# "A well regulated militia..."



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 17, 2019)

I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.

I will take another search for the article


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 17, 2019)

You are correct.  It is one of the Anti-Federalist Papers and part of the written argument for and against the second amendment..The Slave states wanted to keep arms from the slaves that would most assuredly have allowed rebellions at that time.


----------



## rightwinger (Sep 17, 2019)

That’s a stretch

If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 17, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> That’s a stretch
> 
> If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership




no it doesnt,,,all it means is that to have militias the people need to be well armed,,

we went through this the other day but you ran away because you couldnt back up your claims


----------



## The Professor (Sep 17, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> That’s a stretch
> 
> If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership




In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. _v_. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008). The SCOTUS ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right unrelated to being in a militia. If you want to learn more, read an article I posted on the USMB on August 6, 2015

Maine adopts constitutional carry


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 17, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> That’s a stretch
> 
> If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership


No...

You can not be this stupid.... oh wait you can...

Next thing ya know you will be suggesting making all US citizens Slaves so you can take their guns...


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 17, 2019)

The Professor said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > That’s a stretch
> ...


Conservatives, of course, have come to loathe Heller.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 17, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.
> 
> I will take another search for the article


Don't bother, the article is clearly devoid of merit, given the fact that there were no Democrats in the 18th Century.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.
> I will take another search for the article


1:  At the time, the 2nd only applied to actions by the federal government; state governments were not so restricted
2:  Slaves did not have any of the other rights of the people, so there's no weight behind the argument  they would have the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 23, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 23, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.
> 
> I will take another search for the article




Well it's just commie propaganda, at the time slaves were considered property, not people, or even citizens for that matter. So any intimation that slave owners feared slaves getting any rights is ludicrous. 

What the States feared was a government that would become like the monarchs in Europe and the militia phrase was to protect the States, so they would never be powerless against an out of control central government. 

.


----------



## OKTexas (Sep 23, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > That’s a stretch
> ...




What can you expect from a paid poster, he's doesn't worry himself with facts.

.


----------



## Picaro (Sep 23, 2019)

In some circles, 'well regulated' means any drunken asshole can bring whatever he/she/it/ mutant wants wherever he/she/it/mutants wants'. Literacy tests seem necessary, same with voting, frankly. Ownership should be limited to those who can legally vote at the least, and those who can legally vote limited to those who can pass basic civics tests.


----------



## the other mike (Sep 23, 2019)

"What kind of cop are you ?"


----------



## Oddball (Sep 23, 2019)




----------



## Porter Rockwell (Sep 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



I don't know if that's true, but it should be.  Real conservatives should disavow that ruling.


----------



## Dick Foster (Sep 24, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.
> 
> I will take another search for the article


So what is the point of your post? That you can't  find something?


----------



## Billy_Bob (Sep 24, 2019)

Invisibleflash said:


> You need a miltia so the dems can't disarm the reps. Once the dems get the reps guns...bye-bye.
> 
> View attachment 280780


Wow... A group of DEMOCRATS jerking off about taking everyone's guns...


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 24, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.
> 
> I will take another search for the article



See:

How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment

Always happy to help you Frank, just ask.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 24, 2019)

The Professor said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > That’s a stretch
> ...



Half-truth ^^^:

"Justice Scalia never saw his majority opinion in the District of Columbia v. Heller eliminating the government’s ability to regulate guns.* “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Scalia cautioned, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
*
Taken from the Heller Decision.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Sep 24, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.
> ...



Well it's not all that either apparently

The Origins of "Militia" in the Second Amendment — It's Not About Slavery | Ryan McMaken


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 24, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> "Justice Scalia never saw his majority opinion in the District of Columbia v. Heller eliminating the government’s ability to regulate guns.* “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Scalia cautioned, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”*


This does not mean 1/10th of what you want it to mean.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 24, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> The Professor said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


Again, conservatives loathe the Heller decision.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 24, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > The Professor said:
> ...


Another lie from Clayton.
It's all he does.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 24, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



Ah, an alternative "fact", in a blog.  Got it.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 24, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> See:
> How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment


Ah.  Alternative "facts".  In an op-ed.   Got it.


----------



## Wry Catcher (Sep 24, 2019)

Let's parse the 2nd A.

A.   “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.”

or,

B.   “*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.”

or,

C.   “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*.”

Seems clear to me, without a well-regulated Militia, the security of the free state could not be assured.  

The silly response will be a single man with an AR15 / AK47 and many large magazines could stand up to a small company of well trained Federal Agents (FBI, ATF&E, US Marshalls)  or a squad of trained Rangers/Marines/Seals.


----------



## Markle (Sep 24, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.
> 
> I will take another search for the article



English grammar and the English language were never your strong point, are they?


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 24, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Let's parse the 2nd A.


This has already been done:

 The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Don't like it?  Too bad.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Sep 26, 2019)

M14 Shooter said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Let's parse the 2nd A.
> ...


Don’t leave out the part of the Second Amendment you and others on the right have come to loathe:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Universal background checks do not violate the Second Amendment, magazine capacity restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, and AWBs do not violate the Second Amendment.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 26, 2019)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Don’t leave out the part of the Second Amendment you and others on the right have come to loathe:



No one loathes this part, except for the anti-gun loons who think it means 100x more than what it _actually _means.



> Universal background checks do not violate the Second Amendment, magazine capacity restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, and AWBs do not violate the Second Amendment.


Please cite the holding of the USSC case this each of these effects.
Oh, you can't?
Why did you lie?


----------



## anynameyouwish (Sep 26, 2019)

CrusaderFrank said:


> I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.
> 
> I will take another search for the article





"because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation "


It is a lie to say DEMOCRAT.

But I expect conservatives to lie.

Here is the hitorical truth;



Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia



The Democratic-Republican Party (formally called the Republican Party) was an American political party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton,



formally called the REPUBLICAN PARTY....


----------



## Markle (Sep 26, 2019)

anynameyouwish said:


> "because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation "
> 
> It is a lie to say DEMOCRAT.
> 
> ...



The topic of the thread is the Second Amendment.  Does that have anything to do with Slavery, Democrats, and Republicans?






 Now that's settled, can we get back to the Second Amendment?


----------



## westwall (Sep 26, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Let's parse the 2nd A.
> 
> A.   “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.”
> 
> ...








Lets's look up the term "well regulated" as it was used in the era of its writing.  Lo and behold it means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER".  That's why you see clocks from that same era marked WELL REGULATED.  It has nothing to do with laws.  It has everything to do with being operational.


----------



## Pilot1 (Sep 26, 2019)

westwall said:


> Wry Catcher said:
> 
> 
> > Let's parse the 2nd A.
> ...



They know all that, but just mislead, and lie to circumvent the Constitution.  Same way they know that Man has little to nothing to do with so called climate change, but they want another income and wealth redistribution scheme so pretend it's "to save the planet".  What drivel.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 26, 2019)

Wry Catcher said:


> Let's parse the 2nd A.
> 
> A.   “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.”
> 
> ...




your right,, a single man with an AR cant hold off a small company,,,thats why the second half of the 2nd come into play,,it means there could be millions of people holding ARs and that could easily hold off not just a small company but a rather large one

and you also leave out it might not be american gov agents but foreign agents, then the natives/us would be ready  with a minutes notice

the 2nd was well thought out and well written,,,


----------



## Polishprince (Sep 26, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> That’s a stretch
> 
> If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership




It wouldn't make sense for firearms to be limited to the militia.

It wouldn't be a "right" if only the Army can have guns.   Every country, even totalitarian nations, allow the Army to have guns.
That isn't a right, and it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights.


----------



## Pilot1 (Sep 26, 2019)

Polishprince said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > That’s a stretch
> ...



In addition, in order to be called up by Unorganized Militia (non Government) you'd need to posses firearms privately.  So their story fails there too.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Sep 27, 2019)

If you stop feeding the troll, he will go away.


----------



## progressive hunter (Sep 27, 2019)

the 


Pilot1 said:


> Polishprince said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...


the 2nd doesnt have anything to do with calling up any type of militia,,,


----------



## Pilot1 (Sep 27, 2019)

progressive hunter said:


> the
> 
> 
> Pilot1 said:
> ...



Correct.  My point was that even if it were, that private ownership of firearms by THE PEOPLE is required.  The comma that separates the two statements is important.  It is the PEOPLE'S RIGHT pure and simple.


----------



## Jitss617 (Oct 8, 2019)

rightwinger said:


> That’s a stretch
> 
> If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership


----------



## Deplorable Yankee (Oct 8, 2019)




----------



## LuckyDuck (Oct 19, 2019)

Billy_Bob said:


> You are correct.  It is one of the Anti-Federalist Papers and part of the written argument for and against the second amendment..The Slave states wanted to keep arms from the slaves that would most assuredly have allowed rebellions at that time.


The slave states didn't consider slaves to be completely human, only 3/5ths human, as I recall and thus for that reason also, they weren't entitled to the same rights as other people.


----------



## Markle (Oct 19, 2019)

LuckyDuck said:


> Billy_Bob said:
> 
> 
> > You are correct.  It is one of the Anti-Federalist Papers and part of the written argument for and against the second amendment..The Slave states wanted to keep arms from the slaves that would most assuredly have allowed rebellions at that time.
> ...



Your ignorance is not surprising.

It was the Northern states that demanded that slaves not be counted at all.  Counting the slaves would have given the Southern states more Representatives in the House.  Something the Northern states wanted to avoid in order for them to control those states.  The 3/5ths stipulation was the compromise.  As you know Republicans have done far more for the Civil Rights of minorities than Democrats.  See Abraham Lincoln for starters.


----------

