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

[thereisnospoon]

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.

Yer kidding, right?

 

[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.

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.

lol what?

answer the questions..If you dare.. Consider your answers carefully and choose your words wisely.

 

[thereisnospoon]

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

We do many of those things.

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?

Almost all of those things are subject to limitation under the law.

Try to go to church in a condemned building.
Try to report on the news slanderous things that are not true.
Try to vote if you're under 18
Try to lie under oath

well. it did not take long. Typical evasive response.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How'd did you calculate that one bub?

The Supreme Court so ruled.

Rulings change.

Your point?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

Thank you for helping prove that the anti-gun side can only argue from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

None of them have even -tried- to address this.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

How is it doing so exactly? Can you break it up and interpret it as you understand it for me please?

 

[M14 Shooter]

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

The Right To Bear Arms.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

How is it doing so exactly? Can you break it up and interpret it as you understand it for me please?

You act like this has not already been done.

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
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Disagree? Here's the argument to that effect - feel free to show it unsound.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

 

[Contumacious]

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

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

This is a very powerful statement. If things are supposed to be interpreted as you state, then the RWers have a point on this 2nd Amendment stuff.

 

[kwc57]

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

You could look up the other 100 threads on this subject where it has been explained ad nauseum......or not.

 

[M14 Shooter]

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.

This is a very powerful statement. If things are supposed to be interpreted as you state, then the RWers have a point on this 2nd Amendment stuff.

You have only been told this a dozen times.

 

[MarcATL]

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

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

.

I don't buy that argument. It's fallacious. It doesn't make any sense if interpreted that way.

Make sure WHAT was working properly? The law? The gun? Why not use that same term for any other Amendment? That's bogus and you know it.

The word may have meant that at the time, but not ONLY that, "regulated" still meant regulated as we know it. English words have multiple meanings, even back then.

Cut your nonsense.

 

[MarcATL]

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.

This is a very powerful statement. If things are supposed to be interpreted as you state, then the RWers have a point on this 2nd Amendment stuff.

You have only been told this a dozen times.

No I haven't. No one stated it that way before. Unless you're suggesting that the statement, as was written has been repeated multiple times.

Stop lying.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is a very powerful statement. If things are supposed to be interpreted as you state, then the RWers have a point on this 2nd Amendment stuff.

You have only been told this a dozen times.

No I haven't. No one stated it that way before.

You simply haven't been paying attention.

 

[Contumacious]

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

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

.

I don't buy that argument. It's fallacious. It doesn't make any sense if interpreted that way.

Make sure WHAT was working properly? The law? The gun? Why not use that same term for any other Amendment? That's bogus and you know it.

The word may have meant that at the time, but not ONLY that, "regulated" still meant regulated as we know it. English words have multiple meanings, even back then.

Cut your nonsense.

Well, let's look at the interstate commerce clause found in Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution.

Where Congress was authorized to REGULATE COMMERCE

Alexander Hamilton defined "to regulate" as the power to permit FREE COMMERCE BETWEEN THE STATES.....meaning, for example, that New York State could not impose impediments to California's wines, etc.

Again, the 1787 Constitution was NOT a socialist or fascist revolution.

.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

You have only been told this a dozen times.

No I haven't. No one stated it that way before.

You simply haven't been paying attention.

He lives under a rock and never noticed those threads nor obviously the Supreme Court decisions.

 

[williepete]

It means if you want to have a militia, you have to have trained individuals and functioning arms.

If you want to have an airline, you have to have trained pilots and functioning aircraft.

Who are the militia? We are. Consult the U.S. Code
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes

(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.

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

 

[Londoner]

For nearly a century the word "militia" was not seen to be synonymous with the word "individual".

These two words mean different things, with very different legal interpretations. Militias were quasi government entities in that they were recognized at the local and federal level to be legal. This meant they were subject to regulations. They had a completely different legal interpretation - and a different set of rights - than individuals. By the same logic, the words "government" and "individual" are legally distinct. For instance, the American government can own a nuclear bomb whereas the individual cannot.

Starting in the late fifties money began pouring into the Republican Party from various special interests. This is when the Right become a formal movement with think tanks, publishing groups, political action committees ... along with accumulating a vast network of media assets to mold public opinion. Their goal was inherently un-conservative, that is, they sought not to preserve traditions and public consensus, but to change it. [Please recall that when the movement formed the country was being run by a consensus for big government, which supported diffuse and broadly shared power through a thriving middle class as opposed to the current special interest lobbying state which awards concentrated power to concentrated wealth. The Rightwing wanted to change this]

One arm of the movement was concerned with judicial activism. Put very simply, a structure was put in place to groom rightwing lawyers and judges.

With Reagan and Bush they were able to capture the Supreme Court. And they got activist judges to reinterpret militia to mean individual.

Research Watergate, Iran-Contra and, finally, the illegal wiretapping of 2003.

Movements do not care about traditions, laws or Constitutions. They care only about putting their core beliefs into practice. Therefore, they use a feigned respect for the Constitution as a weapon to defeat the other side. This is why they hold Dems to the actual wording of the Constitution which they are busily re-writing.

 

[Synthaholic]

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.

Since I'm so stupid, please show where in the Constitution it prohibits a gun registry. Or where you are afforded any privacy at all for your gun purchases.

Show us all how smart you are!