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

[Synthaholic]

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.

Like I said: no legal weight.

If it didn't make it into the Constitution, it's just a draft.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.



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

Not because that was the will of America. Just the opposite.

The vote was lost because of bought and paid for Congresscritters voting as their corporate masters ordered.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

.

^^^cannot refute my post.

 

[Fender]

Since you completely failed to address my post, I'll repeat myself:
Explain how registering women who have abortion infringes on the right to an abortion; then explain in the same terms how registering gun owners does NOT infringe on the right to arms.

Registering women who have an abortion doesn't infringe on the right to an abortion.

Why not?

They still get an abortion.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Irrelevant to background checks or gun registration, which do not equal tyranny.

Sorry!

 

[Fender]

Splitting hairs means to draw a fine line. There is no fine line between the army and the militia as they are, historically, legally, conceptually and constitutionally very different things.
Failure: yours.

Put another way...

No, there's no other way - you stated that the well-rgulated militia is the army.
You're wrong. Period.

What I'm saying is for TODAY, it's the army, otherwise, please explain who a civilian militia is going to fight and why? And please be realistic.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Put another way...

No, there's no other way - you stated that the well-rgulated militia is the army.
You're wrong. Period.

What I'm saying is for TODAY, it's the army,

It's not.
Not legally
Not historically
Not conceptually
Not constitutionally
You're wrong. Period.

 

[Synthaholic]

Splitting hairs means to draw a fine line. There is no fine line between the army and the militia as they are, historically, legally, conceptually and constitutionally very different things.
Failure: yours.

Put another way, the 2nd amendment was written in 1776. Please explain why a militia is needed today. Who ya gonna fight?

Do you know why the 2nd amendment was even written?????

I'm sure you think you do.

 

[Fender]

No, there's no other way - you stated that the well-rgulated militia is the army.
You're wrong. Period.

What I'm saying is for TODAY, it's the army,

It's not.
Not legally
Not historically
Not conceptually
Not constitutionally
You're wrong. Period.

The US army is made up of civilians, making them the civilian militia that protects citizens. Sorry, you just FUCKING LOST!!!!

But anyways, if it's not the US army that protects US citizens today, why do citizens need to organize into a militia? To fight whom? And you're saying that all gun owners are part of a militia?

 

[M14 Shooter]

What I'm saying is for TODAY, it's the army,

It's not.
Not legally
Not historically
Not conceptually
Not constitutionally
You're wrong. Period.

The US army is made up of civilians

Ths is either abject dishoesty or mind-numbing ignorance.
Either way, it's prima facie evidence that you need not be taken seriously.

 

[Fender]

It's not.
Not legally
Not historically
Not conceptually
Not constitutionally
You're wrong. Period.

The US army is made up of civilians

Ths is either abject dishoesty or mind-numbing ignorance.
Either way, it's prima facie evidence that you need not be taken seriously.

So why is the US army not made up of civilians? Don't people start out life as a civilian and then join the army, or are some people born as non-civilians?

But anyways, if it's not the US army that protects US citizens today, why do citizens need to organize into a militia? To fight whom? And you're saying that all gun owners are part of a militia?

 

[M14 Shooter]

The US army is made up of civilians

Ths is either abject dishoesty or mind-numbing ignorance.
Either way, it's prima facie evidence that you need not be taken seriously.

So why is the US army not made up of civilians?

Really, dude - you're embarassing yourself. Admit you're wrong and move on.
Civilian | Define Civilian at Dictionary.com

 

[Fender]

Ths is either abject dishoesty or mind-numbing ignorance.
Either way, it's prima facie evidence that you need not be taken seriously.

So why is the US army not made up of civilians?

Really, dude - you're embarassing yourself. Admit you're wrong and move on.
Civilian | Define Civilian at Dictionary.com

From your link: "of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians."

You lost again.

So what militia are you part of?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So why is the US army not made up of civilians?

Really, dude - you're embarassing yourself. Admit you're wrong and move on.
Civilian | Define Civilian at Dictionary.com

From your link: "of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians."

Interesting, and yet unsurprising, that you deliberately missed:

a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

Thank youi for making it clear that I need not waste any more time on you.

 

[Fender]

Really, dude - you're embarassing yourself. Admit you're wrong and move on.
Civilian | Define Civilian at Dictionary.com

From your link: "of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians."

Interesting, and yet unsurprising, that you deliberately missed:

a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

Thank youi for making it clear that I need not waste any more time on you.

So what militia are you part of?

 

[M14 Shooter]

From your link: "of, pertaining to, formed by, or administered by civilians."

Interesting, and yet unsurprising, that you deliberately missed:

a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

Thank youi for making it clear that I need not waste any more time on you.

So what militia are you part of?

"I was, wrong, M14 -- the army is -not- the 'well-regulated militia' in any way shape or form".
G'head - you say it now.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Very good points. Virtually no compelling argument can be mounted against them.
Of course liberal rationalization is neither compelling or based on fact.

 

[thereisnospoon]

You think it's "sound" to equate gun registration with registering women who have abortions? Oh brother!

Explain how registering women who have abortion infringes on the right to an abortion; then explain in the same terms how registering gun owners does NOT infringe on the right to arms.

Registering a car doesn't infringe on the right to own a car. Same with a gun. Also, prohibiting certain guns doesn't mean that you can't own ANY gun, it's like a car, ordinary citizens aren't allowed to take an F1 car on the highway, but that doesn't mean that you can't take ANY car on the highway.

Stop mixing in unrelated matters into the discussion.

 

[Fender]

Interesting, and yet unsurprising, that you deliberately missed:

a person who is not on active duty with a military, naval, police, or fire fighting organization.

Thank youi for making it clear that I need not waste any more time on you.

So what militia are you part of?

"I was, wrong, M14 -- the army is -not- the 'well-regulated militia' in any way shape or form".
G'head - you say it now.

The 2nd amendment only applies if you're in a militia. Apparently, you're not.

The US army is made up of civilians who join up. And it's run by a civilian, the prez. Go back to bed, you're having a bad day.

 

[boedicca]

So what militia are you part of?

"I was, wrong, M14 -- the army is -not- the 'well-regulated militia' in any way shape or form".
G'head - you say it now.

The 2nd amendment only applies if you're in a militia. Apparently, you're not.

The US army is made up of civilians who join up. And it's run by a civilian, the prez. Go back to bed, you're having a bad day.

Uh. No it doesn't. There is nothing in the 2nd Amendment which makes being part of a militia a precondition for gun ownership.