What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

[Pogo]

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?

“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.”
27 words in simple, easy to read, English, doesn't need an essay- it's not an esoteric endeavor.

Apparently not that simple, since you yourself started a thread questioning what it means, and then want to deflect to other shit when anyone else agrees that that is a valid question.

You're lost dood.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Pogo]

 

[Gdjjr]

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?

“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.”
27 words in simple, easy to read, English, doesn't need an essay- it's not an esoteric endeavor.

Apparently not that simple, since you yourself started a thread questioning what it means, and then want to deflect to other shit when anyone else agrees that that is a valid question.

You're lost dood.

I posted it for the brain dead, erudite, pseudo intellectuals believing the constitution is an esoteric endeavor- I've read more about the twisting, spinning, castigating and bastardizing than I can remember- I'm not afraid to read contrary opinion though and I have- it still boils down to "words mean things", specifically; shall not be infringed.

I lost nothing doodess.

 

[Pogo]

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?

“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.”
27 words in simple, easy to read, English, doesn't need an essay- it's not an esoteric endeavor.

Apparently not that simple, since you yourself started a thread questioning what it means, and then want to deflect to other shit when anyone else agrees that that is a valid question.

You're lost dood.

I posted it for the brain dead, erudite, pseudo intellectuals believing the constitution is an esoteric endeavor- I've read more about the twisting, spinning, castigating and bastardizing than I can remember- I'm not afraid to read contrary opinion though and I have- it still boils down to "words mean things", specifically; shall not be infringed.

I lost nothing doodess.

"Doodess" ?

Words mean things, absolutely. But the words I picked out mean things just as much as the words you picked out do.

 

[sparky]

The structure has invited decades of dueling interpretations- interpretation(s) can't exist without definition(s)- words mean things

It sure has

seems everyone has their interpretations these days

originally, i'd wager the FF's simply wanted every farmboy to arm themselves against British Invasion , which occurred in 1812

~S~

 

[Grumblenuts]

it still boils down to "words mean things", specifically; shall not be infringed.

So, in your opinion, does that mean restricting it is okay because that "means" something clearly different? If so, how's that work?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.

Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor well regulated implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in Heller, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.

The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
................

The structure has invited decades of dueling interpretations- interpretation(s) can't exist without definition(s)- words mean things

It's a red flag amendment...our founding fathers were dead set on proving/making us, the free-est country to ever exist and that that was not merely just some bogus blathering.
The second amendment is a red flag amendment, it is designed to alert the citizenry to who it is that threatens their/our freedom...

...What on this earth says freedom more than a populace allowed to determine for themselves what weapons they are allowed to possess?...
...All governments of every kind that preceded us had arms control laws, that the government dictated who was/were allowed to own them, and be owned by whom was what made totalitarianism/despotism/dictatorships, etc. possible, we were the first to give that right of determination to the citizens themselves, if it were not guaranteed to us, the citizens, then there would be no need to even mention it in the constitution...
...The NRA has a nearly zero crime rate making it the very definition of the "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" the constitution had in mind, while the constituency of government dictators force those who favor gun control to need a distraction by poo-pooing the constitution and blaming the NRA, a well regulated militia.

The most telling argument coming from gun control advocates about what their real objective is, is the argument that the second amendment is over 200 years old and that makes it obsolete...the entire constitution fits that bogus argument for them.

 

[Picaro]

It's deliberately vague wording, like much of the Constitution, that allows for the real ruling classes to broadly interpret such statutes to their own personal liking and existential needs at any given time. As we know from history, it's whatever the local leaders say it means, and that included denying the right to own certain weapons to black people based on their color, mostly, but also based on land ownership and 'character' in many places, and out west it meant the sheriff could decide to disarm anybody entering their town or certain parts of town, or they just didn't like somebody's looks, and any other special circumstances the moment might require. Of course, both right and left wingers will insist on their own fantasy versions wherein it was all 'settled law n stuff', and their silly version is the 'right' one, whichis why we have 689,097,123,2334 new threads on the innernetz about this rubbish every week.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It's deliberately vague wording, like much of the Constitution, that allows for the real ruling classes to broadly interpret such statutes to their own personal liking and existential needs at any given time. As we know from history, it's whatever the local leaders say it means, and that included denying the right to own certain weapons to black people based on their color, mostly, but also based on land ownership and 'character' in many places, and out west it meant the sheriff could decide to disarm anybody entering their town or certain parts of town, or they just didn't like somebody's looks, and any other special circumstances the moment might require. Of course, both right and left wingers will insist on their own fantasy versions wherein it was all 'settled law n stuff', and their silly version is the 'right' one, whichis why we have 689,097,123,2334 new threads on the innernetz about this rubbish every week.

That simplifies it

 

[Picaro]

It's deliberately vague wording, like much of the Constitution, that allows for the real ruling classes to broadly interpret such statutes to their own personal liking and existential needs at any given time. As we know from history, it's whatever the local leaders say it means, and that included denying the right to own certain weapons to black people based on their color, mostly, but also based on land ownership and 'character' in many places, and out west it meant the sheriff could decide to disarm anybody entering their town or certain parts of town, or they just didn't like somebody's looks, and any other special circumstances the moment might require. Of course, both right and left wingers will insist on their own fantasy versions wherein it was all 'settled law n stuff', and their silly version is the 'right' one, whichis why we have 689,097,123,2334 new threads on the innernetz about this rubbish every week.

That simplifies it

It is very simple; they left it to the individual states to decide, same as with a state established religious sect, same as they let states decide who were eligible voters and who weren't, and lot so of other fun decisions. What 'changed' is the increasing powers of the SC, as Congress gradually shed itself of powers, beginning with Lincoln's corrupt Chase Court and the following decades of judicial activism at all levels, as the Senate became dominated by big business interests and the Trusts and railroads; the Senate decided on the makeup of the Courts during the 'Gilded Age' and set the precedents for the modern 'judicial activism', which right wingers now try to blame on the left wing now they that plundered and robbed so many people the worm turned on them politically.