What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?

[Synthaholic]

madison intended it to be protection against our own government

Really?

Then why didn't they put that into the Constitution?

I'm sure that J.K. Rowling had a few chapters of Harry Potter material that didn't make the cut into the books, also.

because they put in the constitution all they needed to. that the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. they don't need to list every single purpose in might apply to. you have a right to free speech. does it spell out specifically ever instance you might use free speech? does it say where you specifically have the right to free assembly? no. by your fucked up logic you can't protest the government or speak out against them because it doens't specifically say you can in the constitution.

oh and BTW, what he did was put it in the federalist papers. you know that little document they used to convince the states to ratify the constitution. he clearly spelled out what his words meant and what the intent of the 2nd amendment was. in fact he left no room for argument.

First the Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution, and have no legal weight.

As for the bolded, speech is regulated. So why can't guns?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Really?

Then why didn't they put that into the Constitution?

I'm sure that J.K. Rowling had a few chapters of Harry Potter material that didn't make the cut into the books, also.

because they put in the constitution all they needed to. that the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. they don't need to list every single purpose in might apply to. you have a right to free speech. does it spell out specifically ever instance you might use free speech? does it say where you specifically have the right to free assembly? no. by your fucked up logic you can't protest the government or speak out against them because it doens't specifically say you can in the constitution.

oh and BTW, what he did was put it in the federalist papers. you know that little document they used to convince the states to ratify the constitution. he clearly spelled out what his words meant and what the intent of the 2nd amendment was. in fact he left no room for argument.

First the Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution, and have no legal weight.

As for the bolded, speech is regulated. So why can't guns?

Fire arms are regulated, heavily. There are THOUSANDS of laws on the books about firearms. How about you enforce them before trying to ban weapons you think look scary?

 

[Synthaholic]

How are background checks an infringement on your rights?

will they infringe on anyone right to own a gun?

Yes. Felons, wife-beaters, people on terrorist watch lists, the mentally ill, etc.

If you are arguing that even the criminally insane have a right to a gun, then you're gonna be a very frustrated extremist, because America has decided otherwise.

could this information ever be used to hinder the person getting a job?

Irrelevant to the Constitutional question.

or pursue any other avenue in his regular life?

Irrelevant to the Constitutional question.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How are background checks an infringement on your rights?

By extension, how is presenting an ID before voting an infringement on the right to vote?

It’s not the ‘presenting’ but the requirement to obtain an ID after a voter has already proven he’s eligible to vote when he registered.

A voter presents a birth certificate or other suitable document when he registers to vote. As long as he votes every two years (or whatever the required frequency for his jurisdiction) his signature alone next to his name on the voter registration log is sufficient, even if it’s been 20 years since he last registered.

To require a voter to ‘prove’ at every election he’s eligible to vote when he already documented his eligibility at registration manifests an undue burden to the right to vote; it’s also likely a due process violation, to presume a voter is guilty and make him ‘prove’ he’s not attempting to commit fraud.

The same is true with regard to firearm licensing and registration requirements.

There’s nothing burdensome about a background check, but requiring a gun owner to have a license simply to own any type of firearm, or be required to register that firearm with the state, manifests an undue burden, if he’s otherwise not in the NICS database. It’s likely a due process violation as well, to presume all gun owners are ‘guilty.’

The state cannot presume that because one wishes to own a gun he might commit a crime, and compel the potential gun owner to obtain a license first. Just as the state cannot presume that a given voter might commit fraud, and compel the voter to prove whom he is at every election.

Whether exercising the right to vote or the right to own a firearm, the state may not restrict or preempt any right absent evidence the restricting measure is warranted.

There is no evidence licensing requirements will stop gun violence (because criminals don’t worry about licenses), and there’s no evidence requiring photo ID will prevent voter ‘fraud.’

Circular logic gets you nowhere.
The bottom line for voters to show ID is to preserve the integrity of the process.
ANYONE can obtain an official state ID free of charge. ANYONE...
We are required to present ID for far less crucial issues.
For example, one must present ID to cash a check. To be permitted to board a commercial aircraft. To rent a car. To pay one's taxes in person, one must prove their identity. To receive state or federal assistance, one must identify themselves.
This voter ID catfight the left has started is all about political correctness.

 

[Spoonman]

Really?

Then why didn't they put that into the Constitution?

I'm sure that J.K. Rowling had a few chapters of Harry Potter material that didn't make the cut into the books, also.

because they put in the constitution all they needed to. that the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. they don't need to list every single purpose in might apply to. you have a right to free speech. does it spell out specifically ever instance you might use free speech? does it say where you specifically have the right to free assembly? no. by your fucked up logic you can't protest the government or speak out against them because it doens't specifically say you can in the constitution.

oh and BTW, what he did was put it in the federalist papers. you know that little document they used to convince the states to ratify the constitution. he clearly spelled out what his words meant and what the intent of the 2nd amendment was. in fact he left no room for argument.

First the Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution, and have no legal weight.

As for the bolded, speech is regulated. So why can't guns?

are you really that brain dead? do you know what the federalist papers are? the document that were used by Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and all to explain the amendments, what they were and why they were needed to the other members of congress from all states to convince them to ratify them. they carry a lot of weight in the fact that they truly define the intent of the amendments. now what is in the constitution is the right to bear arms shall not be infringed. guns are regulated already in the same way speech is. legally you can't harm someone with speech or a gun. you don't have to register your speech though do you? you don't have to have a background check to speak. you keep trying to compare an apple to an orange.

 

[Spoonman]

How are background checks an infringement on your rights?

will they infringe on anyone right to own a gun?

Yes. Felons, wife-beaters, people on terrorist watch lists, the mentally ill, etc.

If you are arguing that even the criminally insane have a right to a gun, then you're gonna be a very frustrated extremist, because America has decided otherwise.

could this information ever be used to hinder the person getting a job?

Irrelevant to the Constitutional question.

or pursue any other avenue in his regular life?

Irrelevant to the Constitutional question.

looks like America hasn't decided otherwise. your side lost the vote remember? face it, the pro gun, pro rights protection side of the coin is the one that is growing. 20,000,000 new applications for gun permits alone in 2012, that isn't current owners buying new guns, that is new owners and new owners in states that require a permit even. gun sales, ammo sales have gone through the roof. 4 democrats broke rank on the single most important agenda item on the democratic ticket because they knew if they didn't America would speak further and they would lose their jobs. that is America speaking

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If you were told that your micro wanking were not to be infringed, what would you take that to mean? That it cannot be infringed or that it can be infringed. Why do liberals claim to be the smartest people in the room when they can't even understand simple concepts or words. How do you remember to breathe?

How would registration infringe when no one is stopping your purchase?

It is a willful act of government to violate the 4th Amendment.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Guess what My weapons falls under? I'll bet you don't even understand.

It would be the 5th and 14th Amendments’ Due Process Clauses, actually, where the state cannot deny a right absent substantial justification.

What is the justification and rationale for the state to make licensing and/or registration a condition of gun ownership? Does the state have evidence the individual will commit a violent crime with his gun?

The state cannot compel a citizen to register his firearm predicated on a presumption of guilt, that all gun owners are ‘potential criminals.’

If the state has evidence that a potential gun owner might pose a risk, such as a felony conviction, or other tangible evidence, then the state must address its concerns with that particular individual, not cast a wide net of presumed guilt of all gun owners.

 

[Little-Acorn]

(duplicate post)

 

[Contumacious]

Really?

Then why didn't they put that into the Constitution?

I'm sure that J.K. Rowling had a few chapters of Harry Potter material that didn't make the cut into the books, also.

They did .

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

.

The 10th has nothing to say about owning guns as a defense against the United States.

HUH?

Are you and Comrade Starkiev, the same person?

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

By extension, how is presenting an ID before voting an infringement on the right to vote?

It’s not the ‘presenting’ but the requirement to obtain an ID after a voter has already proven he’s eligible to vote when he registered.

A voter presents a birth certificate or other suitable document when he registers to vote. As long as he votes every two years (or whatever the required frequency for his jurisdiction) his signature alone next to his name on the voter registration log is sufficient, even if it’s been 20 years since he last registered.

To require a voter to ‘prove’ at every election he’s eligible to vote when he already documented his eligibility at registration manifests an undue burden to the right to vote; it’s also likely a due process violation, to presume a voter is guilty and make him ‘prove’ he’s not attempting to commit fraud.

The same is true with regard to firearm licensing and registration requirements.

There’s nothing burdensome about a background check, but requiring a gun owner to have a license simply to own any type of firearm, or be required to register that firearm with the state, manifests an undue burden, if he’s otherwise not in the NICS database. It’s likely a due process violation as well, to presume all gun owners are ‘guilty.’

The state cannot presume that because one wishes to own a gun he might commit a crime, and compel the potential gun owner to obtain a license first. Just as the state cannot presume that a given voter might commit fraud, and compel the voter to prove whom he is at every election.

Whether exercising the right to vote or the right to own a firearm, the state may not restrict or preempt any right absent evidence the restricting measure is warranted.

There is no evidence licensing requirements will stop gun violence (because criminals don’t worry about licenses), and there’s no evidence requiring photo ID will prevent voter ‘fraud.’

Circular logic gets you nowhere.
The bottom line for voters to show ID is to preserve the integrity of the process.
ANYONE can obtain an official state ID free of charge. ANYONE...
We are required to present ID for far less crucial issues.
For example, one must present ID to cash a check. To be permitted to board a commercial aircraft. To rent a car. To pay one's taxes in person, one must prove their identity. To receive state or federal assistance, one must identify themselves.
This voter ID catfight the left has started is all about political correctness.

It’s a consistent application of a fundamental Constitution doctrine: in order to restrict or preempt a right, the state must have substantial evidence in support of that restriction – whether restricting the right to vote or the right to own a gun.

The integrity of the vote is maintained through the registration process; and if the state believes a particular voter is attempting to commit fraud and has evidence to that effect, then it can begin an investigation accordingly. But it cannot presume every voter might commit fraud, just as it cannot presume a potential gun owner will commit a gun crime, and subject each voter to an undue burden to the exercising of a fundamental right.

For example, one must present ID to cash a check. To be permitted to board a commercial aircraft. To rent a car. To pay one's taxes in person, one must prove their identity. To receive state or federal assistance, one must identify themselves.
This voter ID catfight the left has started is all about political correctness.

Unlike voting or possessing a firearm, one does not have a Constitutional right to cash a check, fly a commercial flight, or apply for or receive state or Federal assistance.

For the partisan right the advocacy of voter ID is predicated solely on the delusion that republicans lose elections as a consequent of ‘fraud,’ when in fact no evidence of ‘fraud’ exists to the extent that the outcome of any election was changed. For conservatives, for the most part, voters unable to secure a photo ID are perceived as ‘democratic’ voters, and their inability to secure such documentation a partisan advantage.

If conservatives are going to be consistent with regard to their argument that registration and licensing of firearms are un-Constitutional where the state lacks justification to do so, then they must also understand that voting rights can’t be so restricted for the same reason, or same-sex couples’ access to marriage law, or a woman’s right to decide to have a child or not.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 10th has nothing to say about owning guns as a defense against the United States.

True. The Declaration of Independence covers that. Though it doesn't mention specific tools.

Even then, the DOI doesn't describe citizens defending themselves against the United States, which would be citizens defending against themselves somehow. It describes what a citizen's duty is, if the GOVERNMENT should become tyrannical.

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them (citizens) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

Catch that? Overthrowing a tyrannical government isn't just one of the options. It is your DUTY.

And that's not just a suggestion, it's a Federal Law. The first one ever passed in the United States. And just as valid and binding today, as any other Federal law.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?

We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us

How else are they "well regulated"?

Notwithstanding your comment re: well regulated militia, I think all prospective gun purchasers should at least have to take and pass some sort of gun safety course.
For comparison's sake, we all must take and pass an exam plus a road test in order to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle.

But not to buy/own a motor vehicle, keep it in our houses or use them on private property.
Rights arent subject to competency tests; if they were, MSNBC would be off the air.

 

[M14 Shooter]

How are background checks an infringement on your rights?

By extension, how is presenting an ID before voting an infringement on the right to vote?

It’s not the ‘presenting’ but the requirement to obtain an ID after a voter has already proven he’s eligible to vote when he registered.

Without an ID, how do you verify the person claiming to be the person on the voting roll is actually that person?
No one else has answered this question; perhaps you will step up to the plate.

 

[Fender]

What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?

The US army.

 

[rightwinger]

The 10th has nothing to say about owning guns as a defense against the United States.

True. The Declaration of Independence covers that. Though it doesn't mention specific tools.

Even then, the DOI doesn't describe citizens defending themselves against the United States, which would be citizens defending against themselves somehow. It describes what a citizen's duty is, if the GOVERNMENT should become tyrannical.

"...when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them (citizens) under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government..."

Catch that? Overthrowing a tyrannical government isn't just one of the options. It is your DUTY.

And that's not just a suggestion, it's a Federal Law. The first one ever passed in the United States. And just as valid and binding today, as any other Federal law.

The Declaration of Independence says it is your duty to overthrow a tyranical government. The Constitution gives citizens the tools. The primary tool to overthrow a tyranical government is not the second amendment like so many "second amendment remedy" advocate ....but the tools of a free press and a vote for every American

Those Constitutional tools have kept government in check for over 230 years

 

[rightwinger]

By extension, how is presenting an ID before voting an infringement on the right to vote?

It’s not the ‘presenting’ but the requirement to obtain an ID after a voter has already proven he’s eligible to vote when he registered.

Without an ID, how do you verify the person claiming to be the person on the voting roll is actually that person?
No one else has answered this question; perhaps you will step up to the plate.

Signature

 

[M14 Shooter]

How would registration infringe when no one is stopping your purchase?

It is a willful act of government to violate the 4th Amendment.

Amendment IV

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

Guess what My weapons falls under? I'll bet you don't even understand.

Nonsense.

If registration is the condition for purchase, you do not own it yet. Therefore, it's not part of your 'effects'.

I'm not exactly sure why you refuse to understand that registration/licensing of gun owners infringes on their right every bit as much as registering/licenseing women who have abortions infringes on their right, but whatever the reason, it only goes to support the idea that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[Fender]

It is a willful act of government to violate the 4th Amendment.

Guess what My weapons falls under? I'll bet you don't even understand.

Nonsense.

If registration is the condition for purchase, you do not own it yet. Therefore, it's not part of your 'effects'.

I'm not exactly sure why you refuse to understand that registration/licensing of gun owners infringes on their right every bit as much as registering/licenseing women who have abortions infringes on their right, but whatever the reason, it only goes to support the idea that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

So isn't registering your car infringing on your rights? What about having to get a SSN number to work? ...

 

[M14 Shooter]

What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?
The US army.

Not sure if this is abject ignornce or dishonesty.
Please let us know.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nonsense.

If registration is the condition for purchase, you do not own it yet. Therefore, it's not part of your 'effects'.

I'm not exactly sure why you refuse to understand that registration/licensing of gun owners infringes on their right every bit as much as registering/licenseing women who have abortions infringes on their right, but whatever the reason, it only goes to support the idea that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

So isn't registering your car infringing on your rights? What about having to get a SSN number to work? ...

Nothing your post negates the soundness of what I stated.
Please do try again.