What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[meaner gene]

Read some history. Almost all militias were privately funded. Even as late as the Spanish American War there were privately funded militias serving alongside the army. Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders were raised, equipped and paid by him. They were trained and equipped better than the regular army units they were attached to in Cuba.

You are confusing mercenaries with militia.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

I want certain guns, bullets and magazines banned because they serve no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers

If they aren't creating a danger, then there's no need to ban them. If they are creating a danger, then we need to be armed so we can defend ourselves. You can't have it both ways.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

LOL

Working order means properly organized, trained and lead

Yes we train as to be expected in working order.
Why would the founders hand firearms over to tyranny when they just fought for the freedom to have a firearm for self-defense?

 

[rightwinger]

If they aren't creating a danger, then there's no need to ban them. If they are creating a danger, then we need to be armed so we can defend ourselves. You can't have it both ways.

Yes we can

We can ban weapons that have no purpose other than slaughter young children

When was the last time an AR-15 with 35 round magazine was used to stop a mass killing?

 

[rightwinger]

Yes we train as to be expected in working order.
Why would the founders hand firearms over to tyranny when they just fought for the freedom to have a firearm for self-defense?

That is NOT why they fought for freedom

They fought to have a say in how they were governed

 

[meaner gene]

I want certain guns, bullets and magazines banned because they serve no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers

Imagine if private citizens had the right to bear 105mm recoilless rifles?

 

[meaner gene]

If they aren't creating a danger, then there's no need to ban them. If they are creating a danger, then we need to be armed so we can defend ourselves. You can't have it both ways.

You just gave a reason for letting Iraq have nuclear weapons.

Congratulations on your logic.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

it does not imply government control.

In the 18th century a well regulated clock was one that kept accurate time and worked as it should.

No government needed and there was no Supreme court during the Revolution

See post #59

It was never the intent of the Framers that the ‘militia’ be devoid of government oversight and control.

Both the original intent of the Amendment and its subsequent case law codify a ‘militia’ pursuant solely to government authorization.

Armed private citizens may not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent government authorization and claim ‘extra rights’ under the Second Amendment or that they are ‘exempt’ from state or Federal firearm regulatory measures or government control.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It means that in order to have a secure, free state…..we need “well regulated militias”

…authorized and controlled by government – and government alone.

 

[Billy_Bob]

"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."

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

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.

constitutioncenter.org

What is your definition of a "well regulated Militia"?

IT is the original framers intent that the term "well Regulated" meant that the arms of the standing militia were held and owned by the people. That the government kept the ammunitions and equipment necessary for those arms in good supply and available to those people and gave training when needed. "well regulated" does not mean regulating goods, it means that the militia was well trained and functional to protect our country.

The left is clueless into the real meaning of these words.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Yes we can

We can ban weapons that have no purpose other than slaughter young children

When was the last time an AR-15 with 35 round magazine was used to stop a mass killing?

It happens slot.

8 Times Law-Abiding Citizens Saved Lives With an AR-15

Law-abiding citizens purchase millions of AR-15s (and similar rifles) for one very important reason: They are great for self-defense.

www.dailysignal.com

When was the last time a gun free zone stopped a mass shooting?

 

[Billy_Bob]

…authorized and controlled by government – and government alone.

NO!... This means it was trained and given the supplies to defend... In military terms, it means well trained and supplied.

 

[meaner gene]

See post #59

It was never the intent of the Framers that the ‘militia’ be devoid of government oversight and control.

Both the original intent of the Amendment and its subsequent case law codify a ‘militia’ pursuant solely to government authorization.

Armed private citizens may not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent government authorization and claim ‘extra rights’ under the Second Amendment or that they are ‘exempt’ from state or Federal firearm regulatory measures or government control.

One has only to read the constitution to see what the framers intended

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of . . .

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

…authorized and controlled by government – and government alone.

But, that doesn't apply to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

 

[Blues Man]

See post #59

It was never the intent of the Framers that the ‘militia’ be devoid of government oversight and control.

Both the original intent of the Amendment and its subsequent case law codify a ‘militia’ pursuant solely to government authorization.

Armed private citizens may not unilaterally declare themselves a ‘militia’ absent government authorization and claim ‘extra rights’ under the Second Amendment or that they are ‘exempt’ from state or Federal firearm regulatory measures or government control.

The amendment clearly says it is the peoples' right to keep and bear arms.

So the Second Amendment is not really about militias.

I think the framers were intelligent enough that if they wanted to write an amendment codifying militias they would have.

 

[Billy_Bob]

My gawd the left in here has twisted history. THE PEOPLE were the militia. They owned the cannons and guns to protect their rights. The government kept them supplied with gun powder and other necessities to keep them operational and trained to use them. That is why the government was told they could not limit what they hold and operate. "Shall not be infringed"

 

[meaner gene]

It happens slot.

8 Times Law-Abiding Citizens Saved Lives With an AR-15

Law-abiding citizens purchase millions of AR-15s (and similar rifles) for one very important reason: They are great for self-defense.

www.dailysignal.com

When was the last time a gun free zone stopped a mass shooting?

Actually every day there isn't a mass shooting in them, is a day a gun free zone stopped a mass shooting.

So the last time was just now.

 

[Billy_Bob]

One has only to read the constitution to see what the framers intended

Article II, Section 2, Clause 1: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of . . .

The Milita is "WE THE PEOPLE" it was not a standing army. SO, it meant the average PEROSON not a state-run organization. It was the states obligation to the citizens not to infringe on their rights but give them training and the items necessary to keep them functional.

 

[meaner gene]

But, that doesn't apply to the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd gave the reason why the people had the right to keep and bear arms.
If that right was unfettered, the first clause would be unnecessary.

 

[meaner gene]

The amendment clearly says it is the peoples' right to keep and bear arms.

So the Second Amendment is not really about militias.

I think the framers were intelligent enough that if they wanted to write an amendment codifying militias they would have.

Militias were in article 2 of the constitution, before any amendments were added.