The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[frigidweirdo]

Of course, they were basically at war, surely the US tried to disarm anyone they were at war with.

Armed resistance got them what? A few concessions, that's saying that no one gets concessions unless they have guns? Rubbish.

Your argument is still as weak as water.

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. See?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.

 

[ding]

You mean YOU believe the founding fathers argument is weaker than water. I disagree.

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. See?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.

Maybe you should try to be more clear. What is it that you are trying to say?

 

[rightwinger]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, I don't mean that at all.

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. See?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.

Maybe you should try to be more clear. What is it that you are trying to say?

How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.

 

[ding]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

No.

No.

And no.

Given that the point of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, giving the government -. the ones we are supposed to be serving as a check against - the details of the militia would make as little sense as arming them with less than the technology of the day.

There is nothing in the Constitution about militias being a check on the government

They look at militias as being necessary for the security of a free state......not a check on a free state

Now you are splitting hairs. Same difference. Which is why we look at the statements that were made by the Founding Fathers. But hey, I'm not trying to convince you. You won't be happy until all guns are banned and confiscated.

 

[ding]

Well... It's not my argument I am making. It is the Founding Father's argument I am re-stating.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. See?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.

Maybe you should try to be more clear. What is it that you are trying to say?

How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.

I think you should try again. But this time say it differently. Or don't. I really don't care. You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care. Your call.

 

[frigidweirdo]

No, you're not repeating the Founders' arguments. The founders weren't a solid group who all thought the same, so that's impossible.

Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny. So quoting all this stuff to show this doesn't do anything. You're not arguing against me. I don't know who you're arguing against, but it seems kind of pointless to tell me this.

Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. See?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.

Maybe you should try to be more clear. What is it that you are trying to say?

How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.

I think you should try again. But this time say it differently. Or don't. I really don't care. You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care. Your call.

Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.

You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.

 

[ding]

Given that I am using their own words, I'm going to have to disagree with you on that. See?

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.

Maybe you should try to be more clear. What is it that you are trying to say?

How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.

I think you should try again. But this time say it differently. Or don't. I really don't care. You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care. Your call.

Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.

You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.

I answered the question I thought you asked. Obviously there has been a communication breakdown. At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me? Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.

 

[Tennyson]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Are you really unable to understand what I say? This is getting ridiculous. You're not responding to what I'm writing. So, I'm going to say bye, and if you bother to actually read in the future, then I may be willing to respond to you. But I'm fed up with you just repeating the same things that have nothing to do with what I said over and over and over again.

Maybe you should try to be more clear. What is it that you are trying to say?

How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.

I think you should try again. But this time say it differently. Or don't. I really don't care. You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care. Your call.

Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.

You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.

I answered the question I thought you asked. Obviously there has been a communication breakdown. At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me? Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.

Yes, clearly a communication breakdown. I write "red" you read "yellow". That is a fucking communication breakdown.

Take a look at the first post I replied to in this session.

I said:

"Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny."

You said:

"The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace."

Why would you A) repeat what you wrote in a previous post and B) repeat it when I said quite clearly that I have never said it wasn't?

You want to say there's a communication breakdown. Clearly, if you're going to keep repeating things that I basically said, then throwing quotes out there to back up what you just said when NO ONE is contesting what you said in the slightest. Why would you do that? There's no point in doing this.


Here's our conversation from a different perspective.

Me: Dogs like to fetch sticks.
You: Well, I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: I didn't say cats don't like sleeping on the sofa, we're talking about dogs chasing sticks.
You: Well I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty five pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: Why do you keep saying this?
You: I think there's a breakdown in communication somewhere.

 

[ding]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.

In laymen's terms please.

 

[ding]

Maybe you should try to be more clear. What is it that you are trying to say?

How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.

I think you should try again. But this time say it differently. Or don't. I really don't care. You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care. Your call.

Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.

You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.

I answered the question I thought you asked. Obviously there has been a communication breakdown. At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me? Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.

Yes, clearly a communication breakdown. I write "red" you read "yellow". That is a fucking communication breakdown.

Take a look at the first post I replied to in this session.

I said:

"Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny."

You said:

"The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace."

Why would you A) repeat what you wrote in a previous post and B) repeat it when I said quite clearly that I have never said it wasn't?

You want to say there's a communication breakdown. Clearly, if you're going to keep repeating things that I basically said, then throwing quotes out there to back up what you just said when NO ONE is contesting what you said in the slightest. Why would you do that? There's no point in doing this.


Here's our conversation from a different perspective.

Me: Dogs like to fetch sticks.
You: Well, I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: I didn't say cats don't like sleeping on the sofa, we're talking about dogs chasing sticks.
You: Well I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty five pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: Why do you keep saying this?
You: I think there's a breakdown in communication somewhere.

Wow. That really cleared it up. What's your question?

 

[Tennyson]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.

In laymen's terms please.

The short version.
Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.

 

[frigidweirdo]

How can I be more clear? I can't be more clear. At some point you realize the person on the other side just isn't paying attention.

I think you should try again. But this time say it differently. Or don't. I really don't care. You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care. Your call.

Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.

You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.

I answered the question I thought you asked. Obviously there has been a communication breakdown. At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me? Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.

Yes, clearly a communication breakdown. I write "red" you read "yellow". That is a fucking communication breakdown.

Take a look at the first post I replied to in this session.

I said:

"Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny."

You said:

"The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace."

Why would you A) repeat what you wrote in a previous post and B) repeat it when I said quite clearly that I have never said it wasn't?

You want to say there's a communication breakdown. Clearly, if you're going to keep repeating things that I basically said, then throwing quotes out there to back up what you just said when NO ONE is contesting what you said in the slightest. Why would you do that? There's no point in doing this.


Here's our conversation from a different perspective.

Me: Dogs like to fetch sticks.
You: Well, I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: I didn't say cats don't like sleeping on the sofa, we're talking about dogs chasing sticks.
You: Well I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty five pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: Why do you keep saying this?
You: I think there's a breakdown in communication somewhere.

Wow. That really cleared it up. What's your question?

And again, why do you think there's a question? Did you not read what I wrote?

 

[Spare_change]

Nowhere in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment will one find any reference to the Second Amendment 'trumping' the First Amendment, or authorizing the Second Amendment to abridge the First Amendment right of the people to petition the government for a redress of grievances through either the political process or the judicial process.

That a minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people, where government is indeed functioning in accordance with the Constitution and its case law.

There must first be consensus and agreement among the people through the political and democratic process as to what constitutes actual 'tyranny,' and that, consistent with that consensus, the government is in fact 'tyrannical' - then and only then might 'taking up arms' be warranted and lawful.

British, perhaps??

Because that is EXACTLY what happened 250 years ago --- "minority of citizens might subjectively and in error perceive government to have become 'tyrannical' in no manner 'justifies' that minority to 'take up arms' against a government lawfully sanctioned by a majority of the people"

There does NOT have to be "consensus" ... you only have to choose a side.

This fails as a false comparison fallacy.

The Revolutionary War concerned a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people, as opposed to today where the Federal government is acting with the consent of the people, consistent with the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And consensus is in fact needed.

There must be agreement as to the criteria and conditions that render a government ‘tyrannical,’ not the subjective beliefs and perceptions of a frightened, reactionary minority.

The people have the First Amendment right to petition the government for a redress of grievances through the political process and then the judicial process; that right cannot be abridged or superseded by the Second Amendment.

Last, the issue has nothing to do with ‘taking sides,’ whatever that’s supposed to mean.

The mistake you make is to incorrectly perceive ‘the government’ as some sort of entity separate and apart from the people, when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

In fact, the government and the people are one in the same: the government is the creation of the people, the government is acting at the behest of the people, reflecting the will of the people, consistent with our Republican form of government and the rule of law.

To seek to oppose the government of the people, created by the people, absent a just and legitimate cause, predicated solely on partisan, ideological opposition to the government, is to oppose the people, the Constitution, and the rule of law.

The Revolutionary War did not concern “a foreign government acting outside of the rule of law without the consent of the people.” Britain was not a foreign government. The British government and the American colonies were one and the same. The colonies had British government on site governing the colonies. The consent of the people did not exist to be violated. The situation that caused the Revolutionary War was the same situation that had caused empires and nations to collapse throughout recorded history and is the same situation between the states and the federal government today. The federal government is not operating under the consent of the people, or our country would not be so bitterly divided today. If the government was operating under the consent of the people, then the Supreme Court would be nationally elected due to their self-imposed power over the states and the people.

The government is operating as a separate entity. That is why this country is divided beyond repair today.

The government is not the people, and that is the problem. The people did not create a Supreme Court with power over the states or people, and the people did not create the executive branch’s cabinet of entities that make and create laws that affect the people in the stead or the House. The rule of law precludes executive orders that create law, cabinet entities that create and enforce laws, Supreme Court jurisdiction over states or people, etc. That is not the rule of law; that is the rule of man.

What an amazing, and amusing, perversion of reality.

 

[ding]

I think you should try again. But this time say it differently. Or don't. I really don't care. You can walk away with a huffy breath for all I care. Your call.

Dude, I've tried like 10 times and EVERY TIME you come back at me with something that has NOTHING to do with what I'm talking about. The first post I replied to was nonsense, you said the right to bear arms was the right to own weapons, it's not. From there on it's been a case of you replying to some imaginary ghost, because you're not reading what I'm writing.

You can try and pretend this is all my fault to try and save face is you want, but dude, READ WHAT THE FUCK PEOPLE WRITE and RESPOND TO WHAT THEY WRITE.

I answered the question I thought you asked. Obviously there has been a communication breakdown. At what point are you going to realize that I can't answer the question you want me to answer until you either ask it differently or provide more information to me? Or you could just keep ranting about how I should be able to answer the question and we can be stuck in this do loop.

Yes, clearly a communication breakdown. I write "red" you read "yellow". That is a fucking communication breakdown.

Take a look at the first post I replied to in this session.

I said:

"Firstly, I didn't say the 2A wasn't the last check on govt tyranny."

You said:

"The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace."

Why would you A) repeat what you wrote in a previous post and B) repeat it when I said quite clearly that I have never said it wasn't?

You want to say there's a communication breakdown. Clearly, if you're going to keep repeating things that I basically said, then throwing quotes out there to back up what you just said when NO ONE is contesting what you said in the slightest. Why would you do that? There's no point in doing this.


Here's our conversation from a different perspective.

Me: Dogs like to fetch sticks.
You: Well, I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: I didn't say cats don't like sleeping on the sofa, we're talking about dogs chasing sticks.
You: Well I think you're wrong, cats like to sleep on the sofa. Here are twenty five pictures of cats sleeping on the sofa.
Me: Why do you keep saying this?
You: I think there's a breakdown in communication somewhere.

Wow. That really cleared it up. What's your question?

And again, why do you think there's a question? Did you not read what I wrote?

Cool then. We're done. There is nothing to respond to.

 

[ding]

The Founding Father's contention that an armed populace is the best defense against a standing army is not weaker than water. It is the basis for the 2nd Amendment.

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

 

[ding]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.

In laymen's terms please.

The short version.
Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.

Yeah, I see a much easier explanation being the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess. In this case, semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being 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. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. 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.

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.

In laymen's terms please.

The short version.
Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.

Yeah, I see a much easier explanation being the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess. In this case, semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

Why not tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc? They're also needed.

If your "logic" and argument is that any weapon the militia uses is therefore available to the general populace then all individuals would therefore have the right to own this weaponry. Would you feel safe flying knowing SAM missiles were readily available in your local gun shop?

The reality is that cannons were not protected for individuals in the 1700s even though they were considered militia equipment. So, the right to keep arms has never extended to the right to own any weapon the Militia might use.

In the US v. Miller Supreme Court case the Court said:

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

So, the Supreme Court has ruled, and upheld, even in the Heller case (written by a right wing justice) that a weapon has to have a reason relationship to the preservation of the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

This does not mean the owner of the weapon has to be in the militia. It does not mean the weapon has to be used by the militia. However the militia would have to basically say this kind of weaponry would be expected to be brought when a person is called up into the militia.

Right now no one ever gets called up to the militia. In fact more people who are in the militia don't do anything, and hardly even know they're in the militia.

You're clutching at straws.

 

[ding]

Doesn't preclude regulations

Who must join the militia, how they are trained, what weapons they have, what the command structure is

Knowing who has guns, the training they have and where they are is essential to a well regulated militia

It does preclude regulation if the indefinite articles of Article I, Section 8 and the Second Amendment are used.

In laymen's terms please.

The short version.
Compare the indefinite articles between the military clauses of Article I and the Second Amendment of “a” and “the.” “A” is used properly when introducing something for the first time. Notice the first use of “a”: To provide and maintain a navy; Then it move on to “the” as it has been introduced. And the “the” in “To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions…” This is not the militia of the Second Amendment.

On to the Second Amendment: “A well regulated Militia” uses the indefinite article ‘a.” This is because this was the first mention of a militia of the people of the states and the term “Well-regulated is a modifier for “militia,” which are the people not the militia of Article I. This was proper grammar and it was consistent with the rest of the Constitution.

Yeah, I see a much easier explanation being the intent of the 2nd Amendment is to serve as a check against a standing army of a tyrannical government, so the militia and its arms must never be under the auspice of that government. The same logic applies to the type of weaponry they should possess. In this case, semi-automatic rifles with high capacity magazines.

Why not tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc? They're also needed.

If your "logic" and argument is that any weapon the militia uses is therefore available to the general populace then all individuals would therefore have the right to own this weaponry. Would you feel safe flying knowing SAM missiles were readily available in your local gun shop?

The reality is that cannons were not protected for individuals in the 1700s even though they were considered militia equipment. So, the right to keep arms has never extended to the right to own any weapon the Militia might use.

In the US v. Miller Supreme Court case the Court said:

"The Court cannot take judicial notice that a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon."

So, the Supreme Court has ruled, and upheld, even in the Heller case (written by a right wing justice) that a weapon has to have a reason relationship to the preservation of the efficiency of a well regulated militia.

This does not mean the owner of the weapon has to be in the militia. It does not mean the weapon has to be used by the militia. However the militia would have to basically say this kind of weaponry would be expected to be brought when a person is called up into the militia.

Right now no one ever gets called up to the militia. In fact more people who are in the militia don't do anything, and hardly even know they're in the militia.

You're clutching at straws.

Maybe that is YOUR logic. but that is not my logic. My logic says semi-automatic rifles with high capacity. I don't know anyone who is making the argument for tanks, fighter jets, nuclear weapons etc, except maybe you.

I don't know why anyone would even want a shotgun barrel of less than 18". That isn't effective at all. But a semi-automatic rifle with a high capacity magazine is an effective arm for a light infantry militia.

No one gets called up to the militia because the militia is not intended to be under the auspice of the federal government. The militia is intended to be the whole body of people who are capable and willing to come to arms if the need should arise. The whole body of the people should always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them.