Meaning of well regulated, meaning of shall, meaning of infringe

[miketx]

Which is why we should always remain tethered to foundational principles.

For "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, the most important principle is one that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed multiple times for nearly a century and a half . . . That is, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

That means examining words upon which the right does not depend, is useless and dangerous.

Come take them.

 

[Flash]

These Moon Bats are so goddamn stupid they don't even know what the phrase "shall not infringe" means. In their demented and confused little minds they read it as "shall infringe".

 

[Abatis]

Come take them.

Hahahahaha . . .

Someday you might learn that what I wrote is a stronger statement of inviolate gun rights than 1000 volumes of 1000 pages, filled with your ridiculous dictionary definitions.

 

[Dadoalex]

What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

In a word? Standardized.

If one’s State’s Militia was to fight along side the militia of another, it is helpful if all parties involved understand and have the same chain of command, and same types of drill, orders and nomenclature. And where possible, as similar types of equipment as possible, to mitigate the issues of logistics.

It does not now, nor ever has meant, to “regulate” as in “a rule or mechanism that limits, steers, or otherwise controls” the militia.

What does “well regulated” in the Second Amendment mean?

Answer (1 of 19): In order to be “well regulated,” it must be functional when called to active duty. Congress is empowered in the actual militia clauses to determine the training and discipline of the militia, and to provide for its arming. With a few limits, for instance, it could impose UCMJ o...

www.quora.com

Shall:

What does the word shall mean?​

What does shall mean legally?
when drafting a legal document, the term shall is used to say that something must be done, as opposed to the term may which simply means that something is allowed (ie that it can be done, but does not have to be done)

what does shall mean - Google Search

Definition of shall​

auxiliary verb
1a—used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future, we shall have to be ready, we shall see
b—used to express simple futurity, when shall we expect you
2—used to express determination. they shall not pass
3a—used to express a command or exhortation, you shall go

a: will have to : MUST
b: will be able to : CAN

Infringe:

infringe​

verb


in·fringe | \ in-ˈfrinj \
infringed; infringing

Definition of infringe​

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, infringe a patent

intransitive verb
: ENCROACH —used with on or upon infringe on our rights



SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

So what's your point?

 

[Dadoalex]

View attachment 497400

A right of "the people"
and
An individual right are not the same.

Until the stupidity of the SCOTUS decision that words have nil meaning and we can assign meaning to words not even present that is...

Go look up the occurrences of "people" and "person" in the Constitution for clarification.

 

[Dadoalex]

.

Come get what, silly.

What I posted, could suggested that not only is the Federal Government attempting to overstep their bounds and violate the Second Amendment.
they have already been successful in doings so because nit-wits pretend the Second Amendment means something it doesn't, and fight over the words.

You should know what it means, it's not that hard to understand.

.​

We did, for over 200 years.

Then "conservatives."

 

[miketx]

Hahahahaha . . .

Someday you might learn that what I wrote is a stronger statement of inviolate gun rights than 1000 volumes of 1000 pages, filled with your ridiculous dictionary definitions.

Come get them commie.

 

[Doc7505]

What State are you from? There is no appeal to ignorance of (the Constitutional) law.

So, you are claiming that the 50 States and/or Commonwealths within the union don't have their individual Constitutions and laws?

State Constitutions? Why Would Each State Need Its Own Constitution? Part 2 - Constituting America

State Constitutions? – Why would each state need a constitution when we have the United States Constitution? What would it mean for the states to be run by their citizens rather than royal rule? In many cases, these first state constitutions take the opportunity to explain principles of...

constitutingamerica.org

**********​

State Constitutions vs. The United States Constitution |

The United States Constitution defines the structure of the national government and dictates the scope and limitation of its powers. The Constitution is known

www.paralegaledu.org

**********​

What are the differences between the California state Constitution and the United States Constitution? | Los Angeles | Sacramento | Kassouni Law

Constitutional Attorneys expound on the differences between the California state Constitution and the U.S. Constitution, including rights imparted.

www.kassounilaw.com

 

[Abatis]

Come get them commie.

Now I'm a 'commie'?

What did I say that would lead you to believe I oppose gun rights and want to take them away?

 

[Markle]

Yes. Segregation was unConstitutional but still happening back then.

Thanks to Democrats.

 

[Markle]

Curious.

Another whining "ban the gun" thread.

Why?

None of this would even be an issue if Democrats had just not skipped middle or elementary school when they taught punctuation.

It really is that simple.

 

[Deplorable Yankee]

What did it mean to be well regulated? One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge. "Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.

https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf

In a word? Standardized.

If one’s State’s Militia was to fight along side the militia of another, it is helpful if all parties involved understand and have the same chain of command, and same types of drill, orders and nomenclature. And where possible, as similar types of equipment as possible, to mitigate the issues of logistics.

It does not now, nor ever has meant, to “regulate” as in “a rule or mechanism that limits, steers, or otherwise controls” the militia.

What does “well regulated” in the Second Amendment mean?

Answer (1 of 19): In order to be “well regulated,” it must be functional when called to active duty. Congress is empowered in the actual militia clauses to determine the training and discipline of the militia, and to provide for its arming. With a few limits, for instance, it could impose UCMJ o...

www.quora.com

Shall:

What does the word shall mean?​

What does shall mean legally?
when drafting a legal document, the term shall is used to say that something must be done, as opposed to the term may which simply means that something is allowed (ie that it can be done, but does not have to be done)

what does shall mean - Google Search

Definition of shall​

auxiliary verb
1a—used to express what is inevitable or seems likely to happen in the future, we shall have to be ready, we shall see
b—used to express simple futurity, when shall we expect you
2—used to express determination. they shall not pass
3a—used to express a command or exhortation, you shall go

a: will have to : MUST
b: will be able to : CAN

Infringe:

infringe​

verb


in·fringe | \ in-ˈfrinj \
infringed; infringing

Definition of infringe​

transitive verb
1: to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another, infringe a patent

intransitive verb
: ENCROACH —used with on or upon infringe on our rights



SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

Am I the only one who misses fps
POOR bastard lol



I should be allowed to have a fully operational one

 

[woodwork201]

Which is why we should always remain tethered to foundational principles.

For "interpretation" of the 2nd Amendment, the most important principle is one that the Supreme Court has reaffirmed multiple times for nearly a century and a half . . . That is, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right in no manner depends on the Constitution for its existence.

That means examining words upon which the right does not depend, is useless and dangerous.

And, even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, the right exists and is protected by the 10th Amendment. And even if that were repealed, or even if anti-gun language were added to the Constitution, the right would exist. It is an inalienable right because it protects the rights to life and liberty. The right to keep and bear arms exists in China, in North Korea, and even in the Communist country of Australia.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

A right of "the people"
and
An individual right are not the same.

Until the stupidity of the SCOTUS decision that words have nil meaning and we can assign meaning to words not even present that is...

Go look up the occurrences of "people" and "person" in the Constitution for clarification.

Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, aren't an individual right?

 

[Abatis]

And, even if the 2nd Amendment were repealed, the right exists and is protected by the 10th Amendment. And even if that were repealed, or even if anti-gun language were added to the Constitution, the right would exist.

I agree. my core point was the RKBA does not need any constitutional acknowledgement or recognition to exist. We need to return to the principle of demanding government prove it possesses the power being claimed to restrict, instead of the citizen being forced to prove standing and the burden being on the citizen to prove why he needs to exercise the right.

Why the disagree on my post #43?

 

[woodwork201]

Why the disagree on my post #43?

Because MikeTX didn't make any ridiculous dictionary definitions of the 2nd Amendment; it seemed to me that he was agreeing with you. And what you wrote, while accurate, is not a stronger statement than a thousand volumes of a thousand pages.

 

[Dadoalex]

Free speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, aren't an individual right?

Do you need a permit to have a parade? Yes
The "freedom of the press" is limited by libel laws and government sanctions for publishing forbidden materials.

So....care to try again.

Why is it that when defining an individual right the Constitution uses "person" but when speaking to collective rights it uses "people?"

Do you think the authors were ignorant of the language?
OR
MAYBE
Sometimes they're talking about individual rights and sometimes collective rights?

Do you think people in prison should be allowed firearms?
Do you think the press should be exempt from all libel and slander laws?
If a religion allows its leaders to rape children should that be allowed?

OR

Is there a difference between individual rights and collective?

AND

THIS is why Heller is so stupid.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Do you need a permit to have a parade? Yes
The "freedom of the press" is limited by libel laws and government sanctions for publishing forbidden materials.

So....care to try again.

Why is it that when defining an individual right the Constitution uses "person" but when speaking to collective rights it uses "people?"

Do you think the authors were ignorant of the language?
OR
MAYBE
Sometimes they're talking about individual rights and sometimes collective rights?

Do you think people in prison should be allowed firearms?
Do you think the press should be exempt from all libel and slander laws?
If a religion allows its leaders to rape children should that be allowed?

OR

Is there a difference between individual rights and collective?

AND

THIS is why Heller is so stupid.

A parade permit can't be denied because the government doesn't like the people holding the parade, nor the message the parade conveys, provided that message doesn't invite violence, or cause harm. Doing so violates the 1sr Amendment.

Rape is illegal. Not the religion. If a priest rapes little girls, he'll be charged with rape. He won't be charged with practicing a religion. That's how that works.

A person's rights end when their actions cause harm. Simply owning, or possessing a gun doesn't cause harm. That's why assault and murder aren't protected by the 2nd Amendment. But, convicting someone for owning a gun is unconstitutional.

Does the 2nd Amendment protect the right to own surface-to-air missiles, or nuclear weapons? Of course not, but then, no one ever brings that up but the dumbass anti-gunners.

The 2nd Amendment does, however, protect the right to keep and bear pistols and rifles. That includes semi-automatics and automatics with normal capacity to high capacity magazines.

The NFA is unconstitutional and needs to be repealed. It taxes a right, which is unconstitutional. It also established a registry which is illegal, by law.

 

[Missourian]

"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state.

Exactly... Regulated like regulating a clock....

Regulating your mechanical clock – its easier than you think

Regulating your clock is the act of making repeated adjustments to your clock with the intent of achieving a desired affect, that is, making your clock a more reliable timekeeper. Three things will…

antiquevintageclock.com

 

[Abatis]

Because MikeTX didn't make any ridiculous dictionary definitions of the 2nd Amendment; it seemed to me that he was agreeing with you.

Yes, it appears miketx supports gun rights so he's on "my side" but that doesn't mean his reasoning isn't subject to criticism, there are wrong foundations in pro-gun opinion.

My criticism of his OP is about his focus on the meaning of words to "interpret" what the 2ndA is and what it does. From a "rights" perspective, that is illegitimate . . . The founders and framers founded this republic on the principle of inherent rights, not that rights flow from the legislative acts of man and thus defined and precisely circumscribed by the words chosen to acknowledge (and maybe protect) the right. That subjectivity and fragility and insecurity was a primary argument of the Federalists against adding a bill of rights. They envisioned and feared the creativity of future generations to misconstruct the words used in the provisions, and invent powers to restrict our rights.

This inspection of words in the OP removes the right to arms from the domain of the rights theory of the founders and framers and foundational constitutional principles and the determinations of SCOTUS applying and enforcing those principles . . . Instead it obliterates that, covering it with sand and allows new truths to be written because it puts the right in the domain of political operatives wordsmithing the right into nothingness (or worse, into an express justification for violating the right). The treatment the 2nd Amendment received in the 20th Century, that the 2nd Amendment only protects a right of the state, is undeniable proof that the fears Federalists articulated were valid.

The OP's answer to the question he presented, "What does “well regulated” in the Second Amendment mean?", is facially wrong and then wanders off into utter confusion.

He presents, "In a word? Standardized." as the "meaning" of "well regulated" but the standardization, as the explains it, is the intent and effect of regulation. But then, he says that "well regulated", "does not now, nor ever has meant, to “regulate” as in “a rule or mechanism that limits, steers, or otherwise controls” the militia".

Huh?

That end statement sitting alone is correct, the 2ndA has no legal action that speaks to, or establishes any regulatory operation. The power to regulate the organized militia is only found in the body of the Constitution; in those clauses only the regulatory authority dwells allowing Congress to write the Militia Act of 1792, standardizing the organization, command, training and deployment of the organized militia.

Note I repeat "organized militia" being the entity under regulations . . . That is because "the people", the protected entity named in the 2nd Amendment, are set apart in law from enrolled members of the militia. Private citizens are under no impressment of militia law, they are excluded from any action of militia regulation.

Because the Militia Act only commands specific citizens as obligated to serve and then only directs those who were "enrolled and notified" to provide themselves with an appropriate firearm and muster when called, the long established legal canon, expressio unius est exclusio alterius ("the express mention of one thing excludes all others") applies.

The government has no claims on citizens not enrolled or their personal arms; for those private citizens, their choosing to arm themselves (or not) is an exercise of a right, an exemption from powers not granted, a right recognized and secured by the 2nd Amendment.

It must be understood, NOTHING an enrolled, mustered militia member does is an exercise of a right, nor does he need any immunity from any government power to fulfill his duty -- he is entirely under the control of law. He has been armed according to the mandate / obligation in law, as set-out by Congress which is preemptive of any state law possibly interfering.

And what you wrote, while accurate, is not a stronger statement than a thousand volumes of a thousand pages.

But it is stronger because the inspection of words, upon which the right in no manner depends, is useless to determine or define the right.