Anti Gunners cite and support a "well regulated militia" until a well regulated militia is formed.

[Dadoalex]

Nah, I like watching the big balls penetrate through big things

You wouldn't understand.

 

[odanny]

 

[Failzero]

Which SCOTUS Judges supported Slavery back in the day ?

 

[westwall]

View attachment 937105

Yeah, he was always an idiot.

If his interpretation were accurate, we would have been disarmed long ago.

 

[odanny]

Yeah, he was always an idiot.

If his interpretation were accurate, we would have been disarmed long ago.

That was the exact meaning, but the interpretation has morphed into something absurd, driven by firearm manufacturers and appeals to emotion. If it is interpreted in its present condition, this prviilege is sacrosanct.

 

[westwall]

That was the exact meaning, but the interpretation has morphed into something absurd, driven by firearm manufacturers and appeals to emotion. If it is interpreted in its present condition, this prviilege is sacrosanct.

What is absurd is the claim that a government needs to have a Right enshrined.

Government takes AWAY Rights, it IS power.

The Bill of Rights is a protection from government over reach.

But, feel free to spew your ridiculous claims.

 

[LibertyKid]

Nope, only 1790 weapons.
Single shot manually loaded hand and long guns.

Your rules. I'm just insisting that the rules be consistent.

This premise is incorrect. Founding fathers new the citizens needed to protect the constitution and freedoms from a tyranical gov't. The advancement of "arms" and the usage of arms is not specific to only the military and the people are relegated to muskets for perpetuity. This is illogical and is not substantiated by history.

The people, have the right and the ability to protect the freedoms of the constitution and when the people feel the gov't is no longer serving the people or the constitution, they have the right and ability to do so by force. This doesn't mean the people pull out their muskets.

 

[Dadoalex]

This premise is incorrect. Founding fathers new the citizens needed to protect the constitution and freedoms from a tyranical gov't. The advancement of "arms" and the usage of arms is not specific to only the military and the people are relegated to muskets for perpetuity. This is illogical and is not substantiated by history.

The people, have the right and the ability to protect the freedoms of the constitution and when the people feel the gov't is no longer serving the people or the constitution, they have the right and ability to do so by force. This doesn't mean the people pull out their muskets.

Nope.
If we can only use the definition of "well regulated" from 1789 then we can only use weapons from the same period.

After all...
The Founding Fathers new the citizens needed to protect the constitution and freedoms from a evolution of society and the language and how using a 250 year old definition, oh, say for a woman with extensive medical knowledge who is, in fact, NOT A WITCH shouldn't be burned at the stake for being a witch.

Just as technology changes, so does language.
You can't demand a 250 year old definition be used to describe a weapon from 250 years later.

 

[Failzero]

The horse is outta the Barn 475 + million Firearms / Parts Kits / Spares / Warehoused parts and Historical & Antique / Curio Relic now in US

 

[LibertyKid]

Nope.
If we can only use the definition of "well regulated" from 1789 then we can only use weapons from the same period.

Nope. Then by your logic we should not have a gov't sanctioned military either carrying anything other than muskets.

The historical context and discussion around Militias wasn't during the formation wasn't 100% agreed upon. Distrust of "Standing" armies abounded. The context of regulated and what that means was was written by Hamilton who argued and discussed many points for Militias. But what we do know, is individual state constitutions, provided for and spoke specifically to arming citizens and militias. In fact the verbiage is probably better understood in specific state constitutions.

State of PA for an example:
Article XIII of the Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights of 1776 read:

That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.6

Similarly, as another example, Massachusetts’s Declaration of Rights from 1780 provided;

The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.7

Founding fathers wanted a regulated militia to be controlled by the people, so that a tyrannical gov't wouldn't use these militias or standing armies as a way to usurp the people and the new gov't.

Understanding the 2A requires more than only looking only the 2A and how it is written. Any decent, educated person knows that the entire historical context of the 2A, formation of the country, context of "arms", and using all other reliable and credible historical sources to help determine intent.

After all...
The Founding Fathers new the citizens needed to protect the constitution and freedoms from a evolution of society and the language and how using a 250 year old definition, oh, say for a woman with extensive medical knowledge who is, in fact, NOT A WITCH shouldn't be burned at the stake for being a witch.

Just as technology changes, so does language.
You can't demand a 250 year old definition be used to describe a weapon from 250 years later.

Maybe in some cases, the above maybe true. But in the case of the constitution, it's historical context and framing, the 2A has and will be the right of the people to take up arms to overthrow a tyrannical gov't. We can't do that with muskets. And over the last century, when there has been a surplus of arms, what has happened? The military sells them to the public.

If you can't guarantee that a gov't won't ever become tyrannical, the people should have the right to use force to throw out that gov't.

 

[Failzero]

Militia WILL be En Vogue again

 

[Dadoalex]

Nope. Then by your logic we should not have a gov't sanctioned military either carrying anything other than muskets.

...

The government is the "Well Regulated Militia"

ONLY the government has the power to REGULATE
THEREFORE
Any VALID MILITIA is REGULATED by the GOVERNMENT'

Any "militia" not regulated by the government is not a MILITIA and is not covered by the 2nd amendment.

 

[westwall]

The government is the "Well Regulated Militia"

ONLY the government has the power to REGULATE
THEREFORE
Any VALID MILITIA is REGULATED by the GOVERNMENT'

Any "militia" not regulated by the government is not a MILITIA and is not covered by the 2nd amendment.

How retarded. The government has "ARMIES" The people ARE militias.

 

[Failzero]

The government is the "Well Regulated Militia"

ONLY the government has the power to REGULATE
THEREFORE
Any VALID MILITIA is REGULATED by the GOVERNMENT'

Any "militia" not regulated by the government is not a MILITIA and is not covered by the 2nd amendment.

That was not the case prior to the 1920s ( And briefly at the start of WW2 )

 

[Dadoalex]

How retarded. The government has "ARMIES" The people ARE militias.

And there we are ignoring those 1789 definitions when they're inconvenient.

 

[LibertyKid]

The government is the "Well Regulated Militia"

At our founding, Militias were governed by the States but could be called upon by Congress.
Militia Act of 1792 - Militias could be called upon by the POTUS in time of need

ONLY the government has the power to REGULATE
THEREFORE
Any VALID MILITIA is REGULATED by the GOVERNMENT

Militias turned into the National Guard and provides the direct link between civilian and the military.

Any "militia" not regulated by the government is not a MILITIA and is not covered by the 2nd amendment.

The purpose of Militias has evolved, and due to political climates, dictators, facism, we have a need to have "standing army" today.
That however does not remove the capacity of the people, to toss out a tyrannical gov't by force and giving the people the right to bear arms. This is why the 2A is written the way it is, but is also supported by historical context of our framing and backed by state constitutions that reinforce the idea that citizens are to be armed for personal and civil protection from tyranny.

We can't guarantee that our gov't won't go tyrannical (and some ways it has already). Therefore, we have to have the ability to reboot our gov't, and if it by force, then so be it.

 

[Crepitus]

It seems like the democrats are not happy with this program, but they may not be able to stop the formation of a well regulated armed militia.
MINEOLA, Long Island (PIX11) — The Nassau County Executive is pressing ahead with his plan to create a group of armed special sheriff’s deputies to be used in the event of an emergency.

He said the first 25 civilians could be ready to deploy in an emergency as early as late May.

It comes even as outcry against the plan grows, including a large protest outside the County Government building on Monday.

A few hundred gathered on the steps of the county seat in Mineola. The protesters accuse Nassau County executive Bruce Blakeman of creating his own militia– to be called up only when he deems there’s an emergency.

“Whose command will this militia be under? How much coordinating with the police will they do? How much training will they get? Will they be given other weapons when they are activated?” posed a spokeswoman for the Nassau County Civil Liberties Union.

It was one of many groups represented at the event organized by Nassau Democrats.

Nassau County plans to deputize armed civilians moving ahead despite protest - NewsBreak

MINEOLA, Long Island (PIX11) — The Nassau County Executive is pressing ahead with his plan to create a group of armed special sheriff’s deputies to be used in the event of an emergency. He said the first 25 civilians could be ready to deploy in an emergency as early as late May. It comes even […]

local.newsbreak.com

What "emergency" will it be deployed for?

 

[Dadoalex]

At our founding, Militias were governed by the States but could be called upon by Congress.
Militia Act of 1792 - Militias could be called upon by the POTUS in time of need

Militias turned into the National Guard and provides the direct link between civilian and the military.

The purpose of Militias has evolved, and due to political climates, dictators, facism, we have a need to have "standing army" today.
That however does not remove the capacity of the people, to toss out a tyrannical gov't by force and giving the people the right to bear arms. This is why the 2A is written the way it is, but is also supported by historical context of our framing and backed by state constitutions that reinforce the idea that citizens are to be armed for personal and civil protection from tyranny.

We can't guarantee that our gov't won't go tyrannical (and some ways it has already). Therefore, we have to have the ability to reboot our gov't, and if it by force, then so be it.

The argument is that we must use the 1789 definition of militia
ergo
your introducing ANYTHING about militias post 1789 is off topic, irrelevant.
My argument is that if we're going to insist on a 1789 definition of "militia" then we must also insist on a 1789 definition of "arms"

So, if one is not an active member of a STATE managed militia, the 2nd only protects arms available in 1789.

 

[LibertyKid]

The argument is that we must use the 1789 definition of militia
ergo
your introducing ANYTHING about militias post 1789 is off topic, irrelevant.
My argument is that if we're going to insist on a 1789 definition of "militia" then we must also insist on a 1789 definition of "arms"

And the counter to that is the people have always had the right to toss out the gov't, and if needed, by force. Thus the people have the right to bear arms. Historical context around the forming of our country and protecting those rights and freedoms have been tantamount and the 2A's primary purpose is to allow the citizens to be armed to project from domestic and foreign tyranny. \

The people cannot rely on a state or gov't supported Army to toss out the gov't. And this is why militias and "standing" armies were debated.

Miltias have evolved, so have arms. This however doesn't mean the purpose of the 2A or the type of arms the people have the right to bear, is static. If the people have the right to toss the gov't, they should have the means to do so by force, and if they have to fight against a tyrannical military, the people should have the capacity to do so.

It comes down to this. Do you put 100% trust in any gov't? If you do, good luck with that. If you don't, than you're a constitutionalist and understand the framing and context of the origin of our country.

 

[Dadoalex]

And the counter to that is the people have always had the right to toss out the gov't, and if needed, by force. ...

That is a display of ignorance rarely displayed even among the dumbest of gun fools.

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.

A well regulated militia DEFENDS the free state
It does not overthrow the FREE STATE.

There is nothing outside NRA Guns for MORONS that supports this giant stack of bullshit.

We have ELECTIONS when we want to change the government.
We have had ELECTIONS to change the government for over 2 and a quarter centuries.

Your comment is beyond stupid.