The Right To Bear Arms

[Daryl Hunt]

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A

2A is what gives them the Constitutional RIGHT to have a State Militia or Guard. This is what it means when it says "Organized Militia". It's not about a bunch of gun crazies running around the woods wearing pickle suits.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I think the name change from State Militia to State Guard to what it is now is misleading. It's now called Stated Defense Force. In the US, there are about 14,000 SDF members right now. And they are generally ignored by Homeland Security. For instance, when the Hurricane hit Texas and LA, LA was devastated. Meanwhile, Texas operated like it was business as usual and evacuated. Those folks you saw in those fishing boats, many were Texas State Militia or SDFs. Almost all Texas State Police, Cops, Firemen and more are part of the SDFs or Texas State Militia. They receive special training for emergencies and can react quickly. When Fema moved in, the Governor (Richards) told them they were working for the General in charge of the Texas State Militia. They tried to fight it but lost that argument. While LA turned into a ClusterF***, Texas ran smoothly. Here is an interesting article about the SDFs.

The Militia You’ve Never Heard Of

 

[Rigby5]

Indeed it is. "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Who shall not be infringed upon? The government that makes the laws....or the PEOPLE that those laws infringe upon? C'mon junior, you claim to have an "argument". Make it. So far all you have shown is an infantile understanding of the COTUS.

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless. Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wrong. It clearly says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia. That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.

 

[Lesh]

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.

In the context of that Well Regulated Militia

 

[danielpalos]

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless. Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wrong. It clearly says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia. That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.

The People are the Militia for Second Amendment clause purposes; you are either well regulated or unorganized.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[TheDude]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Progs are big on blaming material objects when it's convenient to reject personal responsibility, guns included. Heck, the wall included too.

Better to dumb us down so the government makes decisions for us. This way just the felons, illegals and Gastapos get the guns, while Americans with integrity can get fucked. The more chaotic, weak and irresponsible we become, the more easily we're controlled. The people Lakhota supports desire just that.

Gun lovers are too lazy to muster but don't mind blaming social service recipients for being too lazy to work for a living.

They often are too lazy to work, open your eyes. We were a society where people solved problems and had a work ethic. Today progs declare "we need Mexicans to do the work", which is code for Americans are stoned and lazy as ****.

 

[Rigby5]

You claim to be progressive but from what I see...you are an anarchist.

Regardless you can love all the guns you want...it doesn't change the fact that "protection" of gun rights is only in the Constitution regarding use by a Well Regulated Militia that no longer exists

Actually it does. The Well Regulated Militia according to the 1792 Militia Act, certainly expressing the intent of the founders as clearly as anything since it was passed a mere six months after ratification of the amendment, stated who was in the Militia.

It was every able bodied free man. Literally every able bodied free person today is a member of the Militia by that standard.

Well Regulated was also covered. It was the right, and responsibility of the Governors of the state’s to appoint officers, commission them using the vernacular, and when activated, the militia members while on active duty would be subject to military orders and discipline.

So we know what the term Well Regulated Militia meant. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia

Any other questions?

And the Dick Act passed around 1900 supersedes that. It abolishes the organized militia and established the unorganized militia which ONLY pertains to males between 17 and 45.

You gonna run with that?

That means that women and males over 45 have no 2A protection and are subject to local and state laws and regs

Any questions?

You have it backwards. The 2nd amendment is not the source of any right. The Bill of Rights creates no rights. All rights were considered to be inherent and not only existed before any constitution or Bill of Rights, but are the justification for being able to have a rebellion or enact a constitution or any law at all.
The only authority for any law or government action comes from the need to defend the inherent rights of individuals. There is no other source of any authority in a republic. So then women and males over 45 do have the inherent right of defense and protection of home and property. So the place to look to see this is really the 4th and 5th amendments. And since government employees have weapons, you can then also look to the 14th amendment to find proof that federal gun control, is illegal.

Since no right is without regulation, there is room for local and state gun control regs however. But it must never infringe upon the basic rights of all individuals to defense, and there must be equality between private individuals and government employees.

All the 2nd amendment actually says is that the federal government simply has absolutely ZERO jurisdiction over weapons. All of the Bill of Rights is just absolute restrictions on any possible federal government.

 

[2aguy]

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A

Please read. re-read. study and understand D.C. v Heller, and McDonald v City of Chicago.....you would post with more intelligence if you did...

 

[Rigby5]

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

Good argument, but I disagree.
First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
Same is true with individuals. Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order. What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal. If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked. The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons. The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want. Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc. Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government. Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense. In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped. Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force? There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space. Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen. Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.

As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time. Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily. And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it. All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military. No arbitrary denial is legal.

 

[Rigby5]

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.

But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia

Every state has the right to have a State Organized Militia. I believe that there are 4 currently. The two that comes to mind are Texas and California. State Militia cannot be called up to Federal Duty unless they already have prior Federal commitments like 4 years inactive reserve (everyone that separates under 20 years) or 10 years for those that retire after 20 years or those that still have a reserve commitment or a National Guard Commitment. The State Guard is state financed and supported but won't have the nifty toys the National Guard will have since no state by itself can afford the equipment and the training.

Almost every state had defines its own militia in its state constitution, and almost every one says it is essentially every able bodied person. So they almost all have them.

It is easy to see the original intent because it is clear the founders said they wanted citizens soldiers instead of a professional mercenary military, because they did not trust a professional military.

New Hampshire state constitution:

{...
[Art.] 24. [Militia.] A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a state.

June 2, 1784

[Art.] 25. [Standing Armies.] Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the legislature.
...}

New Hampshire State Constitution, 1784/2007 ⋆ Constitution.com ⋆ The US Constitution ⋆ Constitution.com

 

[Rigby5]

So those 4 states MIGHT have protection for the members of those militias under the 2A. Or not. They are most likely regulated by STATE laws...not the 2A

No, all states have militia rights, because the right of each and every single individual to protect themselves and home, are the source of legal justification for all militias and all governments.
Again, the 2A is NOT a source of anything, but a deliberate restatement in order to ensure absolute restrain in potential future federal abuse.

But yes, local and state regulations on weapons for safety purposes could be legally possible.
It is only federal weapons laws that are absolutely prohibited and totally excluded by the 2nd amendment.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You don't know what you are talking about, like usual, right wingers.

Wellness of regulation has to prescribed by our federal Congress for the militia of the United States.

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless. Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wrong. It clearly says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia. That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.

Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops? They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory. They bring it with them. Again, look at Texas. The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons. If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job. You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there. It's pretty straight forward and simple. The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds. The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening. The Weapons of War outgrew it.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

Good argument, but I disagree.
First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
Same is true with individuals. Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order. What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal. If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked. The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons. The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want. Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc. Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government. Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense. In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped. Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force? There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space. Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen. Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.

As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time. Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily. And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it. All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military. No arbitrary denial is legal.

You got a lot of living you need to do.

 

[watchingfromafar]

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office.

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

 

[danielpalos]

By Peter Weber

That's the opinion of Rupert Murdoch's conservative New York Post. And it's not as far-fetched as it may seem.

Well, let's read the text of the Second Amendment, says Jeffrey Sachs at The Huffington Post:

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

It's astonishingly clear that "the Second Amendment is a relic of the founding era more than two centuries ago," and "its purpose is long past."

As Justice John Paul Stevens argues persuasively, the amendment should not block the ability of society to keep itself safe through gun control legislation. That was never its intent. This amendment was about militias in the 1790s, and the fear of the anti-federalists of a federal army. Since that issue is long moot, we need not be governed in our national life by doctrines on now-extinct militias from the 18th century.​

"Fair-minded readers have to acknowledge that the text is ambiguous," says Cass Sunstein at Bloomberg View. Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in Heller, was laying out his interpretation of a "genuinely difficult" legal question, and "I am not saying that the court was wrong." More to the point: Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means. So "we should respect the fact that the individual right to have guns has been established," but even the pro-gun interpretation laid out by Scalia explicitly allows for banning the kinds of weapons the shooter used to murder 20 first-graders. The real problem is in the political arena, where "opponents of gun control, armed with both organization and money, have been invoking the Second Amendment far more recklessly," using "wild and unsupportable claims about the meaning of the Constitution" to shut down debate on what sort of regulations might save lives.

More: Is the Second Amendment obsolete? - The Week

Progs are big on blaming material objects when it's convenient to reject personal responsibility, guns included. Heck, the wall included too.

Better to dumb us down so the government makes decisions for us. This way just the felons, illegals and Gastapos get the guns, while Americans with integrity can get fucked. The more chaotic, weak and irresponsible we become, the more easily we're controlled. The people Lakhota supports desire just that.

Gun lovers are too lazy to muster but don't mind blaming social service recipients for being too lazy to work for a living.

They often are too lazy to work, open your eyes. We were a society where people solved problems and had a work ethic. Today progs declare "we need Mexicans to do the work", which is code for Americans are stoned and lazy as ****.

increasing the minimum wage is a start.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Gun Control Is as Old as the Old Wild West

Contrary to the popular imagination, bearing arms on the frontier was a heavily regulated business

It's October 26, 1881, in Tombstone, and Arizona is not yet a state. The O.K. Corral is quiet, and it's had an unremarkable existence for the two years it's been standing—although it's about to become famous.

Marshall Virgil Earp, having deputized his brothers Wyatt and Morgan and his pal Doc Holliday, is having a gun control problem. Long-running tensions between the lawmen and a faction of cowboys – represented this morning by Billy Claiborne, the Clanton brothers, and the McLaury brothers – will come to a head over Tombstone's gun law.

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office.

The “Old West” conjures up all sorts of imagery– such as Tombstone, Deadwood, Dodge City, or Abilene, to name a few. One other thing these cities had in common: strict gun control laws.

Laws regulating ownership and carry of firearms, apart from the U.S. Constitution's Second Amendment, were passed at a local level rather than by Congress. “Gun control laws were adopted pretty quickly in these places,” says Winkler. “Most were adopted by municipal governments exercising self-control and self-determination.”

Carrying any kind of weapon, guns or knives, was not allowed other than outside town borders and inside the home. When visitors left their weapons with a law officer upon entering town, they'd receive a token, like a coat check, which they'd exchange for their guns when leaving town.

The practice was started in Southern states, which were among the first to enact laws against concealed carry of guns and knives, in the early 1800s. -- The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America, points to an 1840 Alabama court that, in upholding its state ban, ruled it was a state's right to regulate where and how a citizen could carry, and that the state constitution's allowance of personal firearms “is not to bear arms upon all occasions and in all places.”

Could you please clarify what "brilliant, incisive" point you think you're making here?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

If there actually were a militia...a "Well Regulated Militia"...that would be true.

But canons and machine guns are either outlawed for private ownership or highly regulated...because there IS no longer a militia

Every state has the right to have a State Organized Militia. I believe that there are 4 currently. The two that comes to mind are Texas and California. State Militia cannot be called up to Federal Duty unless they already have prior Federal commitments like 4 years inactive reserve (everyone that separates under 20 years) or 10 years for those that retire after 20 years or those that still have a reserve commitment or a National Guard Commitment. The State Guard is state financed and supported but won't have the nifty toys the National Guard will have since no state by itself can afford the equipment and the training.

Almost every state had defines its own militia in its state constitution, and almost every one says it is essentially every able bodied person. So they almost all have them.

It is easy to see the original intent because it is clear the founders said they wanted citizens soldiers instead of a professional mercenary military, because they did not trust a professional military.

New Hampshire state constitution:

{...
[Art.] 24. [Militia.] A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and sure defense, of a state.

June 2, 1784

[Art.] 25. [Standing Armies.] Standing armies are dangerous to liberty, and ought not to be raised, or kept up, without the consent of the legislature.
...}

New Hampshire State Constitution, 1784/2007 ⋆ Constitution.com ⋆ The US Constitution ⋆ Constitution.com

And it gets that right directly from the 2nd amendment. The 2nd amendment specifically says the Feds can't interfere in a States Organized Militia. Th 2nd tells us the limitation on the Feds.

And, no, almost all don't have an Organized Militia. What it's called today is SDF or State Defense Force. If you call it a State Guard you get into a grey area with the National Guard Laws. So it's been renamed. The State has the right to have a SDF as spelled out under the 2nd amendment for a well regulated Militia.

Hate to break it to you but everyone isn't part of the Organized Militia at all. And there really isn't anything really called an Unorganized Militia. That is just made up to make you think that a bunch of gun nutters running around the woods with guns while wearing pickle suits are justified and the equal to the Organized Militia. Nope, in the end, they are just a bunch of gun nutters running around the woods wearing pickle suits.

 

[Rigby5]

No, you demonstrate on a daily basis that you are clueless. So, once again, who are the folks being infringed upon when a law is passed? The PEOPLE, or the guys who write the laws? Don't bother answering we all know you will obfuscate and lie because your arguments are shit.

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless. Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wrong. It clearly says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia. That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.

Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops? They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory. They bring it with them. Again, look at Texas. The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons. If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job. You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there. It's pretty straight forward and simple. The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds. The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening. The Weapons of War outgrew it.

We are not disagreeing.
I agree with you completely.

From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.

 

[Rigby5]

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

Good argument, but I disagree.
First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
Same is true with individuals. Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order. What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal. If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked. The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons. The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want. Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc. Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government. Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense. In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped. Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force? There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space. Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen. Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.

As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time. Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily. And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it. All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military. No arbitrary denial is legal.

You got a lot of living you need to do.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

The phrase "well regulated" means well practices in firearms, so that the average population would be ready to be quickly called up in case of war. And the 2nd Amendment is in the Bill of Rights, which ONLY contains restrictions on the federal government. So the only possible interpretation of the 2nd amendment is that the federal government is to have absolutely NO jurisdiction over any weapons at all!

You can't infringe upon those who write the laws, because they are not the source of any authority at all in a democratic republic. In a democratic republic, the inherent rights of all individuals are the ONLY source of any authority at all, and the Bill of Rights is ONLY about restricting federal government in favor of state, local, and individual authority.
And one does not need the 2nd amendment in order to clearly see all federal gun control is illegal. All you need is the 4th, 5th, and 14th amendments. Clearly weapons are necessary for defense, individuals have the right to what ever they need for defense, and since police and military have these weapons for defense, no law can ever wholesale block the same potential access to everyone, based on the requirement of equal treatment under the law, according to the 14th amendment. Police and the military do not and must not have any special privileges or right to weapons beyond what any and all individuals have.

sooooo.....you have a right to own a nuclear warhead?

or do you draw a line somewhere.....?

Nuclear warheads are not classified as "arms". That being said the first cannon in the USA were owned by a private group, so ordnance is certainly covered by the 2nd in my opinion.

The Canons were owned by the elite rich who had them to protect against marauding EVERYTHING. When the Revolutionary war began, they loaned the canons, not sold or gave them to the Revolutionary Army. The common person could not afford a canon. And the common person probably could not find a suitable storage for one either. Most of those canons were donated to the communities. To this day, many of those same canons are still sitting in various town squares in good repair used for ceremonial purposes. From about 1600 to 1858, the same weapons were available to everyone. Even the canon if you could afford one. The Muskets and the new Rifled Barreled muskets were used. But in 1858, a new class of weapon was introduced that rocked the world. The revolver and repeating rifle along with the Artillery. It was just starting to be introduced for the Civil war. But when WWI came around, all hell broke loose. The classes of weapons went crazy. It didn't happen over night. It began in 1858 and snowballed. The common man could no longer afford the weapons of war anymore. Are you aware that the US Armory had a large stock of Browning Automatic Rifles in it's Armories as early as late 1917 but didn't ship them because they didn't want any of them captured by the Germans because they were head and shoulders above anything anyone else was producing at the time? And the wholesale killing in WWI was primarily done by Artillery. This is when the Organized Militia went by the way since the United States could no longer stick with the laws it had about Federal Troop Numbers. Hence, the 1917 National Guard Act. The Feds own all the equipment that the National Guard uses, pays for the training, etc.. And reserves the right to Federalize the National Guard in certain conditions. I believe WWI was one of those conditions. NO State, by itself, much less any common person, could afford the weapons of war anymore and still can't outside of one Rifle. Almost all the rest are outside the purse strings of everyone except the rich. And almost all those weapons are not Banned, it's just too expensive to purchase, license and store them for the common person. What you claim is going against the 2nd amendment is actually an Economic problem.

And Nuclear Weapons are certainly Arms. This is why the call them Nuclear Arms. But they are way past the insanity level of owning one.

Good argument, but I disagree.
First of all, the economic argument is wrong because the federal government is supposed to be the poor one.
It is the states that were supposed to have the ability to tax and raise revenue, not the federal government with a general income tax levy.
If the states can not afford modern weapons, it is due to the federal government illegally and deliberately making them poor.
The fact the federal government gives back most of the money it steals, allows illegal control and leverage over the states by the federal government, and is the source of most of the modern problems.
Same is true with individuals. Modern weapons actually are quite affordable, and after WWI, they were selling Thompson Submachine guns for $17, mail order. What makes then go for $10k now, is entirely illegal federal manipulations to make them as expensive as possible. And that is wrong and illegal. If anyone ever needs them, it is the general population, since they are the first ones attacked. The federal government is supposed to get its weapons from the citizen soldiers who own and know how to use their own weapons. The professional, paid military, not only is against the whole principles of a republic, but cause a vastly inferior military that does not do what the people want. Example of this is the illegal invasion of Iraq and the massacre of innocent civilians in places like Fallujah, torture as in Abu Grahib, etc. Face it, the modern federalized control over arms is not only totally wrong, but illegal and can ONLY result eventually in the most horrible fascist state imaginable.
Of course the reaction to that argument is going to be that states or individuals can't be doing things like maintaining fleets that have ships like aircraft carriers, and while I do not want to spend much time on that, the reality is clearly that neither should the federal government. Fleets with carriers are obscene, because they never were for defense, but the illegal intimidation of colonial and imperial possessions. No one has ever attacked us since 1812, (Hawaii should not be US, and was not invaded), and carriers can not possibly be used for defense. In fact, carriers are sitting ducks these days, and all should be scrapped. Unarmed freighter and tankers make much better platforms for launching cruise missiles, swarms of drones, hypersonic missiles, VTOLs, etc.
If you don't agree with the assessment that the federal government and Industrial Military Complex is out of control, consider the Space Force? There are no aliens, so then the only point would be to attack other humans from the immunity of space. Not at all legal, ethical, or sane thing to allow to happen. Guaranteed to create the ultimate in dictatorship.

As for nuclear weapons, they are allowed all the time. Every privately owned nuclear reactor can become or make nuclear weapons easily. And if one could prove a safe use, like asteroid mining or some deep cavern project, there is no legal way to stop it. All you can do is apply the same safety standards you apply to the military. No arbitrary denial is legal.

You got a lot of living you need to do.

Since I am 67, I guess I had better hurry up then.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

You don't know what you are talking about. Only well regulated militia are declared necessary not the unorganized militia.

noooo, it is demonstrable that it is you who are clueless. Once again who are those PEOPLE who shall not be INFRINGED UPON?

well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

Wrong. It clearly says:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So it is "THE PEOPLE" whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. That restriction on the federal government is to be obeyed in all cases, no matter who or how you define the well regulated militia. That is intentionally ambiguous because it it deliberately leaving it up to the states to decide what and how a militia is or what their needs are. The point of the 2nd amendment is not to say who has gun rights, but to deny any federal jurisdiction over the question in any way.

Are you aware that a SDF or State Militia takes their weapons home with them or brings their weapons from their jobs if they are Cops? They don't report to a central point and draw their weapons from an armory. They bring it with them. Again, look at Texas. The SDF or State Militia or Guard doesn't issue any weapons. If you are a member, you bring your weapons if needed from home or your job. You are reading into the 2nd something that isn't there. It's pretty straight forward and simple. The 2nd amendment enables the State to have the right to have an Organized Militia that is outside the control of the Feds. The real reason for that was originally to make sure that the Federal Government could never become tyranical and the states would have the real military power to prevent it from happening. The Weapons of War outgrew it.

We are not disagreeing.
I agree with you completely.

From a legal perspective, the only reason police, military and other government employees are able to have weapons is from the right of all individuals to have weapons in order to defend themselves and their property.
Government is not the source of any legal authority at all, but only carry the authority borrowed from inherent rights of individuals that are delegated to them so that they can protect these inherent rights of individuals.

Using Heller V DC, you have the right to a serviceable handgun in your home for home protection as long as you are afforded a sane method of registration and licensing if the local government requires it. The only reason the Supreme Court got involved at all is that DC was so far out in left field that they had no choice and DC relies on the Federal Court System since it has no State Court Systems to fall back on. And that is as far as the Modern Supreme Court has ruled. SCOTUS avoids 2nd amendment rulings like a plague. It's not that they agree nor disagree with the lower courts. It's that they would be making laws instead of enforcing the Constitution.