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

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is a lie, or abject ignorance.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

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.

Since it is clear you do not possess the intellectual honesty to admit you are wrong, there's no chance of you having an honest discussion - and so, there's no reason to discuss anything further. Into the pit.

 

[Fender]

"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.

"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". You want me to translate this into English for you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Requiring ID does not in and of itself does not 'presume' fraud.
It is prevention.
With the requirement of ID to cast a vote, there is no 'restriction' as when the person registered, they were required to present a valid ID. There is no compelling reason, no logical reason why ID cannot be presented at the time when one wishes to cast a ballot.
Presenting ID insures the integrity of the vote.
The concern over 'inconvenience' or the liberal buzz term applied to the issue 'disenfranchisement' is nil. It's 'cause'. A liberal cause.

 

[Meister]

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.

"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". You want me to translate this into English for you?

Read it and weep, tool. You are getting your ass handed to you and bitchslapped at the same time, and you don't even know it. Now move along.

 

[Wyatt earp]

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?

You still can not figure out Army and militia are not the same? go watch that mel gibson movie: Patriot, maybe you will get a clue.

 

[rightwinger]

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.

"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". You want me to translate this into English for you?

We need to register all of our gun owners so that they may be part of a well regulated militia

 

[OODA_Loop]

I am part of the militia set forth by my State Constitution.

 

[Wyatt earp]

North Carolina Citizen Militia

Given the rapid political changes occurring in our country, it appears that the unorganized militia will be needed to provide for the personal and collective security of its citizens, and the preservation of our Constitution and republican form of government. To that end, our forefathershave entrusted us with the ability, means, and the obligation to preserve it.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

Moron, the Supreme Court ruled that as written the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, separate and distinct with no requirement to belong to a Militia. Do try and keep up?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

"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". You want me to translate this into English for you?

You need to relearn English, the Courts have ruled that the 2nd provides an Individual right separate of belonging to a militia. It is aright of the people and no requirement is needed to exercise that right. If you actually understood the English language you would understand why.

 

[Wyatt earp]

NC Governor Signs Militia Law

Do you live in North Carolina? Did you know that you are a member of the Militia? The Governor of North Carolina recently signed House Bill 250, which updated the laws that govern the Militia of North Carolina.

“§ 127A‑7. Composition of unorganized militia. The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and such all other able‑bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

Unfortunately for those anti-gun types who dispute that the Militia exists, and that it includes much more than the National Guard, this law confirms that each and every able bodied adult citizens of North Carolina, minus a few exceptions, are members of the Militia.

 

[Wyatt earp]

"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.

Moron, the Supreme Court ruled that as written the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, separate and distinct with no requirement to belong to a Militia. Do try and keep up?

And to prove you are right..............Again...... this hast to be posted
Second Amendment | Law Library of Congress

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense

 

[Kondor3]

NC Governor Signs Militia Law

Do you live in North Carolina? Did you know that you are a member of the Militia? The Governor of North Carolina recently signed House Bill 250, which updated the laws that govern the Militia of North Carolina.

“§ 127A‑7. Composition of unorganized militia. The unorganized militia shall consist of all other able bodied citizens of the State and of the United States and such all other able‑bodied persons who have or shall declare their intention to become citizens of the United States, who shall be at least 17 years of age, except those who have been convicted of a felony or discharged from any component of the military under other than honorable conditions.

Unfortunately for those anti-gun types who dispute that the Militia exists, and that it includes much more than the National Guard, this law confirms that each and every able bodied adult citizens of North Carolina, minus a few exceptions, are members of the Militia.

Absa-flippin'-lutely brilliant... ... lovely... just too damned funny!

 

[Synthaholic]

"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.

Moron, the Supreme Court ruled that as written the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, separate and distinct with no requirement to belong to a Militia. Do try and keep up?

SCOTUS has ruled a lot of things. They ruled that abortion is legal, yet states are legislating abortion clinics out of operation.

 

[Spoonman]

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.

Moron, the Supreme Court ruled that as written the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, separate and distinct with no requirement to belong to a Militia. Do try and keep up?

SCOTUS has ruled a lot of things. They ruled that abortion is legal, yet states are legislating abortion clinics out of operation.

good god, you sure flap your gums about a lot of nothing. face it, the intent on the second amendment is well documented in the federalist papers. the states ratified the amendment based on the information provided in the federalist papers. what have you offered? oh yea, your opinion

 

[rightwinger]

Moron, the Supreme Court ruled that as written the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, separate and distinct with no requirement to belong to a Militia. Do try and keep up?

SCOTUS has ruled a lot of things. They ruled that abortion is legal, yet states are legislating abortion clinics out of operation.

good god, you sure flap your gums about a lot of nothing. face it, the intent on the second amendment is well documented in the federalist papers. the states ratified the amendment based on the information provided in the federalist papers. what have you offered? oh yea, your opinion

Federalist Papers are not legally binding. If so, they would be part of the Constitution.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

How anyone can misinterpret "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed", is a fucking mystery.

Newsflash...Until 38 States vote to repeal the 2nd Amendment or expunge those words, all of your liberal panty wetting isn't going to matter except to require the use of a wash machine.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

You still can not figure out Army and militia are not the same? go watch that mel gibson movie: Patriot, maybe you will get a clue.

Like many on the anti-gun side, he is deliberately wrong.
There's no sense in talking to these people.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

Moron, the Supreme Court ruled that as written the 2nd Amendment conveys an INDIVIDUAL RIGHT, separate and distinct with no requirement to belong to a Militia. Do try and keep up?

SCOTUS has ruled a lot of things. They ruled that abortion is legal, yet states are legislating abortion clinics out of operation.

Because Roe v Wade held specifically that the state has a compelling interest to regulate/limit abortion.
Clearly, you did not know this.

 

[Spoonman]

SCOTUS has ruled a lot of things. They ruled that abortion is legal, yet states are legislating abortion clinics out of operation.

good god, you sure flap your gums about a lot of nothing. face it, the intent on the second amendment is well documented in the federalist papers. the states ratified the amendment based on the information provided in the federalist papers. what have you offered? oh yea, your opinion

Federalist Papers are not legally binding. If so, they would be part of the Constitution.

no but they were the documents Madison, Jefferson, Hamilton and all used to sell the amendments to the states so they would ratify them. and they did. in these documents they clearly stated what the intent of each amendment was and discussion on why they were beneficial to approve. they are the words of the framers discussing the intent of the amendments. and that is a lot better information then your biased opinions of what you think was on there minds 220 years ago. you have no clue what they were thinking, what their situations were, what they had experienced that drove them to author those amendments. they had the good sense to document it all for us so we know exactly what their intent was