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

[boedicca]

In the era in which the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant properly functioning or operating.

 

[Wyatt earp]

They cannot explain the well-regulated part, and they also cannot show where gun owners have a privacy right pertaining to their guns.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court settled that issue, You do recall they ruled that the 2nd does in fact provide an individual right separate and distinct from belonging to an organized militia?

Just like coprations have personhood rights, its all a matter of who is sitting on the court, lets just hope the court get a tiny bit more libral and then we can have resonable gun control.

You can have gun laws, just pass it by the Senate and house. The Supremes.dont make laws. Anyways Roe vs wade was decided by a right leaning supremes so dont get your hopes up.

 

[freedombecki]

Traditional knowledge needs no explanation.

You can't have our guns. Period.

Wow.

Profound, huh.

 

[freedombecki]

They cannot explain the well-regulated part, and they also cannot show where gun owners have a privacy right pertaining to their guns.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court settled that issue, You do recall they ruled that the 2nd does in fact provide an individual right separate and distinct from belonging to an organized militia?

Just like coprations have personhood rights, its all a matter of who is sitting on the court, lets just hope the court get a tiny bit more libral and then we can have resonable gun control.

Do coprations come in a pull-tab can?

 

[boedicca]

Cop-Rations?

I think you find those at Dunkin' Donuts.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

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.

/Thread

 

[BlindBoo]

They cannot explain the well-regulated part, and they also cannot show where gun owners have a privacy right pertaining to their guns.

Sorry, but the Supreme Court settled that issue, You do recall they ruled that the 2nd does in fact provide an individual right separate and distinct from belonging to an organized militia?

It's settled for now. Recall that the Dred/Scott decision settled the slavery/property issue too.

As for the orignal OP's question. Well regulated meant at the time well-trained in marching, drilling and the basics of warfare of the day.

With only a standing Navy, the various State militias were the grunts of their day. They were the security of the nation. To be called into service by the president. Mostly White Male citizens (land owners). They needed the right to keep their weapon at home so they wouldn't have to report to some distant armory to arm themselves in case of an attack.

 

[freedombecki]

Cop-Rations?

I think you find those at Dunkin' Donuts.

Now that's a weighty discussion topic.

 

[Politico]

You hate guns....and white people. We get it.

 

[boedicca]

Cop-Rations?

I think you find those at Dunkin' Donuts.

Now that's a weighty discussion topic.

Indeed. Especially if the coprations are chocolate glazed old fashions.

 

[Little-Acorn]

You can have gun laws, just pass it by the Senate and house.

It's somehow inevitable that, when the leftist fanatics get desperate enough, they will tell us that a 51% vote in Congress can overrule a Constitutional provision... as long as the issue is one that leftists want.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

You can have gun laws, just pass it by the Senate and house.

It's somehow inevitable that, when the leftist fanatics get desperate enough, they will tell us that a 51% vote in Congress can overrule a Constitutional provision... as long as the issue is one that leftists want.

The Constitution doesn't say we can't have gun laws.

 

[boedicca]

The Constitution does say that the right to own a gun shall not be "infringed" upon by such laws.

 

[Intense]

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.

What are the words that identifies and separates the individual rights from the "Well regulated militia's?"

The Right To Bear Arms.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You can have gun laws, just pass it by the Senate and house.

It's somehow inevitable that, when the leftist fanatics get desperate enough, they will tell us that a 51% vote in Congress can overrule a Constitutional provision... as long as the issue is one that leftists want.

The Constitution doesn't say we can't have gun laws.

You can have whatever gun laws/regulations you want, so long as they do not infringe on the right of the people to keeep and bear arms.

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to an abortion, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to go to church, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to report the news, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to vote, would that right be infringed?
If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to free speech, would that right be infringed?

If we taxed, licensed, registered, delayed, subjected prior restraint, and otherwise arbitrarily limited the right to keep and bear arms, would that right be infringed?

Do try to be honest.

 

[Kondor3]

The Second Amendment utilized the need for a well-regulated militia, in order to justify allowing individual citizens to keep firearms in their homes.

But that was only the rationale du jour, and we have 230+ years of Custom and Usage and Supportive Interpretations by the Supreme Court and Congress and there are also Other Purposes for maintaining individual firearms, above and beyond those explicitly stipulated by the Second.

If the right of individuals to keep firearms was born out of the Second, it also took on a life of its own, metaphorically speaking, and, even sans Militia Rationale, is now a right both de jure and de facto.

I'm no legal scholar but it seems a good guess that an excellent case can be made by skilled and knowledgeable Constitutional Law professionals, to reinforce whatever weak spot that Gun Grabbers believe might exist in the Constitution, with respect to private firearms ownership.

I mean, after all, one juicy rationalization deserves another...

 

[BlindBoo]

The Constitution does say that the right to own a gun shall not be "infringed" upon by such laws.

The 2nd is not that specific. It says Arms, not guns.

 

[MarcATL]

In the era in which the Constitution was written, "well regulated" meant properly functioning or operating.

You should be able to provide a citation for this statement.

 

[boedicca]

The Constitution does say that the right to own a gun shall not be "infringed" upon by such laws.

The 2nd is not that specific. It says Arms, not guns.

Oh. So I guess that means the government cannot forcibly amputate a person's arms.

Thanks for clearing that up.

 

[MarcATL]

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

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.

/Thread

How'd did you calculate that one bub?