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

[Wry Catcher]

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

We don't ignore it, the 2nd provides two distinct rights. One to the States to maintain militias at their discretion and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

You on the other hand like to claim incorrectly that there is only one right and that it belongs to the States.

The Second is vague and ambiguous. Article I, Sec. 8 is clear:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

 

[PratchettFan]

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

It means the states have the right to maintain armed forces made up of their citizens. In order to maintain that, citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. One can make the argument that this is no longer necessary, but that does not change the law. If you think the law needs to be changed, then an amendment is needed. Until that time, the argument is pointless.

 

[Wry Catcher]

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

it means every citizen should be required to undergo firearms training

Sent from my XT1080 using Tapatalk

Another 'idea' clearly thought out (not).

If John W. Hinckley Jr had been trained as suggested by CrusaderFrank the Republican Messiah, Ronald Reagan, would have been shot dead.

 

[Kondor3]

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

We don't ignore it, the 2nd provides two distinct rights. One to the States to maintain militias at their discretion and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

You on the other hand like to claim incorrectly that there is only one right and that it belongs to the States.

The Second is vague and ambiguous. Article I, Sec. 8 is clear:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the M
ilitia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Again, the Founding Fathers merely articulated the single reason that was uppermost in their minds, as the rationale for providing an Armed Citizenry.

But that articulation was not exclusive, nor did it negate any other UN-articulated reason, of the many, many reasons that the citizenry might wish to bear arms.

The citizen Militia rationale was only one of many; it was merely the one that the Founding Fathers saw fit to formally incorporate into the Charter.

The absence of other rationale in the Charter does not mean that those other rationale do not exist nor does it serve to invalidate them.

If there were a thousand-and-one reasons for sustaining an armed citizenry at the time of the adoption of the Constitution...

And if the need for a citizen-militia has been obsoleted by the development of a National Guard and such...

Then that only obsoletes ONE of those thousand-and-one reasons...

The rest remain extant and every bit as valid today as they were 230 years ago...

You cannot have our guns...

Get used to disappointment...

You are in for a lifetime of it, as you continue to bang your head against the US Constitution, and our Right to Bear Arms.

"No" means "no".

 

[soonerthunder22]

guns for everyone!

 

[Kondor3]

guns for everyone!

More like: "Guns for anyone who wants them, who passes muster for licensing and registration, in a nation strengthened by a sane, rational, nationwide firearms licensing scheme."

 

[Spoonman]

The founding fathers, common citizens, overthrew a tyranical government and their regular army. They fully understood the need for citizens to be armed. They fully understood the need for the citizens to be able to rise up and challenge the government and its army when that government became tyranical or stopped being the government of the people, for the people and by the people.

They understood this so well, they created the 2nd amendment.

 

[Spoonman]

We don't ignore it, the 2nd provides two distinct rights. One to the States to maintain militias at their discretion and the individual right to keep and bear arms.

You on the other hand like to claim incorrectly that there is only one right and that it belongs to the States.

The Second is vague and ambiguous. Article I, Sec. 8 is clear:

"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the M
ilitia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

Again, the Founding Fathers merely articulated the single reason that was uppermost in their minds, as the rationale for providing an Armed Citizenry.

But that articulation was not exclusive, nor did it negate any other UN-articulated reason, of the many, many reasons that the citizenry might wish to bear arms.

The citizen Militia rationale was only one of many; it was merely the one that the Founding Fathers saw fit to formally incorporate into the Charter.

The absence of other rationale in the Charter does not mean that those other rationale do not exist nor does it serve to invalidate them.

If there were a thousand-and-one reasons for sustaining an armed citizenry at the time of the adoption of the Constitution...

And if the need for a citizen-militia has been obsoleted by the development of a National Guard and such...

Then that only obsoletes ONE of those thousand-and-one reasons...

The rest remain extant and every bit as valid today as they were 230 years ago...

You cannot have our guns...

Get used to disappointment...

You are in for a lifetime of it, as you continue to bang your head against the US Constitution, and our Right to Bear Arms.

"No" means "no".

totally wrong. the national guard is still an army controlled by the government. not the citizenry

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

 

[Contumacious]

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

HUH?


Isn't that what Dianne Feinstein(D-USSR) & Co call toilet paper?

.

 

[rightwinger]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

The Founders were a Progressive Government

 

[Kondor3]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

The Founders were a Progressive Government

The Founders were a revolutionary Unity government, incorporating large elements of Conservative AND Progressive sentiments and partisanship.

After a long, dark night of monarchical tyranny, mostly, they were looking to empower their citizenry, not constrain it...

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

The Founders were a Progressive Government

The Founders were Libertarians.

Nice try, Groucho

 

[Vandalshandle]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

Actually, the founders supported an armed citizenship because they preferred not to spend government money to stockpile weapons.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

Actually, the founders supported an armed citizenship because they preferred not to spend government money to stockpile weapons.

Um, no. They studied history and knew that unchecked power leads to tyranny and mass murder

 

[Kondor3]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

Actually, the founders supported an armed citizenship because they preferred not to spend government money to stockpile weapons.

That is almost certainly true.

It was not articulated in the Constitution as a primary motive for doing so, but that does not negate the truth of the observation.

That is not the ONLY reason, of course, but it was certainly ONE of them, and, in all probability, one of the leading reasons.

 

[PratchettFan]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

Actually, the founders supported an armed citizenship because they preferred not to spend government money to stockpile weapons.

The reasoning does not matter. The fact is the second amendment exists. The FF's did have the foresight to place within the Constitution a process by which it could be amended. That is the only way there is going to be any significant change.

 

[Kondor3]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

Actually, the founders supported an armed citizenship because they preferred not to spend government money to stockpile weapons.

Um, no. They studied history and knew that unchecked power leads to tyranny and mass murder

That is ALSO almost certainly true.

It wasn't specifically articulated in the Constitution that way, but that does not negate the truth of it.

 

[Bush92]

It actually leans toward a National Guard, but the right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied (individual gun owners). The Congress must provide a national defense = active duty Armed Forces. Sounds like brother Malcolm is still pissed over the way he went out back in the 1960's.

 

[Kondor3]

The Founders supported an armed citizenry because knew that a Progressive government and unarmed citizens always leads to mass murder

Actually, the founders supported an armed citizenship because they preferred not to spend government money to stockpile weapons.

The reasoning does not matter. The fact is the second amendment exists. The FF's did have the foresight to place within the Constitution a process by which it could be amended. That is the only way there is going to be any significant change.

Ladies and gentlemen... we have a winner...