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

[Skull Pilot]

Is not the Preamble to the COTUS prefatory? Thus,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Reading the text as a vision statement one must conclude that the proliferation of guns do little to promote a more perfect union, establish justice or ensure domestic Tranquility. A Militia however, organized, armed and disciplined and whose officers are appointed by the several governments to will train a Militia would likely provide for the common defense and the general welfare of our citizens.

Common defense is defense of the country from outside forces not protection from other citizens. That's a matter for the states

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We have a Federal law on the Militia. The organized Militia is the national Guard and the naval reserve. The Unorganized Militia is every male aged 17 to 45 not in the organized militia or the military.

That means at the very least EVERY male aged 17 to 45 must have access to military style weapons. Even if you disagree with the Supreme Court that the second is an individual right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Is not the Preamble to the COTUS prefatory?

It is. That's why the federal government draws no power from it.

Reading the text as a vision statement one must conclude that the proliferation of guns do little to promote a more perfect union, establish justice or ensure domestic Tranquility. A Militia however, organized, armed and disciplined and whose officers are appointed by the several governments to will train a Militia would likely provide for the common defense and the general welfare of our citizens.

This is woefully lame, even for you.

 

[Wry Catcher]

We have a Federal law on the Militia. The organized Militia is the national Guard and the naval reserve. The Unorganized Militia is every male aged 17 to 45 not in the organized militia or the military.

That means at the very least EVERY male aged 17 to 45 must have access to military style weapons. Even if you disagree with the Supreme Court that the second is an individual right.

Gee, I was a member of a militia when I enlisted in the Navy Reserves? How come no one ever told me? Or, maybe, you just made this up.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks to those who explained in my stead.
[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]
In addition to the answers provided above, the preamble to the bill of rights states:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Basically these are a number of prefatory clauses in the preamble to the bill of rights that are setting the stage for the active statements that follow in the bill of rights. If you read the preamble, you will see that the bill of rights are actually a list of restrictions on government powers, not rights at all. The writer above, as with other preambles/prefatory clauses is providing statements that hold no weight in law, but rather simply explain why the statements are being made such that a subsequent reader might understand why the writer put the active statements in. Granted if the reasons no longer exist, we are free to remove the amendments via another amendment.

That said, the folks that are attempting to turn English on it's head to bastardize the law of the land are no better than any other despots throughout history that came before them.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Naval Militia sorry.

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

 

[daveman]

Is not the Preamble to the COTUS prefatory? Thus,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Reading the text as a vision statement one must conclude that the proliferation of guns do little to promote a more perfect union, establish justice or ensure domestic Tranquility. A Militia however, organized, armed and disciplined and whose officers are appointed by the several governments to will train a Militia would likely provide for the common defense and the general welfare of our citizens.

You are far more impressed with yourself than anyone else is.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Is not the Preamble to the COTUS prefatory? Thus,

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Reading the text as a vision statement one must conclude that the proliferation of guns do little to promote a more perfect union, establish justice or ensure domestic Tranquility. A Militia however, organized, armed and disciplined and whose officers are appointed by the several governments to will train a Militia would likely provide for the common defense and the general welfare of our citizens.

You are far more impressed with yourself than anyone else is.

With people like you around it doesn't take much to make me feel impressive.

 

[jon_berzerk]

We have a Federal law on the Militia. The organized Militia is the national Guard and the naval reserve. The Unorganized Militia is every male aged 17 to 45 not in the organized militia or the military.

That means at the very least EVERY male aged 17 to 45 must have access to military style weapons. Even if you disagree with the Supreme Court that the second is an individual right.

Gee, I was a member of a militia when I enlisted in the Navy Reserves? How come no one ever told me? Or, maybe, you just made this up.

no not any more because of duel enlistment

unless the naval reserve you enlisted in was a state guard rather then

a joint state federal reserve

 

[Wry Catcher]

We have a Federal law on the Militia. The organized Militia is the national Guard and the naval reserve. The Unorganized Militia is every male aged 17 to 45 not in the organized militia or the military.

That means at the very least EVERY male aged 17 to 45 must have access to military style weapons. Even if you disagree with the Supreme Court that the second is an individual right.

Gee, I was a member of a militia when I enlisted in the Navy Reserves? How come no one ever told me? Or, maybe, you just made this up.

no not any more because of duel enlistment

unless the naval reserve you enlisted in was a state guard rather then

a joint state federal reserve

What? I joined the US Navy, not some Militia or state/federal guard. I went to Boot Camp at NTCSD, I did my week end ACDUTRA on Treasure Island, San Francisco, spent some time at 32nd St. San Diego awaiting orders, and finally served about a US Navy DD during most of my two years on AD.

 

[Meister]

Gee, I was a member of a militia when I enlisted in the Navy Reserves? How come no one ever told me? Or, maybe, you just made this up.

no not any more because of duel enlistment

unless the naval reserve you enlisted in was a state guard rather then

a joint state federal reserve

What? I joined the US Navy, not some Militia or state/federal guard. I went to Boot Camp at NTCSD, I did my week end ACDUTRA on Treasure Island, San Francisco, spent some time at 32nd St. San Diego awaiting orders, and finally served about a US Navy DD during most of my two years on AD.

......yawn....Wry braggin' about himself again? Surprising I tell you, just surprising.

We all know what the FF's meant with the second amendment and the "shall not be infringed". It's just that the anti gun nutters won't admit to it.

 

[RKMBrown]

"The real Babel is not so much a place where many different languages are spoken as much as a place where everybody thinks they are speaking the same language, while giving different meanings to the same words." Antonio Gramsci.

 

[jillian]

no not any more because of duel enlistment

unless the naval reserve you enlisted in was a state guard rather then

a joint state federal reserve

What? I joined the US Navy, not some Militia or state/federal guard. I went to Boot Camp at NTCSD, I did my week end ACDUTRA on Treasure Island, San Francisco, spent some time at 32nd St. San Diego awaiting orders, and finally served about a US Navy DD during most of my two years on AD.

......yawn....Wry braggin' about himself again? Surprising I tell you, just surprising.

We all know what the FF's meant with the second amendment and the "shall not be infringed". It's just that the anti gun nutters won't admit to it.

Nice troll post, chief.

 

[M14 Shooter]

As the 2nd protects the exercise of an individual right not connected to the militia, any discussion of the meaning of the term "well regulated militia" in the context of gun control is meaningless.
.

 

[MarcATL]

Thanks to those who explained in my stead.
[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]
In addition to the answers provided above, the preamble to the bill of rights states:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Basically these are a number of prefatory clauses in the preamble to the bill of rights that are setting the stage for the active statements that follow in the bill of rights. If you read the preamble, you will see that the bill of rights are actually a list of restrictions on government powers, not rights at all. The writer above, as with other preambles/prefatory clauses is providing statements that hold no weight in law, but rather simply explain why the statements are being made such that a subsequent reader might understand why the writer put the active statements in. Granted if the reasons no longer exist, we are free to remove the amendments via another amendment.

That said, the folks that are attempting to turn English on it's head to bastardize the law of the land are no better than any other despots throughout history that came before them.

So what's the prefatory clause explaining in the Second Amendment w/the use of "well regulated militia?"

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks to those who explained in my stead.
[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]
In addition to the answers provided above, the preamble to the bill of rights states:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Basically these are a number of prefatory clauses in the preamble to the bill of rights that are setting the stage for the active statements that follow in the bill of rights. If you read the preamble, you will see that the bill of rights are actually a list of restrictions on government powers, not rights at all. The writer above, as with other preambles/prefatory clauses is providing statements that hold no weight in law, but rather simply explain why the statements are being made such that a subsequent reader might understand why the writer put the active statements in. Granted if the reasons no longer exist, we are free to remove the amendments via another amendment.

That said, the folks that are attempting to turn English on it's head to bastardize the law of the land are no better than any other despots throughout history that came before them.

So what's the prefatory clause explaining in the Second Amendment w/the use of "well regulated militia?"

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

It's explaining the main reason the Formers included the second amendment, that a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State. Well regulated militias are groups of citizens that prepared for and were readily called upon to protect the people from attack. Back then the attackers were Indians, the English, the French, the Spanish, ... Without militias the states would be overrun, you know sort of like how we are being overrun right now by a combination of roving drug lord gangs and other illegal immigrants here to suck on the public teat. We still have militias, and a standing army. At the time of the forming of our nation we could not afford standing armies like the Romans had. Oh how things have changed.

Regulated means disciplined, well trained, etc. IOW they were not just random guys you round up for a posse. They need to know how to fight together to be ready to be called to fight and have a chance of success in the fight against expected foes.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Thanks to those who explained in my stead.
[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]
In addition to the answers provided above, the preamble to the bill of rights states:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Basically these are a number of prefatory clauses in the preamble to the bill of rights that are setting the stage for the active statements that follow in the bill of rights. If you read the preamble, you will see that the bill of rights are actually a list of restrictions on government powers, not rights at all. The writer above, as with other preambles/prefatory clauses is providing statements that hold no weight in law, but rather simply explain why the statements are being made such that a subsequent reader might understand why the writer put the active statements in. Granted if the reasons no longer exist, we are free to remove the amendments via another amendment.

That said, the folks that are attempting to turn English on it's head to bastardize the law of the land are no better than any other despots throughout history that came before them.

So what's the prefatory clause explaining in the Second Amendment w/the use of "well regulated militia?"

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

Who cares, the Supreme Court settled the issue. You do not get to pretend otherwise. The second is an Individual right separate and distinct from any need to belong to a militia.

 

[RKMBrown]

Thanks to those who explained in my stead.
[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]
In addition to the answers provided above, the preamble to the bill of rights states:

Basically these are a number of prefatory clauses in the preamble to the bill of rights that are setting the stage for the active statements that follow in the bill of rights. If you read the preamble, you will see that the bill of rights are actually a list of restrictions on government powers, not rights at all. The writer above, as with other preambles/prefatory clauses is providing statements that hold no weight in law, but rather simply explain why the statements are being made such that a subsequent reader might understand why the writer put the active statements in. Granted if the reasons no longer exist, we are free to remove the amendments via another amendment.

That said, the folks that are attempting to turn English on it's head to bastardize the law of the land are no better than any other despots throughout history that came before them.

So what's the prefatory clause explaining in the Second Amendment w/the use of "well regulated militia?"

[MENTION=43831]RKMBrown[/MENTION]

Who cares, the Supreme Court settled the issue. You do not get to pretend otherwise. The second is an Individual right separate and distinct from any need to belong to a militia.

To be fair, if necessity of a militia is no longer necessary then it's valid to discuss whether a constitutional amendment should be drawn up just to clarify a new main reason or perhaps even to change the wording of active clause in the amendment.

Same goes for the rest of the constitution. If the simple majority no longer believe in liberty, and are now ready to reform as a quasi socialist state run by despots then there's nothing to stop it from happening, other than us being willing to shed our blood to fight for liberty that is. This government is no longer limited to keeping major changes that restrict liberty to be done only with a super majority and ratified by the states. That ship sank.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Thanks to those who explained in my stead.
[MENTION=20450]MarcATL[/MENTION]
In addition to the answers provided above, the preamble to the bill of rights states:

THE Conventions of a number of the States, having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best ensure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Basically these are a number of prefatory clauses in the preamble to the bill of rights that are setting the stage for the active statements that follow in the bill of rights. If you read the preamble, you will see that the bill of rights are actually a list of restrictions on government powers, not rights at all. The writer above, as with other preambles/prefatory clauses is providing statements that hold no weight in law, but rather simply explain why the statements are being made such that a subsequent reader might understand why the writer put the active statements in. Granted if the reasons no longer exist, we are free to remove the amendments via another amendment.

That said, the folks that are attempting to turn English on it's head to bastardize the law of the land are no better than any other despots throughout history that came before them.

So what's the prefatory clause explaining in the Second Amendment w/the use of "well regulated militia?"

As the 2nd protects the exercise of an individual right not connected to the militia, any discussion of the meaning of the term "well regulated militia" in the context of gun control is meaningless.
.