Assault Weapons Ban would be unconstitutional. "A State Militia must be maintained and well regulated"

[bigrebnc1775]

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

• Clause 16
• To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Done

however, the unorganized militia is not connected with the organized militia which means it's not governed by the government.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

That it is up to the government to decide what is "common use" and that the founders meant that government should be better armed than the people contradicts everything ever written on gun rights by every founder who was involved in writing the Constitution

The words "common use" are not part of the 2A nor the Constitution.

The supreme court as ruled otherwise

The SC is always subject to re-interpretation.

The NRA worked very hard to get the make up in their favor...for now

U.S.vs Miller was ruled on in 1939 supreme courts since have referenced the miller case
You're done

 

[Slade3200]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?

well regulated means as to be expected in working order

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I looked it up but couldn’t find an answer. Can you tell me what you think it is?

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

 

[Crick]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

I missed where it actually said the militias had to be armed with assault weapons. Seems to me they HAD to have meant muzzle-loading flintlocks.

 

[kaz]

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

The term "well regulated militia" is academic only anyway.

1) The 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights, which are specifically powers withheld from government

2) The founders all clearly stated it protects the right of individuals to be armed

3) You can read the second where "well regulated militia" is only an explanation of the right, not limit on it. The right is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[Slade3200]

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

The term "well regulated militia" is academic only anyway.

1) The 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights, which are specifically powers withheld from government

2) The founders all clearly stated it protects the right of individuals to be armed

3) You can read the second where "well regulated militia" is only an explanation of the right, not limit on it. The right is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

I understand the right, but I’m asking what exactly the well regulated militia is. What regulations are they talking about?

 

[FA_Q2]

Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.

This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.

Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.

Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.

 

[Mac1958]

Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.

This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.

Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.

Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.

I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written

It's described in Article 1 Section 8

And it AIN'T a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s sitting around a barber shop

And it DOES mention putting DOWN the kinds of insurrections you claim militias are supposed to enable

if that is true you have no first amendment rights other than parchment and quell written you have no privacy on electronics or the phones or your data
You only have protected rights for what they had during the 18the century.
No privacy in your car. Check

What's a "quell"?

 

[kaz]

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

The term "well regulated militia" is academic only anyway.

1) The 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights, which are specifically powers withheld from government

2) The founders all clearly stated it protects the right of individuals to be armed

3) You can read the second where "well regulated militia" is only an explanation of the right, not limit on it. The right is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

I understand the right, but I’m asking what exactly the well regulated militia is. What regulations are they talking about?

They aren't talking about "regulations." Regulations are written by government.

The term regulated means controlled. They envisioned American Citizens keeping government power in check. Well regulated doesn't mean "regulations," it means well controlled. Doesn't this sound almost exactly like the second?

George Washington: " “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”

They were clear that it wasn't up to government though. The right is:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

I missed where it actually said the militias had to be armed with assault weapons. Seems to me they HAD to have meant muzzle-loading flintlocks.

What assault weapons? The liberal definition of an assault weapon or the real definition of an assault weapon?

 

[Slade3200]

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

The term "well regulated militia" is academic only anyway.

1) The 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights, which are specifically powers withheld from government

2) The founders all clearly stated it protects the right of individuals to be armed

3) You can read the second where "well regulated militia" is only an explanation of the right, not limit on it. The right is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

I understand the right, but I’m asking what exactly the well regulated militia is. What regulations are they talking about?

They aren't talking about "regulations." Regulations are written by government.

The term regulated means controlled. They envisioned American Citizens keeping government power in check. Well regulated doesn't mean "regulations," it means well controlled. Doesn't this sound almost exactly like the second?

George Washington: " “A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”

They were clear that it wasn't up to government though. The right is:

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Ok so Whalen they say a well controlled militia... how is the militia controlled? What are the boundaries for control and who defines and enforced those boundaries?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?

well regulated means as to be expected in working order

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I looked it up but couldn’t find an answer. Can you tell me what you think it is?

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

liar

he following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written

It's described in Article 1 Section 8

And it AIN'T a bunch of yahoos with AR-15s sitting around a barber shop

And it DOES mention putting DOWN the kinds of insurrections you claim militias are supposed to enable

if that is true you have no first amendment rights other than parchment and quell written you have no privacy on electronics or the phones or your data
You only have protected rights for what they had during the 18the century.
No privacy in your car. Check

What's a "quell"?

ask King George traitor tory while you're kissing his ass

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Thirdly, "the militia" now is the "unorganized militia" which is every male from a certain age to a certain age, and the National Guard. The "unorganized militia" exists as a non-entity to stop people demanding their right to "bear arms", otherwise known as the right to be in the militia.

This is the area that interests me. The 2nd Amendment seems pretty clear: 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.

Okay. So, a couple of points:

First, it doesn't say "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, AND the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's saying the people can join an actual militia to protect their security.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

www.law.cornell.edu

You are right, it does not say that so one wonders why you even bring it up as it is not relevant in any way.

What it CLEARLY and UNEQUIVOCALLY states is that the right of the people. Not the right of the state, not the right of the government, not the power of a state, not anything other than the right of the people. Period. End of story. ESDG

The second is clearly an individual right as are EVERY SINGLE OTHER RIGHT mentioned in the BoR. The BoR is, was and forever will be limitations on what the federal government can do. EVERY. SINGLE. AMENDMENT. All of them in the BoR are limitations on the feds in respect to the people. They are not prescriptions on powers the feds have which is exactly what you are making this out to be - a power that the feds or the state has rather than a right the people have.

That the AND is missing from the amendment does not mean the right of the people does not exist. Rather it directly contradicts your statement, if the and had existed THEN you might have a point in claiming you have the 'right' to join a militia however it does not. Even then it would be take pretzel logic to make that key point go away, that the amendment directly states the right of the people. The prefatory clause is clearly outlining the purpose of the right: Well regulated militias are important for a free state as the founders knew because the 'well regulated' militia was key in making the US a free state. Because the militia is made up of the people, they must both be armed and in well regulated order. That is exactly what Miller found:

" The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, “Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” See J. Tiffany, A Treatise on Government and Constitutional Law §585, p. 394 (1867); Brief for Professors of Linguistics and English as Amici Curiae 3 (hereinafter Linguists’ Brief). Although this structure of the Second Amendment is unique in our Constitution, other legal documents of the founding era, particularly individual-rights provisions of state constitutions, commonly included a prefatory statement of purpose. See generally Volokh, The Commonplace Second Amendment , 73 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 793, 814–821 (1998). "

Heller also covers the idea that you 'can join' a militia as something you are simply interjecting into the meaning. The militia is, essentially, everyone.
"Petitioners take a seemingly narrower view of the militia, stating that “[m]ilitias are the state- and congressionally-regulated military forces described in the Militia Clauses (art. I, §8, cls. 15–16).” Brief for Petitioners 12. Although we agree with petitioners’ interpretive assumption that “militia” means the same thing in Article I and the Second Amendment , we believe that petitioners identify the wrong thing, namely, the organized militia. Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create (“to raise … Armies”; “to provide … a Navy,” Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to “provide for calling forth the militia,” §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to “organiz[e]” it—and not to organize “a” militia, which is what one would expect if the militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize “the” militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the militia as all able-bodied men."

Second, it's pretty clear when it says "well regulated". That means that the governing authority can regulate militias as it sees fit, just as it can regulate an army as it sees fit. So those who join the militia must submit to regulations.

Well, no and Heller addressed that as well:

Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. See Johnson 1619 (“Regulate”: “To adjust by rule or method”); Rawle 121–122; cf. Va. Declaration of Rights §13 (1776), in 7 Thorpe 3812, 3814 (referring to “a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms”).

Which has actually been used in the past but fell out of traditional use pretty quickly after the nation was established. Either way, the prefatory statement not only does not remove the individual right but it would be rather nonsensical to demand that the necessity of a well trained militia being necessary for a free state would somehow equate to removing the right that such a well regulated force would require to exist at all. It is an illogical conclusion to draw.

Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.

Nope, it never says we can run around like Yosemite Sam but no one anywhere is advocating for that so your straw man is pointless. You start out stating that the meaning of the second is pretty clear, make a statement about what it does not say and then go on to utterly and unequivocally ignore the text of the second applying what you want it to mean.

Here is the bottom line - it is a simple fact that the second protects your individual right to bear arms that are both in common use throughout the nation and in military use, period. Trying to read that out of the amendment is simply not possible while being honest with its intent or wording. I get it that many think the amendment is outdated and incorrect in a modern society considering the changes that have happened to arms in the intervening 2 centuries. However, it requires an amendment to change the second and nothing less will do. The left has been trying to pretend basic terminology means something it does not because they know that bar is high but that is simply not going to work. Stop trying to reinterpret the second to something it is not.

I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.

you just glazed over the second amendment you cherry-picked certain words but overlooked keep and bear arms

 

[bigrebnc1775]

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

The term "well regulated militia" is academic only anyway.

1) The 2nd amendment is in the bill of rights, which are specifically powers withheld from government

2) The founders all clearly stated it protects the right of individuals to be armed

3) You can read the second where "well regulated militia" is only an explanation of the right, not limit on it. The right is "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

I understand the right, but I’m asking what exactly the well regulated militia is. What regulations are they talking about?

no modern day regulation no regulations at all the second amendment is referring to as to be expected in working order.
Like a well-tuned watch is well regulated it's expected to function falsely

 

[Slade3200]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?

well regulated means as to be expected in working order

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I looked it up but couldn’t find an answer. Can you tell me what you think it is?

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

liar

he following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

.

Ok well why the shit didn’t you say that 5 posts ago?! It’s like pulling teeth to have a conversation with you! So now that we have an answer. Wel regulated means “properly working and calibrated” can you explain in real terms what a properly working militia is? Who decided if it’s properly working?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.

I missed where it actually said the militias had to be armed with assault weapons. Seems to me they HAD to have meant muzzle-loading flintlocks.

well then you have no protected rights other than what they had on hand in the 18th century.
You have no rights to privacy other than what has been written by parchment and quill
The press has no first amendment right other than what can be printed by typeset presses
You have no right to privacy in your vehicle
the government cannot tax an income because that amendment was not written with parchment and quill

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The United States constitution clearly states that a "States militia must be well regulated and maintained." A weapon of a "States militia" is an assault rifle. Any ban would violate the United States constitution.

What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?

well regulated means as to be expected in working order

Ok so how do you see that working with the state militias?

define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I’m asking you for your explanation. Why can’t you just give a straight answer? I’m not versed in 18th century terminology so please dazzle us with your knowledge

And I told you to define well regulated using 18th-century terminology as when the second amendment was written and you will have your answer.

I looked it up but couldn’t find an answer. Can you tell me what you think it is?

well show me what you looked at

I googled 18th century terminology for a well regulated militia and didn’t see anything that answered my question. So how about you just answer it in your own words?! 5 posts now you have avoided answering. Feels like you don’t know how to answer it.

liar

he following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

.

Ok well why the shit didn’t you say that 5 posts ago?! It’s like pulling teeth to have a conversation with you! So now that we have an answer. Wel regulated means “properly working and calibrated” can you explain in real terms what a properly working militia is? Who decided if it’s properly working?

liar their are plenty of sources on the internet why did you lie and say you couldn't find any reference?

 

[danielpalos]

State's militia, is their well regulated National Guard....

In U.S. Code it defines what is a militia

10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

State only miliitia is considered unorganized for federal purposes.

clueless Mexican is still clueless
Because the state guard is the same as the national guard.

No, it isn't clueless guy not from the Americas. They are not the same thing. The California State Guard is not the same as the California National Guard.