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

[Wry Catcher]

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".

mmm ... if there were some truth to your assertion, that there are many other militias, wouldn't this phrase have been differently written: " "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, ..."? It seems the author and signers of the Constitution would have modified "the Militia" in some manner, suggesting other militias existed.

I doubt very much they defined a militia as they existed this year at the Bundy 'Ranch'; in fact today's Militia looks an awful lot like the backwoods farmers who revolted in 1794 over taxes (Whiskey Rebellion).

If the intent of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the militia, wouldn't the bold section have been cut out entirely?

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.

 

[rightwinger]

That is correct.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who first suggested a graduated income tax and Jefferson health care.

.

Even better....he advocated "All men are created equal"

Something Conservatives fight against

actually its liberals who keep reenforcing some of you are less equal than others. and because you are less equal we will legislate things like affirmative action to get you jobs we don't believe you can get on your own. We will keep you flush in entitlements since you remain uneducated and obviously can't make it on your own. We will support you being low information voters, as long as you keep voting for us

Affirmative action was a major success. Nearly every American benefitted in some way from the program

 

[Rozman]

Which is it ?
All men are created equal...
Unless you're black,then you get affirmitive action!

What up wid dat?

 

[Wry Catcher]

Which is it ?
All men are created equal...
Unless you're black,then you get affirmitive action!

What up wid dat?

God created man (maybe); man created bigotry and prejudice (for sure).

Do you doubt American citizens were denied equal opportunities because of their skin color, ethnicity, race or religion? Do you understand what AA was and why it is necessary? Do you know that AA protects more than blacks - suggesting otherwise suggests you're either very ignorant or prejudiced against people you don't know solely because of their skin color.

 

[rightwinger]

Which is it ?
All men are created equal...
Unless you're black,then you get affirmitive action!

What up wid dat?

Affirmative action did enormous benefit to both minorities and women to prove that they were capable of doing "White mans jobs"

 

[DiamondDave]

Even better....he advocated "All men are created equal"

Something Conservatives fight against

actually its liberals who keep reenforcing some of you are less equal than others. and because you are less equal we will legislate things like affirmative action to get you jobs we don't believe you can get on your own. We will keep you flush in entitlements since you remain uneducated and obviously can't make it on your own. We will support you being low information voters, as long as you keep voting for us

Affirmative action was a major success. Nearly every American benefitted in some way from the program

A success in terms of going against equality in treatment by government under law

 

[rightwinger]

actually its liberals who keep reenforcing some of you are less equal than others. and because you are less equal we will legislate things like affirmative action to get you jobs we don't believe you can get on your own. We will keep you flush in entitlements since you remain uneducated and obviously can't make it on your own. We will support you being low information voters, as long as you keep voting for us

Affirmative action was a major success. Nearly every American benefitted in some way from the program

A success in terms of going against equality in treatment by government under law

Well as long as that equality in treatment benefitted white, christian males, I guess everything was just fine

In reality, we had set up both legal and cultural obstacles to anyone who was not white,christian and male succeeding in our society. Affirmative action broke down those obstacles

Yes, it was legal

 

[DiamondDave]

Affirmative action was a major success. Nearly every American benefitted in some way from the program

A success in terms of going against equality in treatment by government under law

Well as long as that equality in treatment benefitted white, christian males, I guess everything was just fine

In reality, we had set up both legal and cultural obstacles to anyone who was not white,christian and male succeeding in our society. Affirmative action broke down those obstacles

Yes, it was legal

The result is on the individual.. the treatment by government should be equal, under law... period.. but your want of pandering for your selected groups, to ensure unequal treatment when it benefits you or your cause is ok... yet you will scream for equality in treatment when it also benefits you and your cause...

The difference is, I always call for equality in treatment by government under law.. without exception

 

[M14 Shooter]

If the intent of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the militia, wouldn't the bold section have been cut out entirely?

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.

Why do you refuse to accept that your interpretation of the 2nd is wrong?

 

[Spoonman]

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".

mmm ... if there were some truth to your assertion, that there are many other militias, wouldn't this phrase have been differently written: " "To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, ..."? It seems the author and signers of the Constitution would have modified "the Militia" in some manner, suggesting other militias existed.

I doubt very much they defined a militia as they existed this year at the Bundy 'Ranch'; in fact today's Militia looks an awful lot like the backwoods farmers who revolted in 1794 over taxes (Whiskey Rebellion).

If the intent of the Second Amendment had nothing to do with the militia, wouldn't the bold section have been cut out entirely?

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.

james madison was very clear in what the original intent was in his documentation to the other framers trying to gain their support. They obviously got it and ratified the bill of rights. why are libs so slow on the uptake?

 

[Spoonman]

Even better....he advocated "All men are created equal"

Something Conservatives fight against

actually its liberals who keep reenforcing some of you are less equal than others. and because you are less equal we will legislate things like affirmative action to get you jobs we don't believe you can get on your own. We will keep you flush in entitlements since you remain uneducated and obviously can't make it on your own. We will support you being low information voters, as long as you keep voting for us

Affirmative action was a major success. Nearly every American benefitted in some way from the program

yea, got yo love all those unqualified individuals filling civil service jobs today. i saw a great one today. I was walking to a meeting in another building today. i see two guys beating the shit out of each other in front of a restaurant. an obviously qualified affrimative action cop is standing on the corner texting. didn't even notice or care about what was going on. another good one. a month ago some affirmative acton traffic cop stops traffic heading east west to let an abbulance go through. while the ambulance is going through the light changes. pedesrians are now crossing the street with the walk light. dumbass with out looking waves east west traffic back on. car heading east hits a pedestrian, car behing care heading east hits him in the ass as he stops. chalk a few up for affirmative action.

 

[Vandalshandle]

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.

.

So, you are saying that the Constitution should be reworded to more accurately reflect your interpretation of it.

 

[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.

.

So, you are saying that the Constitution should be reworded to more accurately reflect your interpretation of it.

No need, given that both the traditional and operative interpretation of The Second is held to say pretty much that exact thing.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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.

Two distinct rights - one independent clause.

Got it.

 

[OohPooPahDoo]

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 words "the right of the people"

You'll notice it does not say "the people who are members of the militia"

Isn't any armed U.S. Citizen a member of the informal militia? Wasn't it the idea, at the time, that ordinary armed citizens who weren't formal members of a militia or military unit could be called upon in times of grave national danger to repel invasion?


Because its sound to me like the militia clause is a justification for the right to bear arms. Because we need to be ready to whip George IV's ass again if need be, we've all got to stay armed.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The words "the right of the people"

You'll notice it does not say "the people who are members of the militia"

Isn't any armed U.S. Citizen a member of the informal militia? Wasn't it the idea, at the time, that ordinary armed citizens who weren't formal members of a militia or military unit could be called upon in times of grave national danger to repel invasion?

Because its sound to me like the militia clause is a justification for the right to bear arms.

Citing one of many recognized purposes does not create a "justification", especially not a limiting one.

 

[williepete]

Isn't any armed U.S. Citizen a member of the informal militia? Wasn't it the idea, at the time, that ordinary armed citizens who weren't formal members of a militia or military unit could be called upon in times of grave national danger to repel invasion?

Somebody was paying attention during civics and history classes.

10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
10 U.S. Code § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

 

[Kondor3]

Isn't any armed U.S. Citizen a member of the informal militia? Wasn't it the idea, at the time, that ordinary armed citizens who weren't formal members of a militia or military unit could be called upon in times of grave national danger to repel invasion?...

That was, indeed, the idea uppermost in their collective mind, at the time, but, of course, that was merely the articulated rationale, not any of the dozens or scores of other reasons that might have been and still are operative.

 

[Contumacious]

The Founders were a Progressive Government

That is correct.

I believe it was Thomas Jefferson who first suggested a graduated income tax and Jefferson health care.

.

Even better....he advocated "All men are created equal"

Something Conservatives fight against

So if we are EQUAL - why do taxpayers have to feed and insure you? If we are EQUAL what gives you the right to demand that I be disarmed?

.

 

[Discombobulated]

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

Democrats loose votes every time they talk about gun control.....that's why you don't hear them talk much about it.