The 2nd Amendment (Why we our Founders wrote it)

[Chuz Life]

You haven't provided any evidence that there is such a security problem that is in any way beyond our capacity for dealing with.

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.

Why do we have the expense and cost, of alleged, wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?

We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.

Why do you speak only in riddles and platitudes?

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.

We don't need an income tax, with our Second Amendment.

An income tax is necessary for real times of war.

So don't pay any.

They ARE voluntary, you know.

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.

We have a Second Amendment; there is no need for "wartime" powers.

Preach it brutha!

LOL

Show me an intellectually honest liberal and I will show you a Conservative in the making.

 

[yiostheoy]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Firstly the right to bear arms doesn't give you an armed populace. That's the right to keep arms. The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia.

i.e., the militia with citizen soldiers, that means you need people with the guns for the militia, and you need people to use the guns in the militia.

The OP specifically posted relevant portions of the Federalist Papers explaining to you what the 2nd Amendment means. You simply ignored that and applied your own left-wing interpretation. You're just fucking wrong.

All of you all (the plural of you all) need to read Scalia's write-up on Heller.

This will tell you what 8 of the current SCOTUS justice believe is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in 21st Century terms.

Meanwhile both of you is just pissing into the wind, however the O/P is correct. Scalia explained that the States retain the right to regulate public carry, whether concealed or open according to the 10th Amendment.

 

[yiostheoy]

We the people are the last keepers of our own rights and freedoms against all who may try to abrogate or take them away.

So why did you resurrect this old dead tired thread?

You did not even say/type anything significant either.

 

[Boss]

This will tell you what 8 of the current SCOTUS justice believe is the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in 21st Century terms.

Heller was simply about whether the 2nd applied to federal enclaves. There is no "interpretation" needed for the 2nd it is a natural right.

 

[danielpalos]

The Right to Bear Arms (i.e. the 2nd Amendment) was seen by our Founding Fathers as the last check against tyranny. They knew that the best line of defense against a standing army was an armed populace.

"If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpations of the national rulers, may be exerted with infinitely better prospect of success than against those of the rulers of an individual state. In a single state, if the persons intrusted with supreme power become usurpers, the different parcels, subdivisions, or districts of which it consists, having no distinct government in each, can take no regular measures for defense. The citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

"f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

- Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28

The people who wish to preserve liberty and are capable of bearing arms are the militia.

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them."

- Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

The Founding Fathers believed that peaceable law abiding citizens should never have their right to bear arms be infringed upon.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"

Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"

The fundamental purpose of the militia is to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army.

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops." - Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

“A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves…and include, according to the past and general usuage of the states, all men capable of bearing arms… "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them." - Richard Henry Lee, Federal Farmer No. 18, January 25, 1788

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

 

[Boss]

the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.

 

[danielpalos]

the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

 

[Boss]

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

 

[danielpalos]

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

No, it doesn't. That is the usual, appeal to ignorance of the law of the right wing.

Our federal Congress must prescribe, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

 

[Boss]

No, it doesn't. That is the usual, appeal to ignorance of the law of the right wing.

Our federal Congress must prescribe, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

Where is THAT stated?

 

[danielpalos]

No, it doesn't. That is the usual, appeal to ignorance of the law of the right wing.

Our federal Congress must prescribe, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

Where is THAT stated?

In Article 1, Section 8. It has Always been there.

 

[rightwinger]

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure

Something a bunch of gun nuts are not

 

[Boss]

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure

Something a bunch of gun nuts are not

Well that's your opinion but it doesn't change the fact that our right to bear arms is a natural right that cannot be infringed or alienated. It's like our right to life, speech and worship. The legislature and courts have dominion over our civil rights. They can legislate and rule however they please on those. A natural right is different. The legislature and courts can only impose restrictions or limitations WE authorize.

 

[danielpalos]

natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

and,

States have a right to regulate their unorganized militias via the police power instead of the militia power.

 

[ding]

the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure

Something a bunch of gun nuts are not

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[ding]

No, it doesn't. That is the usual, appeal to ignorance of the law of the right wing.

Our federal Congress must prescribe, wellness of regulation for the Militia of the United States.

Where is THAT stated?

In Article 1, Section 8. It has Always been there.

Let's see what it really says, ok?

To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

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;

U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 8 - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net

 

[danielpalos]

the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure

Something a bunch of gun nuts are not

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".

We have a supreme law of the land for a reason. Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.

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;

Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

 

[emilynghiem]

the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure

Something a bunch of gun nuts are not

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".

We have a supreme law of the land for a reason. Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.

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;

Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Dear danielpalos
I think it should be clear from US history that we have BOTH militia traditions going on
1. Both the official military and police through govt
2. And the tradition of independent citizenry and also independent militia not necessarily affiliated with official govt military or local police

Nobody can deny the history of the US in having BOTH.

1. at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted and adapted into law,
some of the states in support DID NOT EVEN HAVE their own "state militias"
2. given the HISTORY of the US where American colonists and patriots had to defend their own "right to bear arms" from the British forces that sought to disarm and control them, it's common knowledge that this is what the 2nd Amendment means (in addition to what we all recognize as OFFICIAL military AS WELL, not "either/or" but BOTH existing)
3. where I live in Texas, we have a history of BOTH state-recognized militia and independent citizens or militia groups. There is no contradiction with "official" police and military AS LONG AS CITIZENS VOW TO UPHOLD THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AS THE COMMON AUTHORITY.

So THAT ^ Constitutional authority is what determines if groups are PERCEIVED as "law abiding" or not.

At least in Texas, and with most Conservative Constitutional and Christian groups I know of, ANYONE can invoke and embody Constitutional authority as "we the people" and enforce the "democratic principles" of government.
For example, the Houston police mission statement, calls for involving citizens
in "all aspects of policing." Clearly this would mean to UPHOLD AND FOLLOW laws and to ensure other people respect the laws as well.

So that's it that spirit of "respect for law and order" that determines if people are seen as exercising the right to bear arms and defense lawfully or not.

 

[ding]

the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure

Something a bunch of gun nuts are not

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".

We have a supreme law of the land for a reason. Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.

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;

Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Let me repeat this since this is the winning hand... Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

[danielpalos]

the first clause of our Second Amendment, is the Intent and Purpose. It, is the supreme law of the land, not your right wing propaganda and rhetoric.

Yes... Because man sometimes needs to form militias in order to defend life, liberty and property, the right for men to bear arms is a natural law, endowed by our Creator and inalienable... not to be infringed.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Our Second Amendment specifically claims well regulated militia are necessary, not the unorganized militia.

Regulated means outfitted. It is making the statement that our right to own guns is inalienable because it's a natural right. Because men sometimes have to organize militias to defend life, liberty and property, we have the God-given right to own guns. You are trying to manipulate and torture the meaning to derive your "privilege of state" to regulate guns but owning a gun is a stated natural right.

Some of our rights are civil rights. They come from legislation and court actions. They are not natural rights like our right to bear arms. By trying to make right to bear arms into a civil right, you render ALL natural rights to be civil. This means none of your rights are inalienable.

It means supplied, trained and having an established command structure

Something a bunch of gun nuts are not

Well regulated does not mean regulations. When the Constitution specifies regulations it specifically states who and what is being regulated. The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. The fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia have the necessary equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

Only true socialists refuse to "compete in our objective, market based reality".

We have a supreme law of the land for a reason. Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution; they thought of every Thing.

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;

Wellness of Regulation must be prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

Dear danielpalos
I think it should be clear from US history that we have BOTH militia traditions going on
1. Both the official military and police through govt
2. And the tradition of independent citizenry and also independent militia not necessarily affiliated with official govt military or local police

Nobody can deny the history of the US in having BOTH.

1. at the time the 2nd Amendment was drafted and adapted into law,
some of the states in support DID NOT EVEN HAVE their own "state militias"
2. given the HISTORY of the US where American colonists and patriots had to defend their own "right to bear arms" from the British forces that sought to disarm and control them, it's common knowledge that this is what the 2nd Amendment means (in addition to what we all recognize as OFFICIAL military AS WELL, not "either/or" but BOTH existing)
3. where I live in Texas, we have a history of BOTH state-recognized militia and independent citizens or militia groups. There is no contradiction with "official" police and military AS LONG AS CITIZENS VOW TO UPHOLD THE SAME CONSTITUTIONAL LAWS AS THE COMMON AUTHORITY.

So THAT ^ Constitutional authority is what determines if groups are PERCEIVED as "law abiding" or not.

At least in Texas, and with most Conservative Constitutional and Christian groups I know of, ANYONE can invoke and embody Constitutional authority as "we the people" and enforce the "democratic principles" of government.
For example, the Houston police mission statement, calls for involving citizens
in "all aspects of policing." Clearly this would mean to UPHOLD AND FOLLOW laws and to ensure other people respect the laws as well.

So that's it that spirit of "respect for law and order" that determines if people are seen as exercising the right to bear arms and defense lawfully or not.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions. Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, for Individuals.