The Right To Bear Arms

[Daryl Hunt]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?

 

[danielpalos]

States should be organizing more militia, not grabbing guns.

 

[Lesh]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

 

[Daryl Hunt]

States should be organizing more militia, not grabbing guns.

Wow, what a blanket statement. You should make a bumper sticker out of it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

Ah, history sure does get in the way or your own "Reality" doesn't it. While you believe you can't change your "Reality" it's history that we can't changed. It happened, get over it.

 

[Lesh]

Ah, history sure does get in the way or your own "Reality" doesn't it. While you believe you can't change your "Reality" it's history that we can't changed. It happened, get over it.

History points out how WRONG you are.

The militia WAS used to put down insurrections ...several times in fact...within years of the writing of the Constitution where it gave that as one of its purposes

 

[Rigby5]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

First of all, it says the fight of the "PEOPLE" to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, not state militias.
That is because the US constitution did not have the authority to divide up rights or jurisdiction between states and individuals.
ALL the US constitution can do is establish the authority specifically delegated or denied to the federal government.
For the question of states vs individuals, you have to look at each state constitution.

The first half is not at all out of date, because while we now have police the founders did not, police still can't protect individuals because their response time is way too long. The militia is the shotgun over the mantel, and is still essential. It will always be essential.

And yes you can break the phrases apart.
That is because when one reason is given for something, that does not at all mean that is the only reason.

 

[Rigby5]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?

As for John Wesley Harding:

{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11

Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}

So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.

 

[Rigby5]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.

 

[Rigby5]

Ah, history sure does get in the way or your own "Reality" doesn't it. While you believe you can't change your "Reality" it's history that we can't changed. It happened, get over it.

History points out how WRONG you are.

The militia WAS used to put down insurrections ...several times in fact...within years of the writing of the Constitution where it gave that as one of its purposes

Wrong.

If the well regulated militia was for the use by the federal government, then there would not have been a 2nd amendment in the Bill of Rights, which is entirely restrictions on federal jurisdiction.
You are claiming the 2nd amendment was to prevent the federal government from disarming its own militia forces.
That is insane.

Obviously there were no police back then, local, state, or federal, so the militia was protection on individual, local, state, and federal levels.
With federal being the least commonly necessary.
You seem to be pretending the least common need is the only need.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Ah, history sure does get in the way or your own "Reality" doesn't it. While you believe you can't change your "Reality" it's history that we can't changed. It happened, get over it.

History points out how WRONG you are.

The militia WAS used to put down insurrections ...several times in fact...within years of the writing of the Constitution where it gave that as one of its purposes

And it was also used to break strikes for the Governors rich buddies as well even more and more recent than the last insurection.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

 

[Rustic]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

You are not reading it in the context of the era

 

[Polishprince]

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

That doesn't make a lot of sense. So you're saying that before the Bill of Rights was passed, the government was afraid that they wouldn't be allowed to arm the military- so they asked for a constitutional amendment to guarantee that?

There has been no government in history which banned itself from being armed.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

You need to learn from history. Bad Actors like John Wesley Harding, right?

As for John Wesley Harding:

{...
He was well known for wildly exaggerating or completely making up stories about his life. He claimed credit for many murders that cannot be corroborated.[4]:10–11

Within a year of his release in 1894, Hardin was killed by John Selman in an El Paso saloon.
...}

So he was taken care of by armed civilians, not the government.

Yes, and this wanton killing is why Dallas had the no firearms in the city limit streets and businesses and would have tried and convicted him for murder under the same cirumstances. Same goes more many other western towns.

Something can be said when there are too few guns in the innocents hands but there are volumes when there are too many. Even today, in El Paso, you can't have a weapon in a Bar.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

You are not reading it in the context of the era

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

 

[Rustic]

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

You are not reading it in the context of the era

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

 

[Lesh]

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

Oddly though...there are Federal laws concerning machine guns and canons

 

[Rigby5]

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

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

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

The 2nd Amendment does not read as mentioning the Organized Militia, but instead mentions that to have a well practiced militia, you need "the people" to be armed already.
It specifically does not mention the Organized Militia, and instead only "the people".