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

Your problem here is not so much that you don't understand the problem but that you think no one other than you does.

"The problem" is the same for both sides of the gun rights vs. gun control debate . . . The loudest voices are the dumber ones and they shout legally immature / undeveloped positions.

On the gun control side there are those who can only argue from emotion and their arguments rarely rise above declaring gun owners are puppy-stomping monsters willing to step over the dead bodies of kindergartners just to rub their penis extensions . . .

Unfortunately, that's the level of sophistication of miketx and your arguments on the gun rights side.

You're far too impressed with what you think is your own unique set of knowledge.

Perhaps. I've enjoyed the gun control vs gun rights debate for 30+ years; I started on USENET on talk.politics.guns and migrated to the web as message boards came on.

I bounce around on about 8 -12 boards looking in vain for the detailed legal debates I had back in the 90's, back when anti-gunners could actually form a coherent argument. Of course back then they had the standing case law on their side in the lower federal courts with the various "collective right" theories holding sway and focusing their attention. Even though they were completely wrong, their confidence in and familiarity with the cases was engaging and fun.

Now I find the brains of anti-gunners are broken (and have been broken since 2001 after Emerson came out of the 5th Circuit) and now, after Heller and McDonald, anti-gunner argument is mostly monkeys throwing their scat on the screen.

I just feel that now that we are winning, gun rights people shouldn't be displaying brains broken by winning, presenting lousy, even dangerous arguments to gun rights. We need to keep arguing what made us win, not revert to arguments we consistently lost . . . Like accepting that the RKBA depends on the definition of the 2ndA's words, when SCOTUS has held for going on 150 years, the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution.

You're really not as bright as you think you are and others around you are not as ignorant as you think they are.

I know I know the law better than you and I know I remember seeing the real dangers of arguing the law from ignorance. As I said earlier, gun rights people should endeavor to have their arguments be as solid and factual as possible; not limp and wrong. If I get my chores done early maybe I'll rebut this error of yours.

But thank you for your good intention of coming in to save us all from our own ignorance. I'm sure the intention is good even if the need is in error.

And I rebut with, you don't know yet what you don't know yet and you think that makes you smart.
 
"The problem" is the same for both sides of the gun rights vs. gun control debate . . . The loudest voices are the dumber ones and they shout legally immature / undeveloped positions.

On the gun control side there are those who can only argue from emotion and their arguments rarely rise above declaring gun owners are puppy-stomping monsters willing to step over the dead bodies of kindergartners just to rub their penis extensions . . .

Unfortunately, that's the level of sophistication of miketx and your arguments on the gun rights side.



Perhaps. I've enjoyed the gun control vs gun rights debate for 30+ years; I started on USENET on talk.politics.guns and migrated to the web as message boards came on.

I bounce around on about 8 -12 boards looking in vain for the detailed legal debates I had back in the 90's, back when anti-gunners could actually form a coherent argument. Of course back then they had the standing case law on their side in the lower federal courts with the various "collective right" theories holding sway and focusing their attention. Even though they were completely wrong, their confidence in and familiarity with the cases was engaging and fun.

Now I find the brains of anti-gunners are broken (and have been broken since 2001 after Emerson came out of the 5th Circuit) and now, after Heller and McDonald, anti-gunner argument is mostly monkeys throwing their scat on the screen.

I just feel that now that we are winning, gun rights people shouldn't be displaying brains broken by winning, presenting lousy, even dangerous arguments to gun rights. We need to keep arguing what made us win, not revert to arguments we consistently lost . . . Like accepting that the RKBA depends on the definition of the 2ndA's words, when SCOTUS has held for going on 150 years, the right is in no manner dependent on the Constitution.



I know I know the law better than you and I know I remember seeing the real dangers of arguing the law from ignorance. As I said earlier, gun rights people should endeavor to have their arguments be as solid and factual as possible; not limp and wrong. If I get my chores done early maybe I'll rebut this error of yours.



And I rebut with, you don't know yet what you don't know yet and you think that makes you smart.

Well, you're right about one thing. The loudest are the dumbest, loudmouth.

You have no idea about what I know or don't know of the law, how long I have studied it, how much I have researched and read. You assume that you're the only person who has done so. You really are an idiot.

That every post is not a dissertation on the law and the Constitution does not mean that I, or anyone else here, is not capable of those dissertations or even that we haven't ever made them. It means that we're hanging out here having some fun. Sometimes we just talk and sometimes we joke around and sometimes we get on our soapbox. You're still an idiot.

If you know so much about it and have done so much more research than all the rest of us, quit wasting time telling us all how stupid you think we are and simply share your knowledge. Make the statements you want to make. Trying to convince yourself that you're smart doesn't mean everyone else is stupid, stupid.
 
From the dumbest POTUS ever, elected by the dumbest half of our nation to date (assuming all was legally done) we now get this gem;
...

Biden’s false claim that the 2nd Amendment bans cannon ownership​

...
“And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn’t buy a cannon.”
...

The president offered this aside as he made a litany of his regular points about the need for background checks and what he says was the effectiveness of bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that expired.

Parenthetical asides from a prepared text often trip up presidents, especially Biden. In this case, he repeated a claim — that Americans were prohibited from owning cannons — that has already been fact-checked as false when he made it during the presidential campaign.

The Facts​

The cannon element is what mostly interests us here, but we should also address Biden’s framing about the Second Amendment, which was part of the Bill of Rights adopted in 1791.

The meaning of the 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” — has long been debated. But experts said Biden especially mischaracterized it.

“Everything in that statement is wrong,” said David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the Independence Institute. After 1791, “there were no federal laws about the type of gun you could own, and no states limited the kind of gun you could own.” Not until the early 1800s were there any efforts to pass restrictions on carrying concealed weapons, he said.
...
Interestingly, during the campaign, Biden had asserted that the cannon restrictions happened during the Revolutionary War. “From the very beginning you weren’t allowed to have certain weapons,” Biden told Wired magazine in May 2020. “You weren’t allowed to own a cannon during the Revolutionary War as an individual.”

Historians at the time told PolitiFact there was no evidence this was the case. The Biden campaign could not point to any laws but seemed to suggest Biden’s point was more metaphorical than grounded in reality.

Now Biden has moved the cannon metaphor to some 20 years after the Revolutionary War — and it’s still wrong.
...
In fact, you do not have to look far in the Constitution to see that private individuals could own cannons. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 gives Congress the power to declare war. But there is another element of that clause that might seem strange to modern ears — Congress also had the power to “grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal.”

What’s that? These were special waivers that allowed private individuals to act as pirates on behalf of the United States against countries engaged in war with it. The “letter of marque” allowed a warship to cross into another country’s territory to take a ship, while a “letter of reprisal” gave authorization to bring the ship back to the home port of the capturer.

Individuals who were given these waivers and owned warships obviously also obtained cannons for use in battle.

The White House did not provide an explanation of Biden’s comment.
...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Of course if Trump had made a statement like this, the Left and MSM would be shouting to the rafts it's another example of Trump lying ... :icon_rolleyes:
Far beyond Privateers, the average merchant ship of those days carried cannon for self-defense. Letters of Marque and Reprisal were more often issued by state governments than the federal one. Average merchant ships often carried Letters of Marque and Reprisal on the off chance they would fall in with a more lightly armed enemy merchant ship and could take it as a prize. Stolen goods are never sold at a loss, as the old saying goes.
 
Well regulated must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.
That is a nonsense sentence with no actual meaning.

The skills of a well-regulated militia are earned through training. Congress cannot confer such skills by prescribing them.


The right of the People to keep and bear Arms! It is just a right wing slogan.
No it isn't. It is part of the Bill of Rights.


My point is right-wingers don't understand Constitutional law and appeal to ignorance all the time.
Your point is wrong. What you describe is the left.


We did, for over 200 years.
Then "conservatives."
Just the opposite. It is progressives who preach ignorance.
 
.



Just the opposite. It is progressives who preach ignorance.
Really?

Please describe:
How the 2020 election was stolen...
How God created the universe in 6 days
How the GOP devolved from the party of intellect and reason into, well, into you.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
Well Regulated doesn’t actually mean that.

Let us reference the actual documents of the era.


Now. Well Regulated meant that the Militia members which was every able bodied White Man was required to obey Military type orders. And was subject to Military Disciple.

These orders would be given by Commissioned Officers. Officers received their Commissions from the Governors of the States.

Non Commissioned Officers. Or Sergeants. We’re selected and promoted by Officers.

So the Well Regulated Militia was similar to our National Guard today. Officers are are commissioned into the Guard. They obey the orders of Officers appointed above them. And orders from the Governor.

If you want to be a part of the Militia. That means subjecting yourself to the orders of the Governor. Even if he is a Democrat. It means obeying orders from officers appointed by that Democrat.

That is what a well regulated Militia meant to our founders. Not a bunch of yahoos who decide they are a militia and will defend the constitution based upon their juvenile ideals.
 
Well Regulated doesn’t actually mean that.
"Well regulated" modifies "militia".
The right to keep and bear arms is held by the people.
Not the militia.
Not the people in the militia
But, the people.
So, whatever "well-regulated" means, it is irrelevant so to who holds the right to keep and bear arms, as protected by the 2nd.
 
Really?
Please describe:
How the 2020 election was stolen...
I have no idea if it was stolen, much less how if it was.


How God created the universe in 6 days
Clearly that didn't happen literally.


How the GOP devolved from the party of intellect and reason into, well, into you.
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
They didn't. I'm a conservative Democrat.

The proper question would be: "How did the Democrats devolve from decent people like me into the insane rabble that they are today?"
 
Now. Well Regulated meant that the Militia members which was every able bodied White Man was required to obey Military type orders. And was subject to Military Disciple.
Alexander Hamilton disagrees. His usage of the term well regulated militia clearly indicates that he thinks that "well regulated" refers to a militia that is an effective fighting force due to being well equipped and well trained.

You better go tell Alexander Hamilton that he doesn't know what he is talking about.
 
I have no idea if it was stolen, much less how if it was.



Clearly that didn't happen literally.



They didn't. I'm a conservative Democrat.

The proper question would be: "How did the Democrats devolve from decent people like me into the insane rabble that they are today?"
DINO?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA
 
Alexander Hamilton disagrees. His usage of the term well regulated militia clearly indicates that he thinks that "well regulated" refers to a militia that is an effective fighting force due to being well equipped and well trained.

You better go tell Alexander Hamilton that he doesn't know what he is talking about.

The link I posted was for the Militia Act. The act of Congress in the first actual Congress of these United States.

This was the Congress by the way that passed the Second Amendment and sent it to the States for Ratification.

So this allows us to see what they thought about the militia, and what was meant by Well Regulated.
 
Well Regulated doesn’t actually mean that.

Let us reference the actual documents of the era.

Now. Well Regulated meant that the Militia members which was every able bodied White Man was required to obey Military type orders. And was subject to Military Disciple.

No, not simply "every able bodied White Man" . . . Only those who were free citizens between the age of eighteen years and forty-five years and who were enrolled and notified shall, after six months, have militia regulations impressed on them.

People who were not duty bound, AKA private citizens not enrolled because of age or other circumstances, were under no obligation to obey militia regulations. This was either because of the specificity in law exempting citizens from militia duty (there's quite a list) or because militia law just can't be extended to them.

This is the effect of the legal canon of, "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" -- the explicit mention of one thing is the exclusion of all others. It is a principle in statutory construction that commands, when one or more things of a class are expressly mentioned, others of the same class are excluded . . . Since able-bodied White citizens, 18-45, enrolled and notified are the only people specified in the law, anyone not meeting that criteria is excepted from the law.

That is what a well regulated Militia meant to our founders. Not a bunch of yahoos who decide they are a militia and will defend the constitution based upon their juvenile ideals.

In the framers / founders mind, there were three militias. It does get confusing because in their speeches, writings and correspondence they often shift their focus seamlessly between these bodies without special notice . . .

The first militia is the general militia; that was all able-bodied males able to bear arms and work in concert; this was at least 25% of the population. In 1788, Madison said, with the total population about 3 million, the general militia numbered 750,000 and represented 25 times the largest number of Army soldiers the nation could muster and maintain.

The second militia is the one you are speaking of, the "organized" militia of the states, the militia set-out in Art I, Sec, 8, cl's 15 & 16 of the Constitution, the sub-part of the general militia who were obligated by the Militia Act of 1792 to serve and compelled by that law as to the type of arms and accoutrements one must provide yourself an bring when mustered. In 1788, Madison also said this subset of the general militia numbered 17% of the total population of the nation, or about 500,000, 17 times the number of soldiers.

The third militia was a even a smaller subset of the second militia, the companies chosen from a state who are called up federally . . . When that happens, a militia company being "called into the actual Service of the United States" is another separate, very specific status in law.

The President ONLY becomes the Commander in Chief of, "the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States".

Similarly, only for the part of the militia who are truly drawing a paycheck from the federal government can Congress direct, "govern" their actions and affairs.

Additionally, just to show another level of federal control that can only be brought upon a militia member that has been called into actual service of the nation in time of war or public danger; if a member commits a crime, they come under the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) and are not afforded the grand jury protections of the 5th Amendment:

"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; . . . "​

For the second militia NOT employed by the US government, Congress only possesses power to write the regulations for the organizing, arming, and disciplining of the militia, and to write the training regimen.

As for the first militia (THE ONLY ONE THAT EXISTS NOW), any argument that Congress can direct, "govern" the arms, actions and affairs of citizens NOT enrolled in the militia, is simply usurpation. Understand, for private citizens (the people) and their personal arms, (IOW, citizens who have no militia duty, obligation or impressment placed on them), they are three-times removed from having the federal powers you describe in your post, falling on them.

The only time private citizens (the people) and their arms are addressed in the Constitution is to forbid any federal powers over them and those arms, enforcing the right to keep and bear arms as recognized and secured in the 2nd Amendment.

.
 
Last edited:

Forum List

Back
Top