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

[PredFan]

Molon Labe mother fuckers.

 

[emilynghiem]

"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?

Dear Wildman: It is equally part of Natural Law, that if you abuse your rights and freedoms to create a disruption of the peace, threatening or imposing on the rights of others, then yes, people naturally take action to obstruct protest or petition you to stop. You can lose your rights under law to the degree that you violate these same laws for others.

that is the law of reciprocity.

 

[Little-Acorn]

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


The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. Even if somebody proved somehow that it wasn't important, the Amendment would still say that the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government restricting or taking away your right to own and carry a gun.

.

 

[rightwinger]

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


The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. Even if somebody proved somehow that it wasn't important, the Amendment would still say that the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government restricting or taking away your right to own and carry a gun.

.

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

 

[Kondor3]

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


The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. Even if somebody proved somehow that it wasn't important, the Amendment would still say that the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government restricting or taking away your right to own and carry a gun.

.

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Look at it this way...

There are a thousand-and-one reasons why the citizenry wishes to keep their firearms...

The framers of the Constitution only enumerated the one that struck them as most pertinent at the time...

That does not mean that any of the other thousand-and-one reasons were not valid, as well...

The framers of the Constitution did not say: "The right of citizens to bear arms will continue to exist until such time as we get better organized and form more permanent militia units, after which, all citizens must turn-in their firearms."

The framers of the Constitution merely served up the reason that struck them as most immediately pressing at the time.

It was not an Exclusive reason; merely one of many.

The other thousand-and-one reasons remain extant, and as valid today, as 230 years ago.

You can't have the guns.

They're ours.

You can't take away our right to own guns.

That's ours too.

"No" means "no".

 

[Kondor3]

Molon Labe mother fuckers.

 

[Rozman]

So it's true...
It seems from the posts here from the lefties...
It has nothing to do with gun laws or regulations....

They just don't want Americans to have guns.....

They slipped up here and showed their true colors....

In the words of Al Sharpton who the left reveres....

Nice try.but we got ya!

 

[Little-Acorn]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

TRANSLATION: I can't refute what you said, but I hate it anyway. So I'll make up something silly that's obviously not even close to what the 2nd means, and pretend I have something to contribute, and hope somebody believes me instead of you.

 

[rightwinger]

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


The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. Even if somebody proved somehow that it wasn't important, the Amendment would still say that the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government restricting or taking away your right to own and carry a gun.

.

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Look at it this way...

There are a thousand-and-one reasons why the citizenry wishes to keep their firearms...

The framers of the Constitution only enumerated the one that struck them as most pertinent at the time...

That does not mean that any of the other thousand-and-one reasons were not valid, as well...

The framers of the Constitution did not say: "The right of citizens to bear arms will continue to exist until such time as we get better organized and form more permanent militia units, after which, all citizens must turn-in their firearms."

The framers of the Constitution merely served up the reason that struck them as most immediately pressing at the time.

It was not an Exclusive reason; merely one of many.

The other thousand-and-one reasons remain extant, and as valid today, as 230 years ago.

You can't have the guns.

They're ours.

You can't take away our right to own guns.

That's ours too.

"No" means "no".

If the founders wanted an absolute right to bear arms they would hav simply said.......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Yet, they chose to qualify it

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion were not qualified

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Look at it this way...

There are a thousand-and-one reasons why the citizenry wishes to keep their firearms...

The framers of the Constitution only enumerated the one that struck them as most pertinent at the time...

That does not mean that any of the other thousand-and-one reasons were not valid, as well...

The framers of the Constitution did not say: "The right of citizens to bear arms will continue to exist until such time as we get better organized and form more permanent militia units, after which, all citizens must turn-in their firearms."

The framers of the Constitution merely served up the reason that struck them as most immediately pressing at the time.

It was not an Exclusive reason; merely one of many.

The other thousand-and-one reasons remain extant, and as valid today, as 230 years ago.

You can't have the guns.

They're ours.

You can't take away our right to own guns.

That's ours too.

"No" means "no".

If the founders wanted an absolute right to bear arms they would hav simply said.......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Yet, they chose to qualify it

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion were not qualified

They did not qualify it. How many times must you be schooled on that. They simply listed a single reason, not the sole or only reason that they provided the citizenry the right to keep and bear arms. The well regulated militia does not limit nor restrict the right. An English professor already explained the meaning and the intent of the sentence as structured.

 

[Kondor3]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Look at it this way...

There are a thousand-and-one reasons why the citizenry wishes to keep their firearms...

The framers of the Constitution only enumerated the one that struck them as most pertinent at the time...

That does not mean that any of the other thousand-and-one reasons were not valid, as well...

The framers of the Constitution did not say: "The right of citizens to bear arms will continue to exist until such time as we get better organized and form more permanent militia units, after which, all citizens must turn-in their firearms."

The framers of the Constitution merely served up the reason that struck them as most immediately pressing at the time.

It was not an Exclusive reason; merely one of many.

The other thousand-and-one reasons remain extant, and as valid today, as 230 years ago.

You can't have the guns.

They're ours.

You can't take away our right to own guns.

That's ours too.

"No" means "no".

If the founders wanted an absolute right to bear arms they would hav simply said.......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Yet, they chose to qualify it

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion were not qualified

You are merely reading the absence of something explicit into the Constitution in an attempt to advance your Gun-Grabbing agenda.

Your interpretation is not - and will not be allowed to become - operative, and dominant.

Try as you might.

Again and again and again and again and again.

Every time you attempt to assault the Second Amendment as it is currently interpreted, you will be met with vast and fierce opposition that you cannot overcome.

We maintain a constant vigilance against you-and-yours; we're better organized, and we have tradition, custom-and-usage, and an already-operative interpretation of the US Constitution on our side.

Not to mention any power not articulated as the domain of the Federal government, automatically becoming the domain of the individual States; a final redoubt and fall-back position, just in case the Gun-Grabbers manage to circumvent the Second Amendment.

Bring it.

Again.

So you can be slapped down.

Again.

And again...

And again...

"No" means "no".

 

[Spoonman]

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

Why don't libs see what james Madison who wrote the 2nd amendment described it as? oh yea, he described it as a civilian militia, separate from the regular army to be led by leaders of their choosing. he goes on to describe this well regulated militia as being equal of greater in strength than the regular army, with the capabilities to defeat the regular army should the government ever attempt to use the regular army against the people.

now why do lwers continue to ignore the facts

 

[Spoonman]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Look at it this way...

There are a thousand-and-one reasons why the citizenry wishes to keep their firearms...

The framers of the Constitution only enumerated the one that struck them as most pertinent at the time...

That does not mean that any of the other thousand-and-one reasons were not valid, as well...

The framers of the Constitution did not say: "The right of citizens to bear arms will continue to exist until such time as we get better organized and form more permanent militia units, after which, all citizens must turn-in their firearms."

The framers of the Constitution merely served up the reason that struck them as most immediately pressing at the time.

It was not an Exclusive reason; merely one of many.

The other thousand-and-one reasons remain extant, and as valid today, as 230 years ago.

You can't have the guns.

They're ours.

You can't take away our right to own guns.

That's ours too.

"No" means "no".

If the founders wanted an absolute right to bear arms they would hav simply said.......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Yet, they chose to qualify it

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion were not qualified

actually, that is what they said

 

[Freewill]

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

Ignore what? It isn't the RW ignoring anything it is the left.

How can anyone from a militia without having a gun. The left wants to interpret the amendment to mean that a well regulated militia are the only ones that can have guns. That kind of thinking is EXACTLY why it is worded as it is. In order to be able to form a well regulated militia the people have to be armed, THAT can not be infringed. What ever the left thinks makes absolutely no sense. Like saying people can form a baseball team only they don't have the right to own balls, bats and gloves.

 

[Freewill]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Look at it this way...

There are a thousand-and-one reasons why the citizenry wishes to keep their firearms...

The framers of the Constitution only enumerated the one that struck them as most pertinent at the time...

That does not mean that any of the other thousand-and-one reasons were not valid, as well...

The framers of the Constitution did not say: "The right of citizens to bear arms will continue to exist until such time as we get better organized and form more permanent militia units, after which, all citizens must turn-in their firearms."

The framers of the Constitution merely served up the reason that struck them as most immediately pressing at the time.

It was not an Exclusive reason; merely one of many.

The other thousand-and-one reasons remain extant, and as valid today, as 230 years ago.

You can't have the guns.

They're ours.

You can't take away our right to own guns.

That's ours too.

"No" means "no".

If the founders wanted an absolute right to bear arms they would hav simply said.......The right to bear arms shall not be infringed

Yet, they chose to qualify it

Freedom of speech, freedom of the press and freedom of religion were not qualified

I am guessing there were liberals back then also. So when the framers said that in order to keep the government at bay the people need to the ability to form militias. In order to form militias the people need to have guns to do so. Not the people have to form militias so they can have guns but they have to have guns to form militias, that can not be infringed. I suppose they needed to spell it out for the thick headed liberals.

 

[Freewill]

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


The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. Even if somebody proved somehow that it wasn't important, the Amendment would still say that the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government restricting or taking away your right to own and carry a gun.

.

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

 

[rightwinger]

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


The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted. Even if somebody proved somehow that it wasn't important, the Amendment would still say that the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government restricting or taking away your right to own and carry a gun.

.

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

 

[Contumacious]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

Do you want to buy a bridge?

Brooklyn Bridge

.

 

[Kondor3]

Or what it really means....Since militias are no longer needed, we still want to keep our guns anyway

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

The Constitution (and all its Amendments, and our right to vote) will not mean shit, on the day that the government decides to arbitrarily set aside the Constitution, in whole or in part.

It is against that eventuality that the citizens' Right to Bear Arms must - and WILL - be sustained, against all comers, and all challengers, and all attempts to subvert or dilute that Right.

It does not even matter than an armed citizenry would be outgunned at the outbreak of any large-scale resistance or rebellion against some future tyranny; only that the citizenry is sufficiently equipped to commence resistance.

It does not matter that Gun-Grabbers (nor, indeed, Gun Owners themselves) believe that the advent of such a tyranny - requiring popular resistance - is likely or unlikely; merely that the contingency is already contemplated, and the citizenry equipped to resist; however imperfectly, until the Armed Forces themselves come over to the side of the Constitutionalists.

It only matters, that an Armed Citizenry exists, and that our Government and its Leadership du jour, must take that into account in its own calculations, generation after generation.

And, of course, beyond the macro-scale, are the thousand and one reasons why the citizenry wishes to possess firearms; each depending upon their locale and circumstances and the like.

We have tradition and custom-and-usage and an operative, existing and powerfully-backed interpretation of the Constitution and its Amendments on our side in this matter.

We are far better organized, and we can see Gun-Grabbers coming a mile off.

You cannot have the guns.

Each and every time you try to make a grab for them, we are going to bitch-slap you in the Legislative Chambers and in the Law Courts and in the Court of Public Opinion.

The guns are ours.

The Right to own them and use them are ours.

You cannot have them.

"No" means "no".

 

[rightwinger]

Who says they are not nor ever will be needed? Why would they have ever been needed? Even as early as the revolution there was a standing army.

They are not needed.

We have the strongest military in history to defend us.

If our government gets out of hand we have a stronger weapon than a militia.......we have a first amendment and the right to vote

Do you want to buy a bridge?

Brooklyn Bridge

.

I don't need one.......I have this