What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?

[ReinyDays]

so we had to give them the right to own a gun ...

We had to give them the right? Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted. Privilege is given and often taken. Power is given and often (though not often enough) taken.
Your confusion is indicative of society in general.

That wasn't well understood in 1789 ... almost everything in the Bill of Rights was brand new and never been tried before ... aristocrats had rights, common folk none ... bad mouthing your overlord was the death penalty ...

 

[Gdjjr]

so we had to give them the right to own a gun ...

We had to give them the right? Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted. Privilege is given and often taken. Power is given and often (though not often enough) taken.
Your confusion is indicative of society in general.

That wasn't well understood in 1789 ... almost everything in the Bill of Rights was brand new and never been tried before ... aristocrats had rights, common folk none ... bad mouthing your overlord was the death penalty ...

That all changed for the better.

 

[progressive hunter]

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 certainly a lexicographical train wreck, isn't it. Gives the impression that either it wasn't taken that seriously, or that some rough draft squeaked through to the final form without anyone noticing.

The 2A is unique among all the Bill of Rights ---- indeed among all the Amendments period ---- in the subordinate clause it begins with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ". No other Amendment goes out of its way to establish a basis of reasoning for itself, nor does any Amendment need to .... yet there it is, performing what function nobody knows.

the function is simple,,,because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state it is imperative that the people be armed,,hence "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed,,,

what good is a militia that doesnt have any arms/guns???
isnt that just a neighborhood BBQ

 

[Dick Foster]

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

Well regulated in that day and age more or less meant shipshape and well equiped to do the job. A militia is a fighting force composed of civilian citizenry and not of any government body. The miniutemen for example, like those of Lexington and Concord about which the second was penned in the first place. Those events kicked off to the revolution so were fresh in the founders minds and they wanted to guard against another tyrannical and oppressive government.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted.

Ah, wordplay..
Shaken, not stirred.
Restricted, not infringed.

 

[Gdjjr]

Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted.

Ah, wordplay..
Shaken, not stirred.
Restricted, not infringed.

I don't play with words.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted.

Ah, wordplay..
Shaken, not stirred.
Restricted, not infringed.

I don't play with words.

Me neither.

English Language Learners Definition of infringe
: to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.)
: to wrongly limit or restrict (something, such as another person's rights)

 

[Pogo]

The 2A is unique among all the Bill of Rights ---- indeed among all the Amendments period ---- in the subordinate clause it begins with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ". No other Amendment goes out of its way to establish a basis of reasoning for itself, nor does any Amendment need to .... yet there it is, performing what function nobody knows.

There is no train wreck except to people educated beyond their intellect. Words mean things, or they don't, If in fact they don't then what is the purpose of using them?

Exactly. Thus the mystery of an Amendment's language making its case. The whole point of a Constitution is to dictate, "here's how things will work". Thus there is no reason, or point, in "defending" or rationalizing what follows. It's a series of declarative sentences. All of that hashing out of reasonings and rationales would have been in the formulating discussion, the pros and cons of this and that. It has no function in the actual text.

And yet --- there it is. Thus the train wreck of a horribly edited word salad.

Those educated beyond their intellect can't stand the idea that others have rights and are not answerable to their pseudo intellectual psychosis often referred to as sociopaths.

Unfortunately I posted nothing about anyone's "rights" or what I can "stand". I posted about the strange language of the text, which is, after all, where you started this thread. Apparently your only reaction is to read in things that aren't there and then proceed to this utterly irrelevant superfluous sophistry about sociopathy. Perhaps there's a psychological reason you needed to derail to that, but clearly you seem afraid of the point. Which is strange since you brought it up.

The reqading of the constitution is not an esoteric endeavor except to control freaks, i.e., sociopaths.
Profile of the Sociopath


This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.

• Glibness and Superficial Charm
• Manipulative and Conning
  They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims.
• Grandiose Sense of Self
  Feels entitled to certain things as "their right."
• Pathological Lying
  Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests.
• Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt
  A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way.
• Shallow Emotions
  When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises.
• Incapacity for Love
• Need for Stimulation
  Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common.
• Callousness/Lack of Empathy
  Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them.
• Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature
  Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others.
• Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency
  Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc.
• Irresponsibility/Unreliability
  Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed.
• Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity
  Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts.
• Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle
  Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively.
• Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility
  Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

But whether we currently have a well-regulated militia doesn't control whether or not Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The ideological background of the Second Amendment, the plain meaning of its operative clause, parallel phrasing elsewhere in the Constitution, and the militia clauses of Section I make it clear that they do. The Second Amendment, as Scalia rightly recognized, guarantees an individual right to the people, no matter how the federal government chooses to regulate the organized militia.

Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people." When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase bear arms cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.

Whatever. Amusing, but utterly irrelevant here.

 

[Pogo]

Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted.

Ah, wordplay..
Shaken, not stirred.
Restricted, not infringed.

I don't play with words.

You sure the hell did in post 3.

 

[Gdjjr]

Unfortunately I posted nothing about anyone's "rights" or what I can "stand". I posted about the strange language of the text, which is, after all, where you started this thread.

Well, the language of 2a clearly states the "right" of the people, so I guess I'm correct.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Hamilton and Madison explained the militia of the states use of force against the use of force by federal usurpers in Federalist numbers 28 and 46. The Federalist being, of course, the blueprint for the constitution.

 

[Gdjjr]

Hamilton and Madison explained the militia of the states use of force against the use of force by federal usurpers in Federalist numbers 28 and 46. The Federalist being, of course, the blueprint for the constitution.

Meh- just so much "word salad" is what the pseudo intellectuals claim.

 

[Pogo]

Unfortunately I posted nothing about anyone's "rights" or what I can "stand". I posted about the strange language of the text, which is, after all, where you started this thread.

Well, the language of 2a clearly states the "right" of the people, so I guess I'm correct.

That's got ZERO to do with what I pointed out.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

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

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." - George Mason

 

[Grumblenuts]

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?

 

[Wyatt earp]

It means whatever the NRA says it means.

The NRA did not pen the US Constitution, they merely support and defend the Second Amendment and gun rights of American citizens.

It must suck for you guys and girls to not have a Second Amendment like we do. The best you can hope for is for the Bobbies to show up after you're murdered, so they can draw the chalk outlines around the body and clean up the blood.

Yes, all of my friends wish we had guns so we could be safe like in the US.

You must be hanging out with the wrong caliber of "friends". Personally, there is no safer place in the world right now, than within my four walls. And I have enough firearms to start WW3. It's not like any of them are going to jump up and shoot you in ass or anything.

Tammy gets drunk and does crazy things.

Tilly?

 

[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.

 

[Grumblenuts]

English, doesn't need an essay- it's not an esoteric endeavor.

Yet away you went:

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

Now slap yourself silly.

 

[Gdjjr]

English, doesn't need an essay- it's not an esoteric endeavor.

Yet away you went:

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

Now slap yourself silly.

My essay is not a higher educated one- I can read simple English- you might try it.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Logical destruction? No thanks. Learning to laugh at yourself. Try that.

Carrying ("bearing") a bazooka. Try that.