidate who has not properly filled out and submitted the paperwork, the vote will not be valid and counted.[5]

Nine states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota), do not allow write-in votes.*

I stand corrected!  (forkup)  If a state does not allow write-in votes, or requires signatures to be a registered write-in candidate, the right to run for office is indeed dependent on others, and therefore can be said to be "collective." 

I smell the Twoparties.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Individual citizens do not have the right to run for political office.
> The law requires that they be part of a group (file nominating signatures).
> So the right to run for political office is only a collective right.



So collective groups have the right to run for political office? No. So what's your point? There's* no right* to run for political office?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So collective groups have the right to run for political office? No. So what's your point? There's* no right* to run for political office?


Think: write in candidates


----------



## BackAgain (May 22, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> As well as Well regulated ones. Define what constitutes An effective militia?


Does the Constitution address the concept of an “effective” militia?  

No. 

The original question was what a well regulated militia means. And it means one that is not poorly regulated. 

Now hurry back with another meaningless comment. You’re on the clock, Dainty. Go!


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Individual citizens do not have the right to run for political office.
> The law requires that they be part of a group (file nominating signatures).
> So the right to run for political office is only a collective right.


Yes we do. It happens all the time


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Think: write in candidates



Think: no right to be a candidate


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

Seymour Flops said:


> Thirty-three states will only accept votes for write-in candidates who have officially registered with the state. In order for the vote to be counted, the candidate must have submitted all the necessary registration documents by a specific deadline, either by filing paperwork, paying a fee, collecting signatures, or some combination of the aforementioned.[4] Conversely, *if a voter writes in the name of a candidate who has not properly filled out and submitted the paperwork, the vote will not be valid and counted*.[5]



As you documented, the majority of states do not grant the right to run for political office to the individual, but ONLY to the group.

Making it a group right.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> As you documented, the majority of states do not grant the right to run for political office to the individual, but ONLY to the group.
> 
> Making it a group right.



So they can ban all individuals, but they can't ban the Republican Party from running.

How's that even possible?

You can't even vote for the Republican Party. You can ONLY vote for individual candidates.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> So they can ban all individuals, but they can't ban the Republican Party from running.
> 
> How's that even possible?


That's the law.

And it's the law in the majority of states.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> That's the law.
> 
> And it's the law in the majority of states.



No, it's not the law. 

The law says an individual needs to be in a political party. 

A political party without candidates CANNOT win an election because NOBODY can vote for just the political party.

So it can't be a right for a political party.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> No, it's not the law.
> 
> The law says an individual needs to be in a political party.
> 
> ...


I didn't say it was the right of a political party, but the right of a "group"

That group need not be a political party.  And only that "group" has the right to have votes for a member of that group be counted in an election for political office.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> I didn't say it was the right of a political party, but the right of a "group"
> 
> That group need not be a political party.  And only that "group" has the right to have votes for a member of that group be counted in an election for political office.



Can an individual make their own political party without anyone else in that party, and stand for an election?


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Think: no right to be a candidate


That’s a crazy statement


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> That’s a crazy statement



Why is it a "crazy statement"??? I can't respond to something when you don't even say why.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Can an individual make their own political party without anyone else in that party, and stand for an election?


In the majority of states,  NO


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Why is it a "crazy statement"??? I can't respond to something when you don't even say why.



Here’s an example 





__





						Running for Office | New York State Board of Elections
					

General Information on Petitions. Sample Forms, Witnesses to a Petition, Cover sheets etc.



					www.elections.ny.gov


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> In the majority of states,  NO



Really? Which states do not let you start your own political party and have only one member in that political party?

Which party does Bernie Sanders represent in the US Senate? 

Which party does Angus King represent in the US Senate?


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> Here’s an example
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Why is this an example? I'm not reading a whole document to pull out the points YOU want to make.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Really? Which states do not let you start your own political party and have only one member in that political party?
> 
> Which party does Bernie Sanders represent in the US Senate?
> 
> Which party does Angus King represent in the US Senate?


You need a "group" of supporters, in order to have your name on the ballot to have votes (write-in) for you counted.  The group has to consist of registered voters.

An individual can't get on the ballot in the majority of states, without being a member of a group of registered voters.

[


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> You need a "group" of supporters, in order to have your name on the ballot to have votes (write-in) for you counted.  The group has to consist of registered voters.
> 
> An individual can't get on the ballot in the majority of states, without being a member of a group of registered voters.
> 
> [



Okay, so an individual can't just be on the ballot if he chooses to? Then there's not a RIGHT.

You can have qualifications for a right. There's not right to stand for president. Elon Musk as a US CITIZEN does not have the right to stand for president, therefore NOBODY has the RIGHT to stand for president.

No right to be a candidate.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Okay, so an individual can't just be on the ballot if he chooses to? Then there's not a RIGHT.


Not an individual right.  But a right granted to a group, and the group allowed to pick an individual from it's members to run for office.

It's no different than an amusement park having a "family day".   Where individuals no longer have a right of admission.  Even if you claim that you're a member of a family, you have no individual right of admission.  You can only exercise that right as a "group".  

You have a similar rule in some public playgrounds, that do not allow unaccompanied adults, or unaccompanied children admission.  Again, where the individual has no right to the park, but instead that right is granted to a "group".


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Not an individual right.  But a right granted to a group, and the group allowed to pick an individual from it's members to run for office.
> 
> It's no different than an amusement park having a "family day".   Where individuals no longer have a right of admission.  Even if you claim that you're a member of a family, you have no individual right of admission.  You can only exercise that right as a "group".
> 
> You have a similar rule in some public playgrounds, that do not allow unaccompanied adults, or unaccompanied children admission.  Again, where the individual has no right to the park, but instead that right is granted to a "group".



What's the difference between a right and a privilege?

We need this question answered and agreed on before we can move forwards with this discussion.


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> As you documented, the majority of states do not grant the right to run for political office to the individual, but ONLY to the group.
> 
> Making it a group right.


You are right, and I was wrong.  

If I did not make that clear in my previous post.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> What's the difference between a right and a privilege?\


A privilege can be denied for any reason.
A right can only be denied with a "compelling government interest".


----------



## Seymour Flops (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> What's the difference between a right and a privilege?
> 
> We need this question answered and agreed on before we can move forwards with this discussion.


Yes, and let us also address the difference between "need" and "want."  Agreeing on those distinctions will stop a majority of disagreements.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 22, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> A privilege can be denied for any reason.
> A right can only be denied with a "compelling government interest".



Well, not quite. 

A right is something EVERYONE HAS.
A privilege is something people get when they've been "good". 

So, the right to life is a right because everyone has it. All rights have limits. All rights can be infringed upon. A person can be executed after going through due process with it's deemed that if you've done something bad enough, then you've reached the limit of your right.

Everyone can own a gun. (we're talking adults here because kids are assumed to have reduced rights and responsibilities). However if you go to court you can have your right infringed upon if you're found guilty. 

The right to stand in an election doesn't exist. The US Constitution makes this perfectly clear. 

"_*No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; *_"

Boom, this clause says THIS IS NOT A RIGHT. Elon Musk as a US citizen gets ALL the rights everyone else gets (well, not "gets" but you know). 

He did not go through due process to have this right infringed upon. Simply said, he never had this PRIVILEGE and he never well. 

It's a PRIVILEGE. It's granted to only certain people.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2022)

ThisIsMe said:


> Regulation has different meanings. One of them being "to bring order, method, or uniformity", not necessarily restrictions or limitations. Why would the militia, to secure a free state, require the government to rule it, or to make laws for it?
> 
> The security of a free state would require the people to be ready for defense should the need arise, and have certain provisions, one of them being a firearm. I think there were other things required, like a nap sack, a certain amount of gun power, lead shot, and a few other things.
> 
> The 2A was indeed referring to everyone, but it was not a collective or a group.  It's just a wording thing, if it had said "the right of the person to keep and bear arms" might have been confusing I guess. "The people" doesn't have to refer to a specific group, the people can refer to every individual.


‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." *The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.*

This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of _Columbia v. Heller_…’









						Second Amendment
					






					www.law.cornell.edu
				




The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.

Now it’s an individual right as determined by the _Heller_ Court – still subject to government regulation.


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Everyone can own a gun. (we're talking adults here because kids are assumed to have reduced rights and responsibilities).


This is where the 2nd amendment argument meets it's failure mode as being an individual right.  Because many of the rigthts we see as individual, are actually collective rights, with those over 18 years old, being part of that collective.

*What does the US Constitution State regarding juveniles and jury trials?
Juveniles should hold the right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution, but they do not. In most states, when a trial occurs, a single judge determines whether a youth loses their liberty, and that imprisonment can last for years.*


----------



## meaner gene (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Well, not quite.
> 
> A right is something EVERYONE HAS.
> A privilege is something people get when they've been "good".
> ...


Actually that would be a right granted to a "group" (natural born citizens) from which individuals  inherit the right.

Just like the right to run for senate is from the group of  over 30.


----------



## Ringtone (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court has already made that ruling, _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886), holding that a militia can exist solely as authorized by a state government or the Federal government.
> 
> If a state or local jurisdiction prohibits the open carrying of firearms, claiming to be a member of a ‘militia’ does not void that prohibition.
> 
> ...


Wrong again, Jones!

First, _Presser _could not and did not provide for any such authorization as you suggest vis-à-vis the federal government.

Second, it has always been held and well-understood by the people of most of the several states that _Presser_ and _Cruikshank_ were logically incompatible with the organizationally organic nature of the Militia in and of itself and with the incorporation clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.  _Miller,_ which rightly held that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense" was the beginning of the end of the blasphemous_ Presser.  Heller _stripped that bitch of its last vestige of respectability, and as I'm sure you know, _*Presser *_*was overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago.  *

_*Presser *_*was overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago.  

Presser was overturned in McDonald v. City of Chicago.  *

I'm repeating myself so that there by no mistake about your error.






						McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org


----------



## Ringtone (May 22, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> The Second amendment was not about the militia it was about the people's right to keep and bear arms.
> 
> And where does it state in the Heller decision that discipline must be the government that provided by the fucking government?


You are going to acknowledge you error, right?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> It's still not collective. It might require two or more people, but the individual still has the right.


Collective rights do exist as legal doctrine – such as the right to engage in collective bargaining (_NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp._ (1937)); clearly a worker alone possesses no such right.

And as we saw prior to _Heller_, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.

Prior to _McDonald_, of course, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government.

State governments were at liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit, including recognizing an individual right to possess a firearm.


----------



## ThisIsMe (May 22, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
> 
> Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
> 
> ...


But there were already standing armies at the time, and the constitution lays out their responsibility to maintain a navy.  The militia would therefore be something other than one of those two.  

One would argue that a militia refers to a the national guard, others argue that its citizen militias. What is clear is that cotus says "the people" have a right to be armed, not the militia explicitly. The people, as in each person between 18 and 45, had to be prepared, having certain provisions readily available.

I don't believe 2A is in reference to a collective. I believe it is refers to the individual, and it also says "shall not be infringed".  There's no ambiguity in that statement. It means what it means. I'm sure you'll find 100s of scholars, and even just as many courts that will interpret it in just as many ways as there are ideologies.  

Interpretation isn't always a good thing. Just look at where we are with roe, interpretation, and people are angry about that.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 22, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Okay, so an individual can't just be on the ballot if he chooses to? Then there's not a RIGHT.
> 
> You can have qualifications for a right. There's not right to stand for president. Elon Musk as a US CITIZEN does not have the right to stand for president, therefore NOBODY has the RIGHT to stand for president.
> 
> No right to be a candidate.


There is a First Amendment right to run for political office (_Williams v. Rhodes_ (1968)), but like other rights, it is neither unlimited nor absolute and subject to regulation, such as filing fees for political candidates.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> This is where the 2nd amendment argument meets it's failure mode as being an individual right.  Because many of the rigthts we see as individual, are actually collective rights, with those over 18 years old, being part of that collective.
> 
> *What does the US Constitution State regarding juveniles and jury trials?
> Juveniles should hold the right to a jury trial under the U.S. Constitution, but they do not. In most states, when a trial occurs, a single judge determines whether a youth loses their liberty, and that imprisonment can last for years.*



But it is individual. Because it'd FAIL if it weren't individual. 

If the right to own weapons were collective, then there'd be no weapons
If the right to be in the militia were collective, then there'd be no militia personnel. 

Minors are not considered to have full right.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Actually that would be a right granted to a "group" (natural born citizens) from which individuals  inherit the right.
> 
> Just like the right to run for senate is from the group of  over 30.



Again, IT CANNOT BE A RIGHT IF NOT EVERYONE HAS IT. Simple FACT.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 23, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> There is a First Amendment right to run for political office (_Williams v. Rhodes_ (1968)), but like other rights, it is neither unlimited nor absolute and subject to regulation, such as filing fees for political candidates.



Well... this seems to me that this case was more about putting a heavy burden on getting onto the ticket. It didn't say there was a right to stand. It merely said it had to be fair. I don't see this case as giving anywhere near enough power to a supposed "right to stand for public office". 
They could do numerous things to stop certain classes of people from standing and it would be considered "fair" under that ruling, like age limitation.


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 23, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Collective rights do exist as legal doctrine – such as the right to engage in collective bargaining (_NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp._ (1937)); clearly a worker alone possesses no such right.
> 
> And as we saw prior to _Heller_, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.
> 
> ...



I disagree that it's a collective right. It's an individual right to do something collectively. 

If they could ban all individuals from doing something collectively, then the collective can't do anything. They haven't banned the collective from doing anything, they banned only the individuals. 
That people have tried to make a collective right shows how creative people can be, rather than there's actually a collective right.


----------



## Ringtone (May 23, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
> 
> Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
> 
> ...


*You write:*

*The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.*​​*Now it’s an individual right as determined by the Heller Court – still subject to government regulation.*​
Bullshit!

It is clear from both the reading of the Federalist Papers and the Amendment that the right to keep and bear arms is necessarily an inherent right of the individual.  In _Miller_, the Court rightly observed that the Militia preexists Congress in the people themselves, but then unnecessarily tied Congress' power to regulate interstate commerce to the effectiveness of the Militia.  The Court inadvertently implied a collective right.   The thrust of _Heller_ was to revisit what _Miller_ got right and then strike its bumbling justification.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 23, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Great info. Credible and reasoned:

[ Gun control is as much a part of the Second Amendment as the right to keep and bear arms. The text of the amendment, which refers to a “well regulated Militia,” suggests as much. As the Supreme Court correctly noted in _District of Columbia v. Heller_(2008), the militia of the founding era was the body of ordinary citizens capable of taking up arms to defend the nation. While the Founders sought to protect the citizenry from being disarmed entirely, they did not wish to prevent government from adopting reasonable regulations of guns and gun owners. ]






						The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center
					

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.



					constitutioncenter.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2022)

"Well regulated" modifies "militia".
The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is held by the people.
Not the militia.
Not the well-regulated militia.
Not the people in the well-regulated militia.
The people.

Thus, whatever 'well regulated" means it is irrelevant in determining who holds the right to keep and bear arms, as protected ny the 2nd.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> What Does "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean in the Second Amendment?
> 
> 
> Think back to when the Founders were living. Britain was a powerful government oppressing the American colonists. The Founding Fathers didn't like the fact that the government was so powerful. Many were opposed to the idea of a standing army for fear that it would one day be turned against the...
> ...


One more snippet to get perspective:

[ 
The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.

Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. ]





						The U.S. Constitution | Constitution Center
					

Learn about the text, history, and meaning of the U.S. Constitution from leading scholars of diverse legal and philosophical perspectives.



					constitutioncenter.org


----------



## M14 Shooter (May 23, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach, determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." *The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.*
> 
> This precedent stood for nearly 70 years until 2008, when the U.S. Supreme Court revisited the issue in the case of District of _Columbia v. Heller_…’


_Heller _did not overturn anything held in _Miller_.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.


^^^^
This is a lie.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Well regulated" modifies "militia".
> The right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd, is held by the people.
> Not the militia.
> Not the well-regulated militia.
> ...



gobbledygook - meaning?


----------



## Ringtone (May 23, 2022)

M14 Shooter said:


> _Heller _did not overturn anything held in _Miller_.
> 
> ^^^^
> This is a lie.


Correct!  But the Court's ham-fisted justification, as said in passing (_dicta_), in _Miller_ was an on-going source of confusion that was emphatically righted by the Court in _Heller.  _See post #248.


----------



## meaner gene (May 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> Again, IT CANNOT BE A RIGHT IF NOT EVERYONE HAS IT. Simple FACT.


In at least one way you're right.  Take the right of marriage.  You can't restrict marrying a man to half the population, it's open to everyone.


----------



## Ringtone (May 23, 2022)

Dante Reawakened said:


> One more snippet to get perspective:
> 
> [
> The Second Amendment conceded nothing to the Anti-Federalists’ desire to sharply curtail the military power of the federal government, which would have required substantial changes in the original Constitution. Yet the Amendment was easily accepted because of widespread agreement that the federal government should not have the power to infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms, any more than it should have the power to abridge the freedom of speech or prohibit the free exercise of religion.
> ...



*Much has changed since 1791. The traditional militia fell into desuetude, and state-based militia organizations were eventually incorporated into the federal military structure. *​
Caveat:  The Militia maintains its organizationally organic nature as rooted in the people themselves under natural and constitutional law.


----------



## Ringtone (May 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> In at least one way you're right.  Take the right of marriage.  You can't restrict marrying a man to half the population, it's open to everyone.


You shouldn't be giving Jones' posts a thumbs up.  He's wrong.  See my rebuttals above.


----------



## Dante Reawakened (May 23, 2022)

Ringtone said:


> You shouldn't be giving Jones' posts a thumbs up.  He's wrong.  See my rebuttals above.


The family businesses 

And all parasites and cowards


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> In at least one way you're right.  Take the right of marriage.  You can't restrict marrying a man to half the population, it's open to everyone.



I'm right in lots of ways, and I'm right on this one. 

I know I'm right because your argument has fizzled out.


----------



## meaner gene (May 23, 2022)

frigidweirdo said:


> I'm right in lots of ways, and I'm right on this one.
> 
> I know I'm right because your argument has fizzled out.



Actually many of the "rights" you think of as individual rights, are more easily explained as a group right, like the right to run for president.  That group started as white males over 35 and natural born citizens.

As an individual right there were too many exceptions


----------



## frigidweirdo (May 23, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> Actually many of the "rights" you think of as individual rights, are more easily explained as a group right, like the right to run for president.  That group started as white males over 35 and natural born citizens.
> 
> As an individual right there were too many exceptions



Oh, "more easily explained".... it doesn't work like that. Just because you think you can "explain" it more easily like this.

They are INDIVIDUAL because this is how right work.

There are "exceptions" because IT'S NOT A RIGHT.


----------



## Abatis (May 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And as we saw prior to _Heller_, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.



All 9 justices of the _Heller_ Court settled this question one and for all, whatever the "collective right" was when it was inserted in the _lower_ federal courts in 1942, it was never endorsed by SCOTUS.

The _Heller_ dissents validated and confirmed that legal truth, that the individual right has always the interpretation represented in the Court's precedents and is the only interpretation represented in the 3 opinions issued that day in June 2008.

Stop your revisionist lying.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 24, 2022)

candycorn said:


> What is *your* definition of a "well regulated Militia"?


A well-regulated militia is one that has trained sufficiently enough to fight effectively as a single coherent unit instead of fighting like a bunch of random individuals.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 24, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> I want certain guns, bullets and magazines banned because they serve no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers


There are no guns, bullets, or magazines that serve only that purpose.




rightwinger said:


> Yes we can
> We can ban weapons that have no purpose other than slaughter young children


No such weapons exist.




rightwinger said:


> When was the last time an AR-15 with 35 round magazine was used to stop a mass killing?


I assume today (at least if 30 round magazines count), but I'm not going to go digging through all of today's cases to verify that assumption.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 24, 2022)

meaner gene said:


> The first clause explains the reasons (limits) on the second clause.


So in other words, everyone has the right to have military weapons.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."
> 
> Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms.


Oh man.  Whoever wrote this article that you are cut-n-pasting is really bad at the law.

The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates nothing.  It protects a preexisting right from infringement.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.
> 
> In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach,


Actually the Miller court expressly rejected the collective approach and ruled for an individual right.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." *The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.*


No.  To ensure the effectiveness of the militia.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.


They also intended to protect the preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms.

Just a bit of a nitpick here, but the Framers wrote the Constitution.  The Bill of Rights came from the Anti-Federalists.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Access to firearms has nothing to do with regulation; and there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the notion of armed citizens ‘self-regulating’ completely absent government control and oversight.


I assume your comment about "self regulating" refers to militia service.

The way you use the term suggests that you might not understand what "well regulated" means.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to do so in the service and defense of the state, as authorized and controlled by government.


Keep in mind that people also have the right to use their guns for the private defense of their homes.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> That’s why the _Heller_ Court saw fit to contrive the individual right unconnected with militia service, because the Second Amendment recognized a collective right.


The Heller court did not contrive anything.  But it is true that they are not upholding the militia aspects of the Second Amendmnet.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment would allow banning individuals from possessing firearms because they weren’t in the service of a militia


Not really.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> which is why the _Heller_ Court invalidated the collective right interpretation.


Ignoring the collective aspects (as well as all the militia aspects altogether) does not really invalidate them.  It just fails to enforce those aspects for now.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Indeed, _Heller_ was about the individual right versus the collective right.


Not really.  It was about "individual self-defense-related right" verses "no individual self-defense-related right".


----------



## Open Bolt (May 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> You don’t 'need' an AR 15 to defend yourself


What is this nonsense about "need"?  We're not British serfs.  We don't have to justify that we need a gun before we go buy it.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> there are other firearms much better suited for that purpose, such as handguns and shotguns.


That is incorrect.  A good rifle is superior for self defense.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wrong.
> The ‘left’ follows settled accepted Second Amendment case law; whereas the right has nothing but contempt for that case law.


That is because the right cares about following the Constitution.

But don't worry.  Justice Barrett is fixing to annihilate the left's precious "case law".




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And no one says you can’t have an AR 15, there’s simply no ‘need’ for one for effective self-defense.


Need doesn't matter.  We have the right to have them for effective self defense.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Collective rights do exist as legal doctrine – such as the right to engage in collective bargaining (_NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp._ (1937)); clearly a worker alone possesses no such right.


Agreed.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And as we saw prior to _Heller_, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.


That is incorrect.  The Second Amendment has always protected an individual right.


----------



## rightwinger (May 25, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> There are no guns, bullets, or magazines that serve only that purpose.



Yes there are

You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits
You don’t need a 35 round magazine unless you want to slaughter more 10 year olds
You don’t need body armor to hunt deer

We don’t need wife beaters, seriously depressed, people who are making threats having open access to their weapons of choice


----------



## Pellinore (May 25, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> The Second Amendment has always protected an individual right.


That's not accurate.  When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use.  The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.  

A hundred-ish years later, when Madison & Co. were debating the Bill of Rights, each State has its own militia, and many (especially the Anti-Federalists) were concerned that the American government were going to try and pull a King James.  The debate then was about State resistance against a federal authority; there was no discussion about individual rights to own a firearm for hunting or self-defense, and Madison didn't mention it in his notes once.  The first draft of the Amendment even included an exception for conscientious objectors.  

That was mostly the view of gun rights until the 1970s, when the NRA changed direction from being about sporting to opposing gun control, and the push began in earnest in the 1980s.  Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 was a change in direction from earlier rulings, not a continuation of it.  It is, however, a legit ruling that will stand until it is superseded by law or a future ruling, but it wasn't always that way.


----------



## Abatis (May 25, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> That's not accurate.  When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use.  The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.
> 
> A hundred-ish years later, when Madison & Co. were debating the Bill of Rights, each State has its own militia, and many (especially the Anti-Federalists) were concerned that the American government were going to try and pull a King James.  The debate then was about State resistance against a federal authority; there was no discussion about individual rights to own a firearm for hunting or self-defense, and Madison didn't mention it in his notes once.  The first draft of the Amendment even included an exception for conscientious objectors.
> 
> That was mostly the view of gun rights until the 1970s, when the NRA changed direction from being about sporting to opposing gun control, and the push began in earnest in the 1980s.  Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 was a change in direction from earlier rulings, not a continuation of it.  It is, however, a legit ruling that will stand until it is superseded by law or a future ruling, but it wasn't always that way.



Well, all that is wrong, a fabrication, simply a revisionist pile of excrement.

First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't do anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.  No right to do _*anything*_ was created, established, granted or given to _*anyone*_ through or by the 2nd Amendment.

SCOTUS has been boringly consistent reaffirming that principle multiple times for 146 years running . . . 

The organized, enrolled militia needs no "right" to be armed or to do militia shit; everything an enrolled militia member does, is under mandate of law with exposure to legal penalty for avoidance.  That goes for the initial "providing oneself" with the firearm if the citizen did not own one . . . That was not an exercise of any right, it was obeying a legal obligation set out in the Militia Act.

As SCOTUS has said, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.  

That truth extinguishes any theories that argue the right is dependent upon a structure (the organized §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia) that is itself, *ENTIRELY* dependent on the Constitution for its existence.  

"In no manner dependent" means, IN *NO* MANNER DEPENDENT.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 25, 2022)

Pellinore said:


> That's not accurate.  When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use.


Being about carrying a weapon into battle does not mean that it is not an individual right.

Individuals have the right to carry arms into battle.

Individuals have the right to keep arms.




Pellinore said:


> The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.


The British also had the right to use their firearms for the private defense of their homes against common criminals.




Pellinore said:


> A hundred-ish years later, when Madison & Co. were debating the Bill of Rights, each State has its own militia, and many (especially the Anti-Federalists) were concerned that the American government were going to try and pull a King James.  The debate then was about State resistance against a federal authority; there was no discussion about individual rights to own a firearm for hunting or self-defense, and Madison didn't mention it in his notes once.  The first draft of the Amendment even included an exception for conscientious objectors.


Being about state militias though does not mean that it is not an individual right.

It is individuals who have the right to serve in the state militia.

It is individuals who have the right to keep arms.

The fact that they did not discuss people using their guns (which they expressly have the right to keep) for private home defense does not mean that people stopped having the right to do so.




Pellinore said:


> That was mostly the view of gun rights until the 1970s, when the NRA changed direction from being about sporting to opposing gun control, and the push began in earnest in the 1980s.  Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 was a change in direction from earlier rulings, not a continuation of it.  It is, however, a legit ruling that will stand until it is superseded by law or a future ruling, but it wasn't always that way.


The change in direction was not about the existence of individual rights.  Rather, the change in 2008 was about "enforcing part of the Second Amendment" instead of "completely disregarding the entire Second Amendment".

The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right.  Note the 1939 Miller ruling for example.  The government wanted the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment was not an individual right and thus deny Miller's standing to even make a Second Amendment claim.  The Supreme Court refused and recognized Miller's standing as an individual to make a Second Amendment claim.

The problem with the 1939 ruling is, while they ultimately recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, they didn't bother to actually enforce the ruling, and instead the Supreme Court just disregarded the Second Amendment as if it didn't even exist.


----------



## Godboy (May 25, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Its not about our definition, its about the definition of the people who wrote it. Unfortunately they didnt define that first part very well, but the second part is unmistakable.

"_...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"_

If their intent was not to have normal every day citizens carrying guns, they would have made that more clear the next day when everyone was still walking around with guns. Everyone at that time agreed on the definition. It wasnt until the past few decades when people tried to redefine its meaning.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yes there are


No there aren't.  No one can name any gun/bullet/magazine which has the sole purpose of slaughtering school children, church goers and shoppers.




rightwinger said:


> You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits


Is this supposed to be an attempt to name a gun that "serves no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers"?

If so, you are wrong.  AR-15s serve the purposes of protection against criminals and of protection against foxes and coyotes.

AR-15s are of no use in hunting rabbits.  They are useful for protection against varmints however, in addition to the uses that I listed above.

Your focus on this meaningless term "need" is way out of place.  This is America.  We are not serfs like the people of the UK.




rightwinger said:


> You don’t need a 35 round magazine unless you want to slaughter more 10 year olds


That is incorrect.  People who are trying to slaughter 10 year olds do not need a 35 round magazine.  Ten-round magazines work just fine for massacres.

I am not sure that there is even such a thing as a 35 round magazine.  There is however such a thing as a 30 round magazine.

Is this supposed to be an attempt to name a magazine that "serves no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers"?

If so, you are wrong.  30 round magazines are useful both for protection against criminals and for protection against varmints.




rightwinger said:


> You don’t need body armor to hunt deer


Is this supposed to be an attempt to say that body armor "serves no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers"?

If so, you are wrong.  Body armor is quite useful in saving your life if someone is shooting at you.




rightwinger said:


> We don’t need wife beaters, seriously depressed, people who are making threats having open access to their weapons of choice


I agree that the government has a compelling interest in disarming dangerous people.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 25, 2022)

Godboy said:


> Unfortunately they didnt define that first part very well,


The correct definition is still out there.  All you need to do is look at how Alexander Hamilton used the term in Federalist 29.

A well regulated militia is one that has trained sufficiently so that they can fight effectively as a single coherent unit instead of fighting ineffectively as a bunch of random individuals.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Absolutely
> We cannot have the security of a free state without well regulated militias
> 
> A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated


But you completely missed the point. The second amendment is not there to establish a well regulated militia. It is there to protect the right of the people.

You and the rest of your left wing cocksuckers keep getting the shit wrong...ON PURPOSE!!!


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 25, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Yes there are
> 
> You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits
> You don’t need a 35 round magazine unless you want to slaughter more 10 year olds
> ...


We are all in a militia. We are the militia.

In order to be a member of the militia, and be "well regulated" we need fucking machine guns to shoot people who attack us.

nothing about the second amendment was ever intended to be interpreted as a hunting clause.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (May 25, 2022)

You do not get to decide what I need, rightwinger.

I decide what I need.

You arrogant fuck how dare you tell me what I need and don't need.

You don't need your stupid face.


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Something in good working order.

And it's not my definition, butcher, it the definition of the founders. Now, 3, 2, 1, spin!!!!


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We are all in a militia. We are the militia.


We don't want him. His name is probably Gertz Kuntzman.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2022)

miketx said:


> Something in good working order.
> 
> And it's not my definition, butcher, it the definition of the founders. Now, 3, 2, 1, spin!!!!


A Militia in “Good Working Order”

A formal organization, training, a list of all members and their roles in the militia, rules and regulation

None of which apply to todays gun owners


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> A Militia in “Good Working Order”
> 
> A formal organization, training, a list of all members and their roles in the militia, rules and regulation
> 
> None of which apply to todays gun owners


Lie.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 10, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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 means keep your Guatemalan ass off my property.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> A Militia in “Good Working Order”
> 
> A formal organization, training, a list of all members and their roles in the militia, rules and regulation
> 
> None of which apply to todays gun owners


So the military is allowed to go collectively AWOL when the government f**** up.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 10, 2022)

The trouble with that is the military generally follows orders. We can't count on that if enemies infiltrate our government


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2022)

the other mike said:


> So the military is allowed to go collectively AWOL when the government f**** up.



WTF are you babbling about?


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> A Militia in “Good Working Order”


Correct.




rightwinger said:


> A formal organization, training, a list of all members and their roles in the militia, rules and regulation


Not quite.  All those things might be necessary components in order for a well-regulated militia to be achieved, but they are not what the term well-regulated actually meant.

A well-regulated militia is one that is a highly effective fighting force because they have trained sufficiently enough to fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.

It is like a well-regulated watch is one that keeps accurate time because all of the gears in the watch are in perfect sync with each other.




rightwinger said:


> None of which apply to todays gun owners


And rightly so.

The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people, not limited to members of an organized militia.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> A well-regulated militia is one that is a highly effective fighting force because they have trained sufficiently enough to fight as a single coherent unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.
> 
> It is like a well-regulated watch is one that keeps accurate time because all of the gears in the watch are in perfect sync with each other.


Exactly

A Well Regulated Militia is a trained fighting force

NOT a bunch of random gun owners


----------



## surada (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> A Militia in “Good Working Order”
> 
> A formal organization, training, a list of all members and their roles in the militia, rules and regulation
> 
> None of which apply to todays gun owners



True. Well regulated would be well trained and disciplined.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Exactly
> 
> A Well Regulated Militia is a trained fighting force
> 
> NOT a bunch of random gun owners


Let's not forget the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


----------



## Open Bolt (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Exactly
> A Well Regulated Militia is a trained fighting force
> NOT a bunch of random gun owners


OK so what's the problem?

Or am I wrong in believing that you are objecting to something?


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Exactly
> 
> A Well Regulated Militia is a trained fighting force
> 
> NOT a bunch of random gun owners


Your Indian name: Never stops lying


----------



## the other mike (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> WTF are you babbling about?


It means if our government including military leaders are found to be traitors than our military enlisted will go AWOL.

That's exactly why they're coming for our guns and they don't give a s*** who dies out there in the streets.


----------



## the other mike (Jul 10, 2022)

If they do come for the guns it will be good for my slingshot business.


----------



## rightwinger (Jul 10, 2022)

the other mike said:


> It means if our government including military leaders are found to be traitors than our military enlisted will go AWOL.
> 
> That's exactly why they're coming for our guns and they don't give a s*** who dies out there in the streets.


Just what I thought

You are a nut job


----------



## the other mike (Jul 10, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> Just what I thought
> 
> You are a nut job


That's a compliment coming from you agent Stzrok types.


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> OK so what's the problem?
> 
> Or am I wrong in believing that you are objecting to something?





He objects to the private ownership of guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2022)

candycorn said:


> "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."
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You mean what did the Founders mean when they wrote it…

They meant that the militia had guns and a pouch full of bullets and a an appropriate ration of powder, that they can March by the numbers, form into a firing line,  and know the steps to load, present and fire their weapons following orders….


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 4, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated


Even if that silliness were true, are you saying their 2a right can be infringed upon?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Aug 4, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> All militias have been under government control


that's true everywhere in the world, [especially totalitarian societies]...

...but if that was the intent of the 2A there would have been no need to include it in the constitution...

...the constitutions purpose is to let us know what powers the government does not have over us [even if it were a majority opinion it does not trump the constitution, in fact its purpose is to protect minority opinion] and the second amendment is a red flag amendment designed to let us know who the wolves in sheep clothing are.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 4, 2022)

rightwinger said:


> A Militia in “Good Working Order”
> 
> A formal organization, training, a list of all members and their roles in the militia, rules and regulation
> 
> None of which apply to todays gun owners


True.

Private armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia.’

Private armed citizens are subject to the same Federal, state, and local firearm regulatory measures as everyone else whether they declare themselves a ‘militia’ or not.

Only the state governments and the Federal government have the authority to create a militia.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 4, 2022)

surada said:


> True. Well regulated would be well trained and disciplined.


…and authorized by government to be a militia.


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 4, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Private armed citizens cannot unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia.’


Free Speech and Freedom of Association say that they can.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Private armed citizens are subject to the same Federal, state, and local firearm regulatory measures as everyone else whether they declare themselves a ‘militia’ or not.


True.

But that does include the Second Amendment's right of the people to keep and bear arms.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Only the state governments and the Federal government have the authority to create a militia.


OK.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> …and authorized by government to be a militia.


Not really.  The question of whether a militia is authorized by the government is different from the question of whether a militia is well-regulated.

It helps to actually understand what well-regulated means.


----------



## Who_Me? (Aug 4, 2022)

It sure as hell isn't the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys.


----------



## ralfy (Aug 5, 2022)

Explained in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 5, 2022)

ralfy said:


> Explained in Art. 1 Sec. 8 and the Militia Acts.


That is incorrect.  None of those things explain what "well-regulated" means.


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 5, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> It sure as hell isn't the Oath Keepers or the Proud Boys.


How do you know how effective their fighting skills are?


----------



## Who_Me? (Aug 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> How do you know how effective their fighting skills are?


And just who do they represent?  They're just a bunch of goat ropers that want to play army on the weekends.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Aug 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Free Speech and Freedom of Association say that they can.


The Supreme Court says they can’t: _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886).

And that’s the only opinion which matters.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court says they can’t: _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886).
> 
> And that’s the only opinion which matters.


And _Heller_ too when it reaffirmed _Presser_ saying that the Second Amendment, "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".

I don't agree with you on much, but on this is one specific thing you are correct; private citizens have no right to form themselves into militia and do militia shit.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 5, 2022)

Abatis said:


> And _Heller_ too when it reaffirmed _Presser_ saying that the Second Amendment, "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
> 
> I don't agree with you on much, but on this is one specific thing you are correct; private citizens have no right to form themselves into militia and do militia shit.


can you point to a law that forbids people from forming there own militia???


----------



## BothWings (Aug 5, 2022)

It means that a militia is supposed to serve the Republic, and the Constitution which gives the Republic its identity. A Militia is not supposed to be a renegade faction with its own philosophy.


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 5, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Supreme Court says they can’t: _Presser v. Illinois_ (1886).
> And that’s the only opinion which matters.





Abatis said:


> And _Heller_ too when it reaffirmed _Presser_ saying that the Second Amendment, "does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations".
> I don't agree with you on much, but on this is one specific thing you are correct; private citizens have no right to form themselves into militia and do militia shit.


Do you guys think that anyone will ever be successfully prosecuted for merely referring to themselves as a militia and practicing with guns?

And if so, do you think the courts will uphold the relevant law when it is challenged on grounds of freedom of speech and association?


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 5, 2022)

BothWings said:


> It means that a militia is supposed to serve the Republic, and the Constitution which gives the Republic its identity.


That is incorrect.  "Well-regulated" means that the militia in question is able to fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 5, 2022)

Who_Me? said:


> And just who do they represent?


Beats me.  I don't know much about them.  But that wasn't the question.  The question was about knowledge of their fighting skill level.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Do you guys think that anyone will ever be successfully prosecuted for merely referring to themselves as a militia and practicing with guns?
> 
> And if so, do you think the courts will uphold the relevant law when it is challenged on grounds of freedom of speech and association?


there are no laws that forbid it so theres nothing they can be charged with,,

as you say,, freedom of speech and association,,


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 5, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> there are no laws that forbid it so theres nothing they can be charged with,,
> as you say,, freedom of speech and association,,


I think there is some obscure law somewhere that does forbid it.  But I don't think it will ever be used.  At least, not against people who merely call themselves a militia and practice shooting guns.

If it is ever used to prosecute such people, I expect that it'll be struck down.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I think there is some obscure law somewhere that does forbid it.  But I don't think it will ever be used.  At least, not against people who merely call themselves a militia and practice shooting guns.
> 
> If it is ever used to prosecute such people, I expect that it'll be struck down.


unless shit really hits the fan all it is is a bunch of guys training together,, that makes them ready and waiting if and when the government calls them up for service,,
sounds like the responsible thing to do,,


----------



## ralfy (Aug 5, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> That is incorrect.  None of those things explain what "well-regulated" means.


LOL.


----------



## Stryder50 (Aug 5, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> unless shit really hits the fan all it is is a bunch of guys training together,, that makes them ready and waiting if and when the government calls them up for service,,
> sounds like the responsible thing to do,,


When "shit really hits the fan", such as some form of civil unrest, could be too late to organize and train with other locals.  Makes a little prep work worth considering.  Also, doesn't need to be limited to "a bunch of guys".
Ladies of Lead








						Ladies of Lead — About Us — Ladies Of Lead Group Therapy, LLC
					

Ladies of Lead is women training women in handgun safety and defense. Concealed Handgun License classes offered. Beginners welcome. Educational programs taught by certified National Rifle Association Instructors. NRA. Located in Oregon.




					lolgrouptherapy.squarespace.com


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 6, 2022)

ralfy said:


> LOL.


"Well-regulated" means that the militia in question is able to fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 6, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> can you point to a law that forbids people from forming there own militia???



Most states have laws prohibiting paramilitary activity; *Idaho's* is typical:


46-802.  UNORGANIZED ASSOCIATIONS PROHIBITED — PARADES PROHIBITED — EXCEPTIONS. No body of men, other than the regularly organized national guard, the unorganized militia when called into service of the state, or of the United States, and except such as are regularly recognized and provided for by the laws of the state of Idaho and of the United States, shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with firearms in any city or town of this state.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 6, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Do you guys think that anyone will ever be successfully prosecuted for merely referring to themselves as a militia and practicing with guns?



That is not my argument.  My argument is simply that the federal 2nd Amendment is no shield to repel prosecution _that *prosecution and conviction* is permissible under the 2nd Amendment_.

There is no enforceable "Second Amendment right" for citizens to claim if a government decides to prosecute them for military activity not authorized by state or federal law.  The relevant law at issue in _Presser_, under which the citizens were prosecuted and then challenged, claiming the protections of the 2ndA, said:


It shall not be lawful for any body of men whatever, other than the regular organized volunteer militia of this state, and the troops of the United States, to associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms in any city or town of this state, without the license of the governor thereof, . . .

SCOTUS sustained the convictions and rejected the 2nd Amendment claims.



Open Bolt said:


> And if so, do you think the courts will uphold the relevant law when it is challenged on grounds of freedom of speech and association?



That was addressed by SCOTUS in _Presser_ and soundly rejected as well:


The only clause in the constitution which, upon any pretense, could be said to have any relation whatever to his right to associate with others as a military company, is found in the first amendment, which declares that 'congress shall make no laws * * * abridging * * * the right of the people peaceably to assemble and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.' This is a right which it was held in _U. S._ v. _Cruikshank_, above cited, was an attribute of national citizenship, and, as such, under the protection of, and guarantied by, the United States. But it was held in the same case that the right peaceably to assemble was not protected by the clause referred to, unless the purpose of the assembly was to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization, or to drill or parade with arms, without, and independent of, an act of congress or law of the state authorizing the same, is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject.
It cannot be successfully questioned that the state governments, unless restrained by their own constitutions, have the power to regulate or prohibit associations and meetings of the people, except in the case of peaceable assemblies to perform the duties or exercise the privileges of citizens of the United States, and have also the power to control and regulate the organization, drilling, and parading of military bodies and associations, except when such bodies or associations, are authorized by the militia laws of the United States. The exercise of this power by the states is necessary to the public peace, safety, and good order. To deny the power would be to deny the right of the state to disperse assemblages organized for sedition and treason, and the right to suppress armed mobs bent on riot and rapine.​​
And since I am quoting SCOTUS at length, it seems appropriate to quote _Heller_'s reaffirmation of _Presser_, that the Second Amendment does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations:



_Presser_ v. _Illinois_, 116 U. S. 252 (1886), held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.” _Id._, at 264–265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups. Justice Stevens presses _Presser _into service to support his view that the right to bear arms is limited to service in the militia by joining _Presser_’s brief discussion of the Second Amendment with a later portion of the opinion making the seemingly relevant (to the Second Amendment) point that the plaintiff was not a member of the state militia. Unfortunately for Justice Stevens’ argument, that later portion deals with the _Fourteenth Amendment; _it was the _Fourteenth Amendment _to which the plaintiff’s nonmembership in the militia was relevant. Thus, Justice Stevens’ statement that _Presser _“suggested that… nothing in the Constitution protected the use of arms outside the context of a militia,” _post_, at 40, is simply wrong. _Presser _said nothing about the Second Amendment’s meaning or scope, beyond the fact that* it does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.*

.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 6, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> there are no laws that forbid it so theres nothing they can be charged with,,
> 
> as you say,, freedom of speech and association,,



Wrong, wrong, wrong . . . on all accounts.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 6, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I think there is some obscure law somewhere that does forbid it.  But I don't think it will ever be used.  At least, not against people who merely call themselves a militia and practice shooting guns.
> 
> If it is ever used to prosecute such people, I expect that it'll be struck down.



What part of _Presser_ don't you understand?

What you claim won't 'ever be used' _has *already* been used_ -- that's what _Presser_ was about!

Your argument was presented and argued in those citizen's defense and it was rejected and _then_ all those principles in law were transported from 1886 to 2008 and reaffirmed in _Heller_.

You are arguing shit that never was and never can be and that crap is harming the true defense of gun rights by introducing fantasy bullshit, absolutely wrong on the law and indisputably unsupported in constitutional rights theory.

You should stop that and only argue what is true and defensible and "constitutional".


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 6, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Most states have laws prohibiting paramilitary activity; *Idaho's* is typical:
> 
> 
> 46-802.  UNORGANIZED ASSOCIATIONS PROHIBITED — PARADES PROHIBITED — EXCEPTIONS. No body of men, other than the regularly organized national guard, the unorganized militia when called into service of the state, or of the United States, and except such as are regularly recognized and provided for by the laws of the state of Idaho and of the United States, shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with firearms in any city or town of this state.


I always read the rules and then go ahead and do what I want,,

in this case dont wear uniforms or run around in public acting like GI joe,, and call yourselves a community watch group,,


----------



## Failzero (Aug 6, 2022)

Abatis said:


> Most states have laws prohibiting paramilitary activity; *Idaho's* is typical:
> 
> 
> 46-802.  UNORGANIZED ASSOCIATIONS PROHIBITED — PARADES PROHIBITED — EXCEPTIONS. No body of men, other than the regularly organized national guard, the unorganized militia when called into service of the state, or of the United States, and except such as are regularly recognized and provided for by the laws of the state of Idaho and of the United States, shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with firearms in any city or town of this state.


Parade “ Without” Firearms ( except
CCW / CHL / CWP ) But in Uniforms is legal in Ca.


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 6, 2022)

Abatis said:


> What part of _Presser_ don't you understand?


It's more that I think it was a bad ruling.  If some private military body started trying to arrest people and enforce the law on their own or something, I can see how the government would have every right to step in and stop them.

But if all they do is gather together in the woods and announce that that they are a militia, I think that falls under freedoms of association and speech.


----------



## Abatis (Aug 6, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> I always read the rules and then go ahead and do what I want,,
> 
> in this case dont wear uniforms or run around in public acting like GI joe,, and call yourselves a community watch group,,



A criminal that consistently evades capture often knows the law better than a run-of-the-mill cop.


----------



## progressive hunter (Aug 6, 2022)

Abatis said:


> A criminal that consistently evades capture often knows the law better than a run-of-the-mill cop.


the average citizen knows the law better than 90% of cops,,


----------



## ralfy (Aug 7, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> "Well-regulated" means that the militia in question is able to fight as a single coordinated unit instead of fighting as a bunch of random individuals.


Yes, that and more are explained in the Militia Acts. Also, you missed the part about who's in command. See Art. 1 Sec. 8.

You are obviously a know-nothing about this issue.


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 7, 2022)

ralfy said:


> Yes, that and more are explained in the Militia Acts.


Cite?  Let's see a quote of that being explained by the militia acts.




ralfy said:


> Also, you missed the part about who's in command. See Art. 1 Sec. 8.


Because that is not what was asked.

I also didn't bother to address the price of tea in China.




ralfy said:


> You are obviously a know-nothing about this issue.


I know more about this single issue than you know about everything.


----------



## Failzero (Aug 7, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Cite?  Let's see a quote of that being explained by the militia acts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Were you in the Largest Militia in the Country ( California State Militia ) for 4 years  ( earning rank of Sergeant ) or Are you a former JAG and current constitutional lawyer ?


----------



## flan327 (Aug 7, 2022)

Hellokitty said:


> Right, liberals are promoting the Russian military not following orders and turning against Putin, but they seem to believe US military would have no issue with going to war against US citizens.


More heaping piles of crap 💩


----------



## flan327 (Aug 7, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Were you in the Largest Militia in the Country ( California State Militia ) for 4 years  ( earning rank of Sergeant ) or Are you a former JAG and current constitutional lawyer ?


Proof?


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 7, 2022)

Failzero said:


> Were you in the Largest Militia in the Country ( California State Militia ) for 4 years  ( earning rank of Sergeant ) or Are you a former JAG and current constitutional lawyer ?


Appeals to authority are logical fallacies.


----------



## BackAgain (Aug 7, 2022)

flan327 said:


> More heaping piles of crap 💩


Fran is easily roiled.


----------



## ralfy (Aug 8, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Cite?  Let's see a quote of that being explained by the militia acts.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Don't ask to be spoonfed.


----------



## Open Bolt (Aug 8, 2022)

ralfy said:


> Don't ask to be spoonfed.


Your refusal to provide a cite confirms that you were lying.


----------



## Failzero (Aug 8, 2022)

As a Currently inactive Militiaman I wanna be spoon fed all the Mishegoss I can get about Militia in the minds of others


----------

