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

[regent]

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

Federalist Papers were letters to the editor written by people that wouldn't even sign their real names. Their legal force is about the same as the posts and arguments on these boards. Jefferson was not involved in the Federalist Papers, Jefferson was in France.
The Federalist Papers were also concerned with the ratification of the Constitution and had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, accept for a promise. Ratification of the constitution occurred in the spring of 1788 and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

As written the 2nd says that it is an individual right to keep and bear arms, all the first part does is convey one of the reasons why that was so. And to ensure the Federal Government could not outlaw States militia.

Learn fucking English.

 

[Spoonman]

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

Federalist Papers were letters to the editor written by people that wouldn't even sign their real names. Their legal force is about the same as the posts and arguments on these boards. Jefferson was not involved in the Federalist Papers, Jefferson was in France.
The Federalist Papers were also concerned with the ratification of the Constitution and had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, accept for a promise. Ratification of the constitution occurred in the spring of 1788 and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

yea sure, which is why in federalist 84 Hamilton specifically discusses why he feels there is no need for the bill of rights. I mean, because the papers had nothing to do with the bill of rights.

 

[regent]

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

Federalist Papers were letters to the editor written by people that wouldn't even sign their real names. Their legal force is about the same as the posts and arguments on these boards. Jefferson was not involved in the Federalist Papers, Jefferson was in France.
The Federalist Papers were also concerned with the ratification of the Constitution and had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, accept for a promise. Ratification of the constitution occurred in the spring of 1788 and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

yea sure, which is why in federalist 84 Hamilton specifically discusses why he feels there is no need for the bill of rights. I mean, because the papers had nothing to do with the bill of rights.

A Bill of Rights was suggested at the end of the convention but it was voted down. Most felt the constitution itself was a bill of rights and needed no further support. But to get the Antifederalists to ratify, the Federalists promised to support a Bill after the constitution took affect. The Federalists did keep their promise and a Bill of Rights was introduced and passed a few years later. As I said the Papers had no legal force but only show some insight into the thoughts of some of the framers. A better argument for you would have been the Supreme Court have used the Federalist Papers to gain some of that insight.

 

[Spoonman]

Federalist Papers were letters to the editor written by people that wouldn't even sign their real names. Their legal force is about the same as the posts and arguments on these boards. Jefferson was not involved in the Federalist Papers, Jefferson was in France.
The Federalist Papers were also concerned with the ratification of the Constitution and had nothing to do with the Bill of Rights, accept for a promise. Ratification of the constitution occurred in the spring of 1788 and the Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791.

yea sure, which is why in federalist 84 Hamilton specifically discusses why he feels there is no need for the bill of rights. I mean, because the papers had nothing to do with the bill of rights.

A Bill of Rights was suggested at the end of the convention but it was voted down. Most felt the constitution itself was a bill of rights and needed no further support. But to get the Antifederalists to ratify, the Federalists promised to support a Bill after the constitution took affect. The Federalists did keep their promise and a Bill of Rights was introduced and passed a few years later. As I said the Papers had no legal force but only show some insight into the thoughts of some of the framers. A better argument for you would have been the Supreme Court have used the Federalist Papers to gain some of that insight.

and what I said was the federalist papers where the framers discussing the intent of the amendments. Madison specifically spoke of the 2nd amendment and how he saw it apply to provide protection of the people against the federal government. his intent was that the public where armed, armed with the same capacity as a central army and regulated by themselves, not the government. his intent was in direct opposition to every liberal interpretation being thrown out here

 

[Fender]

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.

The NG fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US army, thank you for proving my point. M14, you can take another swig of 'shine.

 

[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.

The NG fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US army, thank you for proving my point. M14, you can take another swig of 'shine.

m14???? you can lead a horse to water, but you sure can not make him drink.....

 

[Fender]

NC Governor Signs Militia Law

The NG fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US army, thank you for proving my point. M14, you can take another swig of 'shine.

m14???? you can lead a horse to water, but you sure can not make him drink.....

I know it was you bear, M14 still probably needs another swig.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NC Governor Signs Militia Law

The NG fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US army, thank you for proving my point. M14, you can take another swig of 'shine.

m14???? you can lead a horse to water, but you sure can not make him drink.....

Like I said -- there's no reason to discuss anything with someone who chooses to be wrong.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

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.

The NG fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US army, thank you for proving my point. M14, you can take another swig of 'shine.

You are beyond stupid.

 

[poet]

The NG fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US army, thank you for proving my point. M14, you can take another swig of 'shine.

m14???? you can lead a horse to water, but you sure can not make him drink.....

I know it was you bear, M14 still probably needs another swig.

Fender Fender is offline
Banned

My Racist Encounter at... 05-09-2013 06:50 AM Fender dumb ******, lol.

"nuff said.

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

True enough, they are considered "persuasive authority" regarding the meaning and purpose of portions of the Constitution.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "

--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

 

[legaleagle_45]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

I do not ignore it.

A well regulated militia is a military unit composed of civilians drawn from the community from which they serve who have been trained so that they are an effective fighting force.

Well regulated is an adjective that generally means that it is properly functioning and when describing a military unit, such as a militia it refers to one which has been properly trained so as to be an effective fighting force.

Militia refers to a a military unit composed of civiliains drawn from the local community, who serve on a part time basis while retaining their civilian occupations and places of residence. Oft times referred to as "weekend warriors" who train one weekend a month plus a week or so in the summer.

So putting it all together we have:

A well regulated militia is a military unit composed of civilians drawn from the community from which they serve who have been trained so that they are an effective fighting force.

Any other questions?

 

[Wyatt earp]

The NG fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US army, thank you for proving my point. M14, you can take another swig of 'shine.

m14???? you can lead a horse to water, but you sure can not make him drink.....

I know it was you bear, M14 still probably needs another swig.

Lol, ok..... I own a gun but think its ok to have gun laws and I know you could be confused to think militia and army are the same. but they really are not the same. In the past you had a standing Army and farmers with muskets who just organized {militia} and were pissed off. thats what I always thought....

 

[Wyatt earp]

The NG fought in Iraq and Afghanistan in the US army, thank you for proving my point. M14, you can take another swig of 'shine.

m14???? you can lead a horse to water, but you sure can not make him drink.....

Like I said -- there's no reason to discuss anything with someone who chooses to be wrong.

Yea I know but it is so fun.... to slam them with facts and all they can come at you is with opinions.

 

[rightwinger]

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

True enough, they are considered "persuasive authority" regarding the meaning and purpose of portions of the Constitution.

"The opinion of the Federalist has always been considered as of great authority. It is a complete commentary on our Constitution, and is appealed to by all parties in the questions to which that instrument has given birth. . . . "

--- The U.S. Supreme Court in Cohens v. Virginia (1821)

"always"?

From 1821?

 

[legaleagle_45]

"always"?

From 1821?

Well obviously what SCOTUS meant was from the date the Federalist Papers were written, which was primarily in late 1787 to early 1788... so 1788 onwards. That work for you? And don't blame me for the wording, it is a direct quote from a SCOTUS opinion entitled Cohens v. Virginia which was decided in 1821.

 

[Spoonman]

 

[Wildman]

"The 2nd amendment says your right to KBA cannot be taken away or restricted, whether you're in any kind of military group or not, or even if all the militias ceased to exist this minute.

(How many times has this been explained, in this very thread?)"


Where does it say that?

soooo, in other words you are saying the first amdt. can also be stripped from an individual ?

do not forget to read this: A Well Regulated Militia?

 

[emilynghiem]

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.

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.

No, but the PEOPLE of a district or state, in wanting to ensure that firearms are used for defending the Constitution, could agree AMONGST THEMSELVES that oaths and training should be administered to citizens bearing arms, the same as officers are trained and sworn. This can come from the people who agree to their own Constitutional standards, and not imposed by govt outside their mutual agreement, which they can write into local ordinance (or pass state or federal laws if they agree to authorize govt in some areas)