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

They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.

You asked, then you denigrate my opinion? We don't need to modify the Constitution to ban Automatic Assault Weapon, as you say they're already banned. Banning semi automatic weapon because they look like military style weapons is ridiculous.
Degenerate your opinion?

Whatever, you responded to my post with 'Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with' as though it was supposed to mean something. Now your complaining because I pressed against it?

What you posted has nothing to do with anything I have been saying. That is not degenerating anything.

That's because I was discussing the role of the militia, not the 2nd.

Degenerate? No.

So back to my original question.

And how does that makes sense in response to my comment?
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.

You asked, then you denigrate my opinion? We don't need to modify the Constitution to ban Automatic Assault Weapon, as you say they're already banned. Banning semi automatic weapon because they look like military style weapons is ridiculous.
Degenerate your opinion?

Whatever, you responded to my post with 'Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with' as though it was supposed to mean something. Now your complaining because I pressed against it?

What you posted has nothing to do with anything I have been saying. That is not degenerating anything.

That's because I was discussing the role of the militia, not the 2nd.

Degenerate? No.

So back to my original question.

And how does that makes sense in response to my comment?

I ignored your original comment because it had nothing to do with the conversion I was having.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.

You asked, then you denigrate my opinion? We don't need to modify the Constitution to ban Automatic Assault Weapon, as you say they're already banned. Banning semi automatic weapon because they look like military style weapons is ridiculous.
Degenerate your opinion?

Whatever, you responded to my post with 'Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with' as though it was supposed to mean something. Now your complaining because I pressed against it?

What you posted has nothing to do with anything I have been saying. That is not degenerating anything.

That's because I was discussing the role of the militia, not the 2nd.

Degenerate? No.

So back to my original question.

And how does that makes sense in response to my comment?

I ignored your original comment because it had nothing to do with the conversion I was having.
You ignored nothing - you responded. With bullshit. And then whined like an idiot that I denigrated your opinion.

And now you claim to have 'ignored' my comment. Fuck off. You are pointless to converse with (if I can call it that). I guess I will not bother then.
 
They eventually want to confiscate all rifles and handguns from all citizens somewhere down the road.

And I want an Angel on a Gold Chain that I can ride to the Stars, but that ain't happening either!

The UN has no military to carry out such a dream.
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 National Guard has many assault rifles and many other cool weapons. They are the State Militias, who were always ultimately under the command of the CiC. Not the private gun clubs.

"A well regulated Militia," means trained in the art of war.

A "militia" is comprised of civilians whom are NOT under the command of government. We all learned that by third grade...you didn't?

That is known as a private militia, and all 50 states have laws making them illegal.
Untrue. The Constitution makes them legal in all 50 States. You are dreaming.

The constitution make sewing clubs for Grandma legal too. Gun Clubs are free to call themselves militia's but they have no legal authority to act as part of the US military chain of command.
By definition militias are not part of the US military chain of command. They can become part of the US military chain of command but then they are regular government troops rather than militia.

The chain of command went through the Governors because we had no national standing army.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,
The GOP Has a Problem: My Generation Isn't Conservative

, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

"... and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States,..."

What part of that do you not understand? Militias may become regular government troops. Including State government troops at which time they become subject to the authority of that government and are no longer actually militia.

It's meaningless without " reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress; "
That is unconnected with 'the' militia referred to in the second and is outlined in Heller.
The States Governors were in charge of the Militias. They were not random groups of armed citizens who decide to play weekend soldier once in a while and call themselves "The Militia".
Well, yes and no. Does not matter what you may or may not call yourself. The militia is defined in Heller and throughout the writing of the founders. It is pretty damn clear to be honest.

States were in charge of training the militia and they did when the nation was in its early stages before a standing army was how we managed defense. The states do have the power to tell people to organize and train. I don't think that such an order would manage to go over very well today but it is in the constitution.
A lot has changed in warfare technology since then but the power structure over the militias, aka States National Guard, still starts with the Governors.
Correct. A lot has changed. IF the purpose of the second is no longer relevant then... wait for it...

CHANGE THE FUCKING AMENDMENT.

The amendment exists as it is. You may not like the realities of that but if you want to adjust the second to comport with modern times in a manner that it is not compatible with, namely removing the right of the people, then you need to actually change the constitution. Ignoring it is the wrong way to do this.

Amending the Constitution is the best option. That doesn't change the fact that the various state militias were state sponsored and trained and were integral to protection against threats to Local, State and National interests.

I oppose a ban on assault style semi-automatic weapons.
Amending the constitution is not the 'best' option if you want to constitutionally expand gun bans, it is the ONLY way.

That various states sponsored militias and trained them is not relevant. Such has already been explained an you have not shown why those explanations are false.

That you oppose such a ban is also not relevant as the discussion is on the compatibility of such bans and the second.

Hogwash, we ban assault weapons already (automatic weapons) from the general public as well as other arms used in war.

Gun Clubs are subject to the very same laws as every other citizen of the state. Knitting clubs have the same rights.
Because fully automatic weapons not common in use.

Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with.
They are not in common use. They are not in common use by the military either. The military has access to all kinds of special equipment.

Are you trying to argue the position that we should have access to everything that the military has access to because that is clearly not a position that you hold to.

No not at all. My position has been that the Militias were set up in the Constitution for the protection of the people by the people. Not as an opposition force to be used against the Government of the People when a particular party lost! Every able body citizen in good standing was required to be part of the early militia. We were a very small and vulnerable country back then. Not anymore. Militias have morphed into the States National Guards. They need to train with those weapons, not every Tom Dick or Harry.
That's nice. It is also irrelevant to the application of the second which was what we were talking about. IF the second is no longer relevant it would not change the reality of its protection against governmental interference. You would have to change it first.

You asked, then you denigrate my opinion? We don't need to modify the Constitution to ban Automatic Assault Weapon, as you say they're already banned. Banning semi automatic weapon because they look like military style weapons is ridiculous.
Degenerate your opinion?

Whatever, you responded to my post with 'Weapons that todays militia's, aka States National Guard, trains with' as though it was supposed to mean something. Now your complaining because I pressed against it?

What you posted has nothing to do with anything I have been saying. That is not degenerating anything.

That's because I was discussing the role of the militia, not the 2nd.

Degenerate? No.

So back to my original question.

And how does that makes sense in response to my comment?

I ignored your original comment because it had nothing to do with the conversion I was having.
You ignored nothing - you responded. With bullshit. And then whined like an idiot that I denigrated your opinion.

And now you claim to have 'ignored' my comment. Fuck off. You are pointless to converse with (if I can call it that). I guess I will not bother then.

You wanted to interject Heller for some reason. Can you recall what I said about Heller?
 
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival
What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.
Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the time
It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".
You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority
Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 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."
 
Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 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."
No, it doesn't.

Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

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;
 
I'm adamant about "shall not be infringed". The regulations, gun control and bans only affect law abiding citizens. Crimes committed with a firearm should be prosecuted severely. 20 to life in prison and in some cases the death penalty. Punish the criminal not the law abiding citizens.
Wrong.

Firearm regulatory measures enacted consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence is not to ‘punish’ gunowners.
they are infringements which violates the second amendment
How so?
because they are
WAITING PERIOD INFRINGEMENT YES OR NO?
No, of course not. As long as people have the right to keep and bare arms in their homes then their rights are being upheld. There are good arguments to be made for cities like NY that make it near impossible to get a permit to get a gun. I'll give some credence to those cases. But those who assume that any laws regulating guns as unconstitutional is just silly. They've had laws regulating guns since the adoption of the Bill of Rights.

There's no good argument to deny permits and NYC's skyrocketting murder rate proves it.
I believe a city has the right to ban the carrying of firearms in public spaces just as a private business has the right to ban guns on their property. It’s been done since the old western times when people come into town and needed to check their firearms. So I don’t see how murder rates are significantly affected by lack of Permits. I do think the constitution permits law abiding citizens citizens to own a firearm at their home or private property so that they can defend them selves if need be.

A city doesn't have a right to violate the Constitution. Mayors, cops, council members take an oath to uphold the Constitution. They are exempt from the law of the land.

The increased murder rate proves the need for people to protect themselves outside their homes.
They’ve had rules like this since the adoption of the constitution. Perhaps you’re not interpreting it correctly.

Wrong.
The first gun laws that were not immediately struck down was the Sullivan Art of 1911.
Hi don’t think there were towns in the Wild West that made visitors check their guns before entering businesses or certain areas? Have you ever seen back to the future 3?! Mad dog totally had to check his gun before going to the clock tower festival
What does that have to do with anything?

You do not have the right of free speech on someone's property either. No one anywhere argues that business cannot ban guns.
Don’t say No one I’ve been in plenty of debates in this board with people who think the 2nd gives them a right to be armed anywhere and all the time
It does. There is no "except for" in the 2nd only a "shall not be infringed".
You can still be bearing arms within a regulated system. That right would not be infringed. It’s up to interpretation and history shows that the majority of law makers agree that regulations and laws around guns are valid. You’re in the minority
Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 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."
How do militias operate in working order or as expected?
 
Well form some damn militias and pass regulations on them
Why? They are not assault weapons just because you call them by that name.
Yeah, but you're handcuffed and body-slammed to the concrete pavement and suffocated under a cop's knee. I mean, you had an illegal assault weapon in your possession at the time, didn't you? Don't you think the cops are playing fair? And then you've got to be a felon, too, because that's a felony to possess the felony assault rifle. Educate a Democrat jury of cop-calling whores, registered Democrat voters, Karens and concerned Democrat citizens on your gun rights, Ma'am.
 
Yeah, but you're handcuffed and body-slammed to the concrete pavement and suffocated under a cop's knee. I mean, you had an illegal assault weapon in your possession at the time, didn't you? Don't you think the cops are playing fair? And then you've got to be a felon, too, because that's a felony to possess the felony assault rifle. Educate a Democrat jury of cop-calling whores, registered Democrat voters, Karens and concerned Democrat citizens on your gun rights, Ma'am.
Guns and rifles don't assault anyone all by themselves. Democrats purposely confuse the actions of humans with inanimate objects in order to establish power and control over law abiding citizens. Individual rights be damned.
 
Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 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."
No, it doesn't.

Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

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;
Which must mean that as the power to organize the militia exists in the constitution, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE was clearly not connected to that power or the second would have no need to exist.
 
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.

More pretzel logic from the party of twisted thinking. Reading the Constitution, the second Amendment says: "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." It doesn't say the "unfettered right of the people" shall not be infringed, so the law provides for regulation of gun rights. Only the right to own a gun is guaranteed.

And no you are not guaranteed the right to military grade weapons. Not to mention that while the technology existed to make repeating weapons, they were both difficult and expensive to make, and were not widely available until 1830. It took a minute to reload after firing and prepare for another shot. One mass shooter in the mid-West shot 30 people in 30 seconds with an AR15 a couple of years ago. Those guns should not be on the streets, and I'm thinking the Founders would be shocked and horrified and what has happened to the USA as a result of the 2nd Amendment.

A militia is defined as "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". You have to be a member of a "well regulated militia" to have unfettered access to weapons under the Second Amendment. That would be the National Guard, so if you're Guard Member, you get to have a gun, but otherwise, not so much.
That’s a specious argument. A single revolutionary war three pounder cannon could easily kill a hundred or more people with a single grapeshot round. A single legally owned private warship could kill hundreds of people and destroy tens of thousands of dollars of property damage. A black powder shotgun could kill multiple people with its one or two barrels. Your definition is a modern one and not particularly accurate at that. In Lebanon the religious militias were completely separate from, and often in opposition to the Lebanese Army. Same thing in Serbia and Syria and many other modern era countries.
 
Which must mean that as the power to organize the militia exists in the constitution, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE was clearly not connected to that power or the second would have no need to exist.
That is probably one of the best explanations I have heard for supporting the 2nd amendment. Apparently the Founders saw the need for The People to have the right to bear arms separate from the government. Not only do guns offer a way for The People to get food, protect their property from animal predators and human predators, but also can provide a force to be reckoned with if a tyrannical government seizes all guns in it's control which includes munitions storage for a government militia. The Founders were believers in government checks and balances which exists all throughout our governmental structure.
 
Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 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."
No, it doesn't.

Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

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;
Which must mean that as the power to organize the militia exists in the constitution, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE was clearly not connected to that power or the second would have no need to exist.
The People are the Militia.
 
Which must mean that as the power to organize the militia exists in the constitution, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE was clearly not connected to that power or the second would have no need to exist.
That is probably one of the best explanations I have heard for supporting the 2nd amendment. Apparently the Founders saw the need for The People to have the right to bear arms separate from the government. Not only do guns offer a way for The People to get food, protect their property from animal predators and human predators, but also can provide a force to be reckoned with if a tyrannical government seizes all guns in it's control which includes munitions storage for a government militia. The Founders were believers in government checks and balances which exists all throughout our governmental structure.
More than that, they were explicitly against standing armies. The fact is one of the core reasons the second exists is that the people were intended to be the main defense force for the nation.

One can argue that need has passed but one cannot argue resonably that the second does not protect a personal right.
 
Regulated means in working order as to be expected or like that used the term for a clock in the 18th century a well regulated clock
The phrase "well-regulated" is an idiom that means something like "working as expected, calibrated correctly, normal, regular". You can't interpret an idiom literally based solely on the words that it's made from - idioms have their own independent meaning.
The following source gives examples from the Oxford English Dictionary of how the idiom was used from 1709 through 1894, demonstrating how the idiom 'well-regulated' has meaning beyond 'regulations' i.e. laws.

Constitution Society – Advocates and enforcers of the U.S. and State Constitutions

> 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."
No, it doesn't.

Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

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;
Which must mean that as the power to organize the militia exists in the constitution, the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE was clearly not connected to that power or the second would have no need to exist.
The People are the Militia.
Yes, they are. Still means that the organized militia is not connected with the right for the unorganized militia, the people, to bear arms.
 
Yes, they are. Still means that the organized militia is not connected with the right for the unorganized militia, the people, to bear arms.
Remember, we are arguing with a Marxist. Oh Danny, yes you are.
 
Last edited:
The People are the Militia.
No they're not. Only when they are well regulated and the government organizes them into one for the purpose of thwarting foreign invaders. Other than that, the People have the right to bear arms.
As the founders meant the term, they actually were. EVERYONE is part of the militia.

And, in order for that militia to exist, everyone has the right to bear arms, both outgrowths of the idea of self defense.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top