Keeping guns from criminals - liberals, what is your plan?

[kaz]

The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything. There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government. What government school gave you your crappy education?

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.

I agree obviously. The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated." That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government. And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either. It's the people

People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

Not arguing...
The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.

I didn't mean "arguing" that way. In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.

So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making. Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not? According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia. That was driven by the people, not the State

 

[kaz]

The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything. There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government. What government school gave you your crappy education?

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.

I agree obviously. The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated." That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government. And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either. It's the people

People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.

No, the members of the militia elected their own officers. How can you not know that?

Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 16
The Congress shall have Power 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....

Patrick Henry: "The militia is our ultimate safety, We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun."

I'm still not seeing your point. That does not say the government can decide if you are a militia or not. Furthermore, the 2nd doesn't say you have to be in a militia to have a gun. It says because A, B. It does not say if A, B. Entirely different things.

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[Ernie S.]

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.

I agree obviously. The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated." That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government. And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either. It's the people

People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

Not arguing...
The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.

I didn't mean "arguing" that way. In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.

So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making. Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not? According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia. That was driven by the people, not the State

Technically, yes. The government does define the militias in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, though, that is not what was meant by "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment

 

[kaz]

I agree obviously. The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated." That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government. And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either. It's the people

People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

Not arguing...
The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.

I didn't mean "arguing" that way. In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.

So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making. Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not? According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia. That was driven by the people, not the State

Technically, yes. The government does define the militias in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, though, that is not what was meant by "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment

So the point you are making regarding the second amendment is?

 

[Ernie S.]

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.

I agree obviously. The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated." That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government. And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either. It's the people

People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.

No, the members of the militia elected their own officers. How can you not know that?

Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 16
The Congress shall have Power 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....

Patrick Henry: "The militia is our ultimate safety, We can have no security without it. The great object is that every man be armed....Every one who is able may have a gun."

I'm still not seeing your point. That does not say the government can decide if you are a militia or not. Furthermore, the 2nd doesn't say you have to be in a militia to have a gun. It says because A, B. It does not say if A, B. Entirely different things.

Second Amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

We're mostly on the same page here. The Founders wanted a ready Army but not a standing army. They stated the need for a militia, but left to the states how it was administered.
This in no way limits the right of the individual to keep and bear arms

 

[Ernie S.]

People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.

I'm not clear what you're arguing

Not arguing...
The officers were responsible for seeing that they commanded a "well regulated" militia. The officers were appointed by the States.

I didn't mean "arguing" that way. In the context I said it, what are you arguing means what point are you asserting, it doesn't mean arguing like heated debate.

So to put it another way, I'm not sure what case you're making. Are you saying government decides what a militia is and whether you are in one or not? According to the writings of the founders, the goal was to have every able bodied man armed and in a militia. That was driven by the people, not the State

Technically, yes. The government does define the militias in Article I, Section 8, Clause 16, though, that is not what was meant by "well regulated" in the 2nd Amendment

So the point you are making regarding the second amendment is?

Simply a clarification of a statement you made in the first post I replied to.

 

[Contumacious]

Every time there's a shooting, liberals run around saying this proves we need more gun laws. I ask liberals over and over how exactly you are going to keep guns out of the hands of criminals every time you say you want more gun laws.

In particular, address given that drugs are illegal, and yet any parent knows any kid can get as much pot as they want. There are millions of guns in the US, millions more in the world. So don't just say more laws, explain how more laws are going to actually work.

So, there have been 7 shootings killing at least 10 people in the last decade. The only thing you've achieved so far is that no one was shooting back.

Their "plan" is to disarm ALL law abiding citizens.

.


.

Yep, they don't care about criminals. They want to disarm anyone who could oppose their suckling at government tits

Actually, once Killary appoint "justices" who are criminal enough to claim that Americans never had an individual right to bear arms , we will ALL be criminals. The prison population will increase ten fold.

 

[Ernie S.]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

 

[Contumacious]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped

WE THE PEOPLE in our INDIVIDUAL capacity.


.

 

[Ernie S.]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped

WE THE PEOPLE in our INDIVIDUAL capacity.


.

I thought I made that all quite clear.

 

[Contumacious]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped

WE THE PEOPLE in our INDIVIDUAL capacity.


.

I thought I made that all quite clear.

Lynyrd Skynyrd - Sweet Home Alabama


.

 

[KissMy]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list. Including the untrained in the list will provide cover for other types on the list.

 

[Conservative65]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.

The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable? Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal. They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.

 

[KissMy]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.

The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable? Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal. They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.

This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.

 

[Conservative65]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that
is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.

The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable? Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal. They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.

This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.

Too much politics.

 

[Ernie S.]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped

WE THE PEOPLE in our INDIVIDUAL capacity.


.

I thought I made that all quite clear.

Lynyrd Skynyrd - Sweet Home Alabama


.

I believe I've heard the song (twice today) It is the National Anthem of my state. We stand and place our hands over our hearts when it plays.

 

[Ernie S.]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of mentally ill, terrorist, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list. Including the untrained in the list will provide cover for other types on the list.

You see, registered sex offenders have committed crimes that got them on that list. The NICS maintains a list of people who have committed certain crimes or have been judged mentally incompetent. These people cannot legally purchase a firearm, nor can terrorists or illegal aliens. The rest of us do have certain rights to privacy. The same right Liberals use to justify tearing an unborn child from the uterus keeps you from publishing a list accessible to the general public containing names of people untrained in the use of firearms and others your ilk decides might be an impediment to you disregarding the rest of the Constitution. The Supreme court has ruled on the individual's right to keep and bear arms. Your discomfort with that ruling is irrelevant.

 

[Ernie S.]

This statement: The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated."

So, what did “well-regulated” mean circa 1787?

It meant, simply, well-trained and equipped.

The entire U.S. population cannot — cannot — be a well regulated militia. “well-regulated” is stated BEFORE "right of the People" means properly functioning mind that is well trained. That does not include emotionally unstable people, mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, the untrained, etc.

There will never be enough police to protect us or keep guns out of the hands of unfit people. Government needs to publish a list of mentally ill, illegal aliens, criminals, emotionally unstable people & the untrained so average citizens can read to find if people they see with guns are on there, just like they can look at a registered sex offender list.

The problem is who sets the standard for mentally ill and unstable? Many on the left aren't willing to call someone here that shouldn't be here illegal. They're referred to as undocumented and those same people don't consider what they did as a crime.

This is not a problem. Congress just needs to grow some balls & set the standards for the list. Or we could have a list of people who qualify to own or carry a gun, as long as it does no state if we actually own any, how many.

Any time Congress gets to decide who has rights and who doesn't, it becomes subject to the will of the party in power. Any Congressional restriction or executive order would likely be overturned by SCOTUS.
THEY have the ultimate power though.
Let's say a democrat appoints 3 Supreme Court justices. The individual right to bear arms is threatened and Heller might be overturned. You'd love that, I suppose, but what if a Conservative gets to pick the next 3 justices? Wave goodbye to Roe V Wade.

 

[hunarcy]

The word regulation is anyone who is controlling anything. There is nothing in the word that is intrinsically government. What government school gave you your crappy education?

In the case of the 2nd Amendment, "well regulated" meant in good working order, as in a well regulated clock. The founding fathers knew a disorganized militia would be but cannon fodder in the face of an organized army. They wanted a militia with officers with military experience and well trained, well disciplined and well armed and provisioned troops.
A militia encumbered by silly regulations written by self serving politicians was not their vision.

I agree obviously. The point you didn't address though is who decides if a militia is "well regulated." That it's in the Bill of Rights shows the answer to that is not the Federal government. And the fourteenth Amendment says it's not the States either. It's the people

People or the officers of the militias that were appointed by the states at the time.

No, the members of the militia elected their own officers. How can you not know that?

Perhaps you should actually read the Constitution...
Article I, Section 8, Clause 16
The Congress shall have Power 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....

LOL! Even in the organized militia which was controlled by Congress, the soldiers selected their own officers.

 

[kaz]

Well, another few bite the dust, yawn ...

County sheriff: Multiple deaths, injuries Kansas attacks

To bad a few dozen by-standers didn't have AR 15's, it could have really been interesting. As it stands, it's just a run-of-the-mill standard murder of a bunch of people who went to work and will never go home. As I wrote, yawn.

BTW, I wonder if the shooter was a criminal before he went hunting today?

So you still keep repeating your canard that we need gun control. Were ... is ... your ... proposal? How are you going to take guns from ... criminals? So far all you've advocated is taking guns from everyone else