"A well regulated militia..."

[CrusaderFrank]

I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.

I will take another search for the article

See:

How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment

Always happy to help you Frank, just ask.

Well it's not all that either apparently

The Origins of "Militia" in the Second Amendment — It's Not About Slavery | Ryan McMaken

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Justice Scalia never saw his majority opinion in the District of Columbia v. Heller eliminating the government’s ability to regulate guns. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Scalia cautioned, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

This does not mean 1/10th of what you want it to mean.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

That’s a stretch

If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership

In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008). The SCOTUS ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right unrelated to being in a militia. If you want to learn more, read an article I posted on the USMB on August 6, 2015

Maine adopts constitutional carry

Half-truth ^^^:

"Justice Scalia never saw his majority opinion in the District of Columbia v. Heller eliminating the government’s ability to regulate guns. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Scalia cautioned, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

Taken from the Heller Decision.

Again, conservatives loathe the Heller decision.

 

[M14 Shooter]

That’s a stretch

If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership

In DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER (Decided June 26, 2008). The SCOTUS ruled that the right to keep and bear arms was a personal right unrelated to being in a militia. If you want to learn more, read an article I posted on the USMB on August 6, 2015

Maine adopts constitutional carry

Half-truth ^^^:

"Justice Scalia never saw his majority opinion in the District of Columbia v. Heller eliminating the government’s ability to regulate guns. “Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment,” Scalia cautioned, “nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools or government buildings or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Taken from the Heller Decision.

Again, conservatives loathe the Heller decision.

Another lie from Clayton.
It's all he does.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.

I will take another search for the article

See:

How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment

Always happy to help you Frank, just ask.

Well it's not all that either apparently

The Origins of "Militia" in the Second Amendment — It's Not About Slavery | Ryan McMaken

Ah, an alternative "fact", in a blog. Got it.

 

[M14 Shooter]

See:
How Slave Owners Dictated the Language of the 2nd Amendment

Ah. Alternative "facts". In an op-ed. Got it.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Let's parse the 2nd A.

A. “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.”

or,

B. “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.”

or,

C. “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.”

Seems clear to me, without a well-regulated Militia, the security of the free state could not be assured.

The silly response will be a single man with an AR15 / AK47 and many large magazines could stand up to a small company of well trained Federal Agents (FBI, ATF&E, US Marshalls) or a squad of trained Rangers/Marines/Seals.

 

[Markle]

I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.

I will take another search for the article

English grammar and the English language were never your strong point, are they?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's parse the 2nd A.

This has 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.

Don't like it? Too bad.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Let's parse the 2nd A.

This has 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.

Don't like it? Too bad.

Don’t leave out the part of the Second Amendment you and others on the right have come to loathe:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Universal background checks do not violate the Second Amendment, magazine capacity restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, and AWBs do not violate the Second Amendment.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Don’t leave out the part of the Second Amendment you and others on the right have come to loathe:

No one loathes this part, except for the anti-gun loons who think it means 100x more than what it actually means.

Universal background checks do not violate the Second Amendment, magazine capacity restrictions do not violate the Second Amendment, and AWBs do not violate the Second Amendment.

Please cite the holding of the USSC case this each of these effects.
Oh, you can't?
Why did you lie?

 

[anynameyouwish]

I read an article, that I cannot immediately locate, that posited the "well regulated militia" qualifier, rather than a blanket "Congress shall make no law" - came about because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation a minute longer.

I will take another search for the article

"because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation "


It is a lie to say DEMOCRAT.

But I expect conservatives to lie.

Here is the hitorical truth;



Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia



The Democratic-Republican Party (formally called the Republican Party) was an American political party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton,



formally called the REPUBLICAN PARTY....

 

[Markle]

"because democrat slave owners in VA were concerned that were the right to bear arms absolutely unlimited, then their slaves had that right and might not want to stay on the democrat Plantation "

It is a lie to say DEMOCRAT.

But I expect conservatives to lie.

Here is the hitorical truth;

Democratic-Republican Party - Wikipedia

The Democratic-Republican Party (formally called the Republican Party) was an American political party formed by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison around 1792 to oppose the centralizing policies of the new Federalist Party run by Alexander Hamilton,

formally called the REPUBLICAN PARTY....

The topic of the thread is the Second Amendment. Does that have anything to do with Slavery, Democrats, and Republicans?

Now that's settled, can we get back to the Second Amendment?

 

[westwall]

Let's parse the 2nd A.

A. “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.”

or,

B. “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.”

or,

C. “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.”

Seems clear to me, without a well-regulated Militia, the security of the free state could not be assured.

The silly response will be a single man with an AR15 / AK47 and many large magazines could stand up to a small company of well trained Federal Agents (FBI, ATF&E, US Marshalls) or a squad of trained Rangers/Marines/Seals.

Lets's look up the term "well regulated" as it was used in the era of its writing. Lo and behold it means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER". That's why you see clocks from that same era marked WELL REGULATED. It has nothing to do with laws. It has everything to do with being operational.

 

[Pilot1]

Let's parse the 2nd A.

A. “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.”

or,

B. “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.”

or,

C. “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.”

Seems clear to me, without a well-regulated Militia, the security of the free state could not be assured.

The silly response will be a single man with an AR15 / AK47 and many large magazines could stand up to a small company of well trained Federal Agents (FBI, ATF&E, US Marshalls) or a squad of trained Rangers/Marines/Seals.

Lets's look up the term "well regulated" as it was used in the era of its writing. Lo and behold it means "IN GOOD WORKING ORDER". That's why you see clocks from that same era marked WELL REGULATED. It has nothing to do with laws. It has everything to do with being operational.

They know all that, but just mislead, and lie to circumvent the Constitution. Same way they know that Man has little to nothing to do with so called climate change, but they want another income and wealth redistribution scheme so pretend it's "to save the planet". What drivel.

 

[progressive hunter]

Let's parse the 2nd A.

A. “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.”

or,

B. “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.”

or,

C. “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.”

Seems clear to me, without a well-regulated Militia, the security of the free state could not be assured.

The silly response will be a single man with an AR15 / AK47 and many large magazines could stand up to a small company of well trained Federal Agents (FBI, ATF&E, US Marshalls) or a squad of trained Rangers/Marines/Seals.

your right,, a single man with an AR cant hold off a small company,,,thats why the second half of the 2nd come into play,,it means there could be millions of people holding ARs and that could easily hold off not just a small company but a rather large one

and you also leave out it might not be american gov agents but foreign agents, then the natives/us would be ready with a minutes notice

the 2nd was well thought out and well written,,,

 

[Polishprince]

That’s a stretch

If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership

It wouldn't make sense for firearms to be limited to the militia.

It wouldn't be a "right" if only the Army can have guns. Every country, even totalitarian nations, allow the Army to have guns.
That isn't a right, and it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Pilot1]

That’s a stretch

If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership

It wouldn't make sense for firearms to be limited to the militia.

It wouldn't be a "right" if only the Army can have guns. Every country, even totalitarian nations, allow the Army to have guns.
That isn't a right, and it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights.

In addition, in order to be called up by Unorganized Militia (non Government) you'd need to posses firearms privately. So their story fails there too.

 

[M14 Shooter]

If you stop feeding the troll, he will go away.

 

[progressive hunter]

the

That’s a stretch

If so, then it affirms the connection of militias to gun ownership

It wouldn't make sense for firearms to be limited to the militia.

It wouldn't be a "right" if only the Army can have guns. Every country, even totalitarian nations, allow the Army to have guns.
That isn't a right, and it wouldn't be in the Bill of Rights.

In addition, in order to be called up by Unorganized Militia (non Government) you'd need to posses firearms privately. So their story fails there too.

the 2nd doesnt have anything to do with calling up any type of militia,,,