Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?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.
fucking Mexican is still irrelevant and misinformedNo, 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.clueless Mexican is still cluelessState only miliitia is considered unorganized for federal purposes.In U.S. Code it defines what is a militiaState's militia, is their well regulated National Guard....
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.
Because the state guard is the same as the national guard.
So what exactly is that militia? The state police and highway patrol?The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?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.
Says the clueless and Causeless guy not from the Americas.fucking Mexican is still irrelevant and misinformedNo, 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.clueless Mexican is still cluelessState only miliitia is considered unorganized for federal purposes.In U.S. Code it defines what is a militiaState's militia, is their well regulated National Guard....
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.
Because the state guard is the same as the national guard.
Did you miss it the first time?So what exactly is that militia? The state police and highway patrol?The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?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.
no Mexican still wrong as usualSays the clueless and Causeless guy not from the Americas.fucking Mexican is still irrelevant and misinformedNo, 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.clueless Mexican is still cluelessState only miliitia is considered unorganized for federal purposes.In U.S. Code it defines what is a militiaState's militia, is their well regulated National Guard....
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.
Because the state guard is the same as the national guard.
That’s the passage I was responding to. What exactly is the organized militia and how is it organized and regulated?Did you miss it the first time?So what exactly is that militia? The state police and highway patrol?The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.What kind of well regulated regulations do you see as appropriate?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.
The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
A "Well regulated Militia" is described in Article 1 Section 8 Clause 16 of the Constitution and it describes a trained, disciplined organization with rank and roll call . Clause 15 describes its use...one of which is to put DOWN the kind of insurrection you claim the militia enables. You are wrongThis is where I remind the communist Dems, "regulated" means organized not regulated by government.
credible link?States also have their own State militia that is not subject to federal callup.State's militia, is their well regulated National Guard....
That's an interesting idea. Now, can you name a state that private militias are legal in?you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federalSo which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?and as always you're illinformedAnd you are an idiot.The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democratsThe state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.
The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities.
That's why we have a second amendment
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?I understand the right, but I’m asking what exactly the well regulated militia is. What regulations are they talking about?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.well show me what you looked at
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"
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"
In reb's, it's more like rebel without a clue.All y'all know how to do is be rebels without a Cause.you don't allow tyrants sole authority over self-defense state or federalSo which states are private, non governmental approved militias legal in?and as always you're illinformedAnd you are an idiot.The people are the militia they are the last defense against tyranny of the democratsThe state of imagination of fanatical firearm fondlers. Elsewhere, the Constitution applies.Perhaps you can name a state where private militias are legal.
The U.S. Constitution and state laws use the term “militia” to refer to all able-bodied residents between certain ages who may be called forth by the government when there is a specific need; but private individuals have no legal authority to activate themselves for militia duty outside the authority of the federal or state government. The ... Second Amendment does not protect private militia activity, pointing to decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court in 1886 and 2008 making clear that the Second Amendment “does not prevent the prohibition of private paramilitary organizations.” ...All 50 states prohibit private, unauthorized groups from engaging in activities reserved for the state militia, including law enforcement activities.
That's why we have a second amendment
That’s a great analogy given the tournament I just watched. Now that my right to golf shall not be limited does that mean I can take 20 clubs with me during a tournament and give myself 2 mulligans a round, drive a cart across the greens, tee off during somebody elses tee time, etc?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?I understand the right, but I’m asking what exactly the well regulated militia is. What regulations are they talking about?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.well show me what you looked at
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"
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"
The militia is controlled by the people.
You really never grasp a discussion. I'll try to give it one more shot.
Let's say you're into golf. The club you belong to says,
Because we love well disciplined golfers, your right as a member at our club to golf shall not be limited. Golf all you want!
That isn't a limit on your right to golf, it's saying they expect you are like them.
Is this really that hard for you?
That is the dumbest thing I've heard all day.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?I understand the right, but I’m asking what exactly the well regulated militia is. What regulations are they talking about?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.well show me what you looked at
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"
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"
The militia is controlled by the people.
You really never grasp a discussion. I'll try to give it one more shot.
Let's say you're into golf. The club you belong to says,
Because we love well disciplined golfers, your right as a member at our club to golf shall not be limited. Golf all you want!
That isn't a limit on your right to golf, it's saying they expect you are like them.
Is this really that hard for you?
The fuck are you babbling about?well then you have no protected rights other than what they had on hand in the 18th century.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.An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.
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
Wow. You've built your own little world, complete with rules and all. Have you mentioned all this to your therapist? I'm sure it's something he would need to know.well then you have no protected rights other than what they had on hand in the 18th century.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.An Assault weapons ban would take this weapon away from the state citizens, thus negating the right to organize a states militia.
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
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.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.
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.
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.
Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
No, you made up what you wanted the amendment to say as it does not say anything even remotely what you claim. I have shown you quotes from Heller that establish what those phrases actually mean.I just read the Amendment. I didn't add anything, I didn't subtract anything. Looks pretty clear.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.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.
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."
Well, no and Heller addressed that as well: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.
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.
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.Nowhere does it infer that individuals can be running around like Yosemite Sam.
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.
Well then; apparently Mark Levin doesn’t understand the purpose of a civilian comprised militia. Do you?Including missiles and nukes? I was listening to conservative icon Mark Levin talk about this last week and he would firmly disagree with you.In order to be affective, a civilian led militia MUST possess weapons equal to those possessed by government.
