Fire arms FACTS

[JakeStarkey]

No, JonBezerk, the term refers to the militia, not the arm.

of course it refers to arms

the second amendment is about arms

as for the militia without good operating arms they could not be well regulated

Well the writers of the Founders Age disagree with you:

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, JonBezerk, the term refers to the militia, not the arm.

why is it that you liarberals are ALWAYS WRONG ????

here is the truth of the "WELL REGULATED"

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

reference: Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" <-------<<< click here

answered above

 

[jon_berzerk]

No, JonBezerk, the term refers to the militia, not the arm.

of course it refers to arms

the second amendment is about arms

as for the militia without good operating arms they could not be well regulated

Well the writers of the Founders Age disagree with you:

Meaning of the words in the Second Amendment

Some argue that since the militias are "owned," or under the command of the states, that the states are free to disarm their militia if they so choose, and therefore of course no individual right to keep arms exists. The Militia is not "owned," rather it is controlled, organized, et. cetera, by governments. The federal government as well as the states have no legitimate power to disarm the people from which militias are organized. Unfortunately, few jurists today hold this view. (See Reynolds, Glen Harlan, A Critical Guide to the Second Amendment, 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 [1995].)

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

the framers do not disagree with me they felt

that the right to firearm is individual right

not one belonging to the militia

the Second Amendment is silent who on "regulates" the militia

other then a well regulated (properly functioning) militia

is necessary for a free state

i like guncite to

however the incorrectly deuce that "state" translates into "security of a free country"

they (the framers)would have said such but they didnt

referring to the Constitution

the only time the Federal government has jurisdiction over the militia

is when called into actual service of the country

 

[JakeStarkey]

Interesting. But we were discussig "well regulated", which applies to the militia not firearms, so, yes, the state and or the national government controls the regulation of the militia, unorganizaed or otherwise.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Interesting. But we were discussig "well regulated", which applies to the militia not firearms, so, yes, the state and or the national government controls the regulation of the militia, unorganizaed or otherwise.

the Second Amendment is silent who on "regulates" the militia

 

[JakeStarkey]

The intent of the 2d is obvious and I know you will find no law or court decisions to suggest "well regulated" means anything else than what I suggested.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The intent of the 2d is obvious and I know you will find no law or court decisions to suggest "well regulated" means anything else than what I suggested.

Why are people worrying about the definition of "well regulated" at all, when it makes no difference to their right to keep and bear arms?

The "well regulated militia" was mentioned in the 2nd amendment, only to explain WHY the right shall not be infringed. Not as a condition determining WHETHER it would be infringed.

The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

 

[JakeStarkey]

That is your interp, yes, but that is not what SCOTUS meant, I believe. But if it is, please quote it and link it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Close, but no cigar

The term is well regulated militia, not well regulated arms

Try again

Already covered it. Again for the slow, the militia part is simply one example of why the INDIVIDUAL right is to be uninfringed. As for well regulated militia that would be the National Guard with the remaining population as the unorganized thus unregulated militia.

Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 belong to the unregulated unorganized militia.

Further the Court has ruled. That ruling is clear. One has an individual right to keep and bear arms irregardless of belonging to a Militia.

You try again.

I see you have the NRA propaganda, but it is diffused from reality

The founding fathers saw no need for a standing army. They relied on a militia for the nations defense. Do you really think they trusted the nations defense to a bunch of random gun owners? They wanted "well regulated militias". Militias that were trained, had proper leadership, were adequately armed and equipped.

It s that function that has been replaced by the National Guard

And yet Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 are part of the militia. Go figure.

 

[rightwinger]

Already covered it. Again for the slow, the militia part is simply one example of why the INDIVIDUAL right is to be uninfringed. As for well regulated militia that would be the National Guard with the remaining population as the unorganized thus unregulated militia.

Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 belong to the unregulated unorganized militia.

Further the Court has ruled. That ruling is clear. One has an individual right to keep and bear arms irregardless of belonging to a Militia.

You try again.

I see you have the NRA propaganda, but it is diffused from reality

The founding fathers saw no need for a standing army. They relied on a militia for the nations defense. Do you really think they trusted the nations defense to a bunch of random gun owners? They wanted "well regulated militias". Militias that were trained, had proper leadership, were adequately armed and equipped.

It s that function that has been replaced by the National Guard

And yet Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 are part of the militia. Go figure.

At the time, that was their draft pool

The founding fathers had no need for an unorganized militia. Everyone had a gun anyway. There was no need to protect private ownership. That was assumed.

What they needed was a trained militia that could be called up in a one of need.

If the NRA is so enthralled with the unorganized militia force, why won't they let them be registered in case they are needed?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

I see you have the NRA propaganda, but it is diffused from reality

The founding fathers saw no need for a standing army. They relied on a militia for the nations defense. Do you really think they trusted the nations defense to a bunch of random gun owners? They wanted "well regulated militias". Militias that were trained, had proper leadership, were adequately armed and equipped.

It s that function that has been replaced by the National Guard

And yet Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 are part of the militia. Go figure.

At the time, that was their draft pool

The founding fathers had no need for an unorganized militia. Everyone had a gun anyway. There was no need to protect private ownership. That was assumed.

What they needed was a trained militia that could be called up in a one of need.

If the NRA is so enthralled with the unorganized militia force, why won't they let them be registered in case they are needed?

The point being even if your absurd claim that only the militia can be armed were true that all males 17 to 45 ARE the militia.

It is settled law that the 2nd is an Individual right separate and divorced from any need to belong to a militia. That you keep claiming otherwise just proves how stupid you are.

 

[rightwinger]

And yet Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 are part of the militia. Go figure.

At the time, that was their draft pool

The founding fathers had no need for an unorganized militia. Everyone had a gun anyway. There was no need to protect private ownership. That was assumed.

What they needed was a trained militia that could be called up in a one of need.

If the NRA is so enthralled with the unorganized militia force, why won't they let them be registered in case they are needed?

The point being even if your absurd claim that only the militia can be armed were true that all males 17 to 45 ARE the militia.

It is settled law that the 2nd is an Individual right separate and divorced from any need to belong to a militia. That you keep claiming otherwise just proves how stupid you are.

The point being, that they fail to be a well regulated militia. However, if private owners were required to register and receive periodic training, they might qualify

But the NRA will have none of that. They do not want well regulated militias

 

[Little-Acorn]

The point being, that they fail to be a well regulated militia.

Actually, they do qualify.

But they don't have to. The 2nd amendment says that their right to keep and bear arms can't be taken away or restricted anyway.

 

[Little-Acorn]

That is your interp, yes,

Yes.

Very good.

but that is not what SCOTUS meant, I believe.

So what? It's what the 2nd amendment meant.

Read it.

Reading is key.

The words in the 2nd have a particular meaning. And they are the law.

 

[The2ndAmendment]

That is your interp, yes, but that is not what SCOTUS meant, I believe. But if it is, please quote it and link it.

@JakeStarkey

Ok get ready faggot, here's the full text of the Heller case:

http://jpfo.org/pdf02/heller-opinion-07-290.pdf


Bottom of page 26 of the PDF

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the slow and stupid.....

More firearms facts.

There is NO REQUIREMENT to belong to a militia to own, possess and bear a firearm.

The whole population of males from 17 to 45 ARE the militia.

The Courts have held that a firearm must be of a military type in common usage to be protected by the 2nd.

 

[rightwinger]

For the slow and stupid.....

More firearms facts.

There is NO REQUIREMENT to belong to a militia to own, possess and bear a firearm.

The whole population of males from 17 to 45 ARE the militia.

The Courts have held that a firearm must be of a military type in common usage to be protected by the 2nd.

So.....after Heller

Why did you feel the need to create this stupid thread about militia?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You forgot well regulated

Excellent point. Well regulated is the most important part of the amendment which the gun nutters conveniently forget.

It sounds like retired wants convicted felons, molesters, the mentally ill, and other nutcases limitless access to guns

I realize you have run away by now but reread my opening post. The law specifically bars those people from owning firearms. So long as appropriate authority has so ruled. This is a strawman thrown out when you have no tenable position from which to argue. Thanks for playing and now the adults will continue the discussion.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The intent of the 2d is obvious and I know you will find no law or court decisions to suggest "well regulated" means anything else than what I suggested.

Why are people worrying about the definition of "well regulated" at all, when it makes no difference to their right to keep and bear arms?

The "well regulated militia" was mentioned in the 2nd amendment, only to explain WHY the right shall not be infringed. Not as a condition determining WHETHER it would be infringed.

The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons, cannot be taken away or restricted."

Why are people worrying about the definition of "well regulated" at all, when it makes no difference to their right to keep and bear arms?

true but it is fun to toss it around a little

 

[RetiredGySgt]

For the slow and stupid.....

More firearms facts.

There is NO REQUIREMENT to belong to a militia to own, possess and bear a firearm.

The whole population of males from 17 to 45 ARE the militia.

The Courts have held that a firearm must be of a military type in common usage to be protected by the 2nd.

So.....after Heller

Why did you feel the need to create this stupid thread about militia?

Because people like you keep claiming that one must belong to one to own a firearm. You keep claiming that the 2nd requires it when one that knows English knows full well that simply is not true.