Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Again, that's your opinion, BlindBoo. I do believe we have reasonable regulations already. Don't care when the amendment was written, it's as strong today as it was when written.A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stateThe second amendment encourages the registration of firearms
No, it doesn't. It's not even worth the time to elaborate as your statement is wrong on its face.
You cannot regulate your militias without registering the weapons and knowing what you have available to you to keep your state secure
"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."
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?
Lets just say that the recent mass murderers were not part of any well regulated militia.
Isn't this just a liberal opinion? It's one way you could look at it, but not the only way. The SC thinks you're wrong, BlindBooThe second exists for the sole purpose of defending the states against federal usurpers
It was to ensure that no State or Federal government could confiscate the individuals in the Militia's weapons. Citizens were allowed to keep them in their homes. The Militias were the first line of defense against invaders while the Government raised an Army, not against the government of the people.
Right wing judicial activism by the late Scalia I believe. Didn't he also spell out a case for reasonable regulation in that as well? Besides that amendment was written the 18th century and we're in the 21st now, some 70 + year into the nuclear age. But it never had anything to do with protecting the States from the Federal Government.
Amen to that, brother.--------------------------------- its different , car are not a RIGHT that government would go after . The main reason to not have registration of guns is because of a Healthy distrust of 'government' Slade .Are they going to take our cars away before they take our guns away? Those have been registered for a while now, should we be worried about confiscation?Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it
The individual right to keep and bear arms is separate from the militia clause.
Again, that's your opinion, BlindBoo. I do believe we have reasonable regulations already. Don't care when the amendment was written, it's as strong today as it was when written.A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stateThe second amendment encourages the registration of firearms
No, it doesn't. It's not even worth the time to elaborate as your statement is wrong on its face.
You cannot regulate your militias without registering the weapons and knowing what you have available to you to keep your state secure
"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."
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?
Lets just say that the recent mass murderers were not part of any well regulated militia.
Isn't this just a liberal opinion? It's one way you could look at it, but not the only way. The SC thinks you're wrong, BlindBooThe second exists for the sole purpose of defending the states against federal usurpers
It was to ensure that no State or Federal government could confiscate the individuals in the Militia's weapons. Citizens were allowed to keep them in their homes. The Militias were the first line of defense against invaders while the Government raised an Army, not against the government of the people.
Right wing judicial activism by the late Scalia I believe. Didn't he also spell out a case for reasonable regulation in that as well? Besides that amendment was written the 18th century and we're in the 21st now, some 70 + year into the nuclear age. But it never had anything to do with protecting the States from the Federal Government.
And again, YOU say it has nothing to do with protecting the states from an overreaching federal government. SC says different.
Not arguing that.Again, that's your opinion, BlindBoo. I do believe we have reasonable regulations already. Don't care when the amendment was written, it's as strong today as it was when written.A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stateNo, it doesn't. It's not even worth the time to elaborate as your statement is wrong on its face.
You cannot regulate your militias without registering the weapons and knowing what you have available to you to keep your state secure
"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."
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?
Lets just say that the recent mass murderers were not part of any well regulated militia.
Isn't this just a liberal opinion? It's one way you could look at it, but not the only way. The SC thinks you're wrong, BlindBooThe second exists for the sole purpose of defending the states against federal usurpers
It was to ensure that no State or Federal government could confiscate the individuals in the Militia's weapons. Citizens were allowed to keep them in their homes. The Militias were the first line of defense against invaders while the Government raised an Army, not against the government of the people.
Right wing judicial activism by the late Scalia I believe. Didn't he also spell out a case for reasonable regulation in that as well? Besides that amendment was written the 18th century and we're in the 21st now, some 70 + year into the nuclear age. But it never had anything to do with protecting the States from the Federal Government.
And again, YOU say it has nothing to do with protecting the states from an overreaching federal government. SC says different.
The Constitution put them under the Commander in Chief and gave Congress the ability to call them into service of the United States to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
Obviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it
Not arguing that.Again, that's your opinion, BlindBoo. I do believe we have reasonable regulations already. Don't care when the amendment was written, it's as strong today as it was when written.A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state
You cannot regulate your militias without registering the weapons and knowing what you have available to you to keep your state secure
"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."
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?
Lets just say that the recent mass murderers were not part of any well regulated militia.
Isn't this just a liberal opinion? It's one way you could look at it, but not the only way. The SC thinks you're wrong, BlindBooIt was to ensure that no State or Federal government could confiscate the individuals in the Militia's weapons. Citizens were allowed to keep them in their homes. The Militias were the first line of defense against invaders while the Government raised an Army, not against the government of the people.
Right wing judicial activism by the late Scalia I believe. Didn't he also spell out a case for reasonable regulation in that as well? Besides that amendment was written the 18th century and we're in the 21st now, some 70 + year into the nuclear age. But it never had anything to do with protecting the States from the Federal Government.
And again, YOU say it has nothing to do with protecting the states from an overreaching federal government. SC says different.
The Constitution put them under the Commander in Chief and gave Congress the ability to call them into service of the United States to suppress insurrections and repel invasions.
The militia knows, not the government. The militia is independent of government. So, your government registration argument fails.Problems with English?A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free stateThe second amendment encourages the registration of firearms
No, it doesn't. It's not even worth the time to elaborate as your statement is wrong on its face.
You cannot regulate your militias without registering the weapons and knowing what you have available to you to keep your state secure
"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."
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Why are you leftists incapable of doing even the slightest bit of research?
A well functioning militia in good working order is trained, has a command structure and knows what weapons it’s members have
Yes, and the purpose for adding an amendment was to nake it clear that the Federal Government was not allowed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms.There are only two references to the Militia in the Constitution. The 2A where they speak of a "Well Regulated Militia" and Article 1 Section 8 where they describe that Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So that militia must be organized, disciplined,and have rank and training
Both Thomas Jefferson and James Madison disagree with you.The second exists for the sole purpose of defending the states against federal usurpers
It was to ensure that no State or Federal government could confiscate the individuals in the Militia's weapons. Citizens were allowed to keep them in their homes. The Militias were the first line of defense against invaders while the Government raised an Army, not against the government of the people.
NoObviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it
There are several reasons for gun registration.
- Guns need to be insured, for theft and for misuse
- Guns need to be registered, and when sold, traded or gifted the recipient needs to be eligible to own a gun
- Gun Ownership requires responsibility
- When a gun is stolen, and discovered in the possession of another, they can be prosecuted for possession of stolen property, which gives law enforcement probable cause to get a warrant and search their home, business or car
- Guns stolen or lost can be returned to the lawful owner.
Yep, Progressives never care to look at it in the context of the eraIt does say well regulated.
Yeah. Looking at The Federalist (numbers 28 by Hamilton and 46 by Madison) the assumption and expectation of The Framers that all States would marshall their forces and act jointly to crush the usurpers' forces is crystal clear. This is where well regulated militias comes into the equation.
So, Marshall their forces. What exactly do you take from that, Brain? Placed into context with well regulated. It's a toss up, if you ask me. I teeter totter back and forth. Because back themn well regulated just meant well prepared, able bodied. That's what that meant.
But, on the other hand, the fact remains that yes the states have the right to marshal its forces against federal usupers. Militias would by default agents of the states. Regulated, so to speak.
As usual... out of contextThere are only two references to the Militia in the Constitution. The 2A where they speak of a "Well Regulated Militia" and Article 1 Section 8 where they describe that Militia
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
So that militia must be organized, disciplined,and have rank and training
But their individual right was already theirs before the constitution or organization of any militia. As long as 150 years after the 2nd was ratified, no one bothered to make the silly, cocksucking bullshit argument that individuals DON'T have the right independent if militia service.The individual right to keep and bear arms is separate from the militia clause.
It is a recent separation. In those early days most all citizens were in the local militias.
Firearm registration is unconstitutionalObviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it
What the hell are you talking about? Drinking breakfast again?
LolWry Catcher, you forget to add "so firearms can be taxed each year like a car so every government employee in town knows what you own" to your list.
Good point, but those taxes are passed by local or state governments. It's doubtful Red States will tolerate a gun tax, and it is unlikely any elected official will vote for such a tax.
Of course Law Enforcement will and should know which homes have firearms.
/——/ Sure. Here’s one: How the Nazis Used Gun Control | National ReviewObviously it’s a dog whistle, that would be the only reason for firearm registration. We have not had it up to this point obviously we’ve never needed it because it’s not right in anyway. No two ways about it
Is there an article to elaborate?
