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

[RetiredGySgt]

In order to make sense of what ‘a well regulated militia’ means, you have to read Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not.

Case law IS CLEAR. The 2nd Amendment conveys a personal right to keep and bear arms irregardless of ones status in or out of a Militia. It is further clear that the weapons protected by the 2nd must be of use to the military. Semi automatics can not be banned or restricted simply because they look scary. In fact the 1994 assault weapons ban was itself unconstitutional, just no one took it to court, afraid of what the decision would be.

Case law is clear bans on magazines in use or of use to the military are unconstitutional. But until someone with standing takes that to court it will stand. Bans on semi automatics is also unconstitutional.

You keep reminding us that Case law is preeminent and I keep reminding you it is clear on the current attempts to ban or restrict weapons and magazines.

 

[M14 Shooter]

In order to make sense of what ‘a well regulated militia’ means, you have to read Constitutional case law, as the Constitution exists only in the context of that case law, whether you like it or not, whether you agree with it or not.

Taking special care to note and understand that 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.

 

[Synthaholic]

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?

And where is there a presumption of privacy in the 2nd? Why can there not be a gun registry, under the Constitution?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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?

And where is there a presumption of privacy in the 2nd? Why can there not be a gun registry, under the Constitution?

There is a presumption of privacy everywhere.
Requring registration of guns/gun owners owners violates the constitution everr bit as requiring the registration of churchgoers.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Register all voters, photo ID, background checks

 

[Synthaholic]

Register all voters, photo ID, background checks

And all their guns. Deal.

 

[Spoonman]

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?

And where is there a presumption of privacy in the 2nd? Why can there not be a gun registry, under the Constitution?

sure, as long as we register every single thing we buy.

 

[Spoonman]

The well regulated militia is now the well regulated National Guard.

So? The 2nd Amendment doesn't require that everyone who owns a gun also be part of a well regulated militia. It says that a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state...and that the rights of the people regarding owning a gun shall not be infringed. It doesn't make owning a gun dependent upon being in a militia.

besides, the constitution applies to the entire country, not just a single state. these limp dick libs are trying to reinterpret the constitution to fit their communist agenda. funny how when we talk registration and id's for voting they argue you cant do that. voting is a constitutional right and that would violate the rights of the individual. well, so is gun ownership. so once again they have blown their own argument with their own argument. libs really are funny little creatures to watch twist themselves against themselves

 

[Intense]

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

Before the Revolution, We argued for the same Rights as those in England, Individual Rights. Should Anyone be denied the Right of Self Defense without cause? The Right to bear arms is both individual and collective. This was not in question until modern times.

Inspiration for Americans

During the American Revolution, Magna Carta served to inspire and justify action in liberty’s defense. The colonists believed they were entitled to the same rights as Englishmen, rights guaranteed in Magna Carta. They embedded those rights into the laws of their states and later into the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution ("no person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.") is a direct descendent of Magna Carta's guarantee of proceedings according to the "law of the land."

Featured Document: The Magna Carta

What was the Law of the Land at the time the Constitutional Convention took place? Would that qualify as a fair perspective?

From The Articles of Confederation........

No vessel of war shall be kept up in time of peace by any State, except such number only, as shall be deemed necessary by the United States in Congress assembled, for the defense of such State, or its trade; nor shall any body of forces be kept up by any State in time of peace, except such number only, as in the judgement of the United States in Congress assembled, shall be deemed requisite to garrison the forts necessary for the defense of such State; but every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered, and shall provide and constantly have ready for use, in public stores, a due number of field pieces and tents, and a proper quantity of arms, ammunition and camp equipage.
The Articles of Confederation

Laws have changed and continue to do so. National Guard is in a sense a Militia,........

The National Guard is the oldest military branch.

The National Guard's roots date back to 1636, when colonial militias made up of ordinary citizens would put down their plows and pick up weapons to protect families and towns from hostile attacks. Today, Citizen-Soldiers hold civilian jobs or attend college while maintaining their military training part time, always ready to defend the American way of life in the event of an emergency.
Our unique dual mission: serving both community and country.

The National Guard serves both state and federal governments. While the Guard originally focused on protecting local communities, it eventually grew into a force that complements the Active Duty Army when help is needed anywhere in the world. The biggest difference compared to other branches is that while Guard units are combat-trained and can be deployed overseas, they are just as likely to serve in their home communities.

About | NATIONAL GUARD

Under State Governor control, definitely Militia.

According to the National Fire Protection Association, 69 percent of firefighters in the United States are volunteers.[1] The National Volunteer Fire Council represents the fire and emergency services on a national level, providing advocacy, information, resources, and programs to support volunteer first responders. The NVFC includes 49 state based firefighter associations such as the Firemen's Association of the State of New York (FASNY) which provides information, education and training for the volunteer fire and emergency medical services throughout New York State.

In the United States, the Department of Labor classifies volunteer firefighters as firefighters that receive no compensation or nominal fees up to 20% of the compensation a full-time firefighter would receive in the same capacity.[2] The DOL allows volunteer firefighters to receive benefits such as worker's compensation, health insurance, life insurance, disability insurance, pension plans, length of service awards, and property tax relief. DOL defined volunteer firefighters may be paid nominal fees on a per call basis, per shift basis, or various service requirements, but may not be compensated based on productivity such as with an hourly wage.

The terms "part paid" and "paid on-call" refers to firefighters that are receiving some compensation less than the compensation a full-time firefighter would receive. It may often refer to volunteer firefighters that do not qualify as volunteers under the United States Department of Labor. They may also volunteer time for training, public education, fundraising, and other non-emergency department related activities.

How about Volunteer Fire Departments, not a Militia, by definition, yet who would argue against the need to be prepared and armed here, if the need should arise? What better example of Organized and well regulated Civic response in a crisis?

 

[Spoonman]

well now that libs have been trying to spin the 2nd amendment out of control, lets bring it back to reality. why not go right to the source. how about the author of it. now who wrote the 2nd amendment? james Madison. and what did he mean by it? well let's take a look, in his own words what he meant.

"The only refuge left for those who prophesy the downfall of the State governments is the visionary supposition that the federal government may previously accumulate a military force for the projects of ambition. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and it would not be going too far to say that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to my best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves." James Madison, The Federalist Papers 46. http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm Link Added. -Intense

So what old james meant was the intent of ownership by the individual and the well regulated militia was to comprise a force larger than and stronger than any regular army that could be put together by the federal government. His intent was that the people be a stronger force than the federal government to ensure the federal government could not control the people through their own army. which is also why he used the words - shall not be infringed and which is why he put no limitations on what people could own. his intent was the people should be as well armed and have the same equipment as the national army. those are the words of the man who wrote the amendment. all of your lib spin is useless. you have nothing to back it up. the real intent of the 2nd amendment is made very clear by the author.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

The stipulations in the Second Amendment are all not one thought. They are several.
The 'well regulated militia' is the modern National Guard.
What does the passage "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" mean to you?

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?"

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.

See those commas in there? Those commas separate the ideas.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

They don't like regulations.

Technical FOUL.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

Each time you post, you leave no one guessing as to the level of stupidity with which you post.

 

[Vandalshandle]

When I was growing up in the deep South, everyone knew exactly who the "well regulated militia" was. It was the KKK.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

There is a comma in the 2nd, ever notice it? Understand basic English?

I'll repeat my question, as it seems you didn't get it b/c you have not answerd it...

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

Asked and answered. NEXT!

 

[thereisnospoon]

they don't like regulations.

fail.

i know you love regulations.

double fail

 

[thereisnospoon]

they don't understand that it was the language of the day, IT DID NOT MEAN EVERYONE GETS A GUN. if you look to historical data and the words used back then, its does not mean what the NRA claims it means. also the 2nd amend. was written 200+ years ago, guns have changed, why cant laws? The reason why the laws don't get upgraded is thats not where the money is. Also the "right to bear arms" is used and has been used to by hate groups like the KKK to be able to intimidate others, once again another reason cons in this country don't want reasonable gun regulation. Like back round checks, for fuck sake!

"back round" checks?
Tell us, which historical data did you use to make your conclusions?
"Why can't laws" ...Stop whining.
BTW, laws have changed.
Look, surrender your rights all you like. Give yourself over to the government. Be their stooge. Don't you fucking dare tell me I must do these stupid things.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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?

Yes...I believe 16 oz cans.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Be prepared for a plethora of insults and non-sequiturs from liberal posters.