The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

I'm not a legal expert or a credentialed constitutional scholar. However, regardless of how you want to spin the Bill of Rights to justify your extremist position, the FACT is that having millions of law abiders walking around with handguns and long guns is great as it leads to more order. Bad actors know not to try and stick someone up, because their octogenarian victim might turn the tables on them and give them an express ticket to Judgment Day.

Let's take a look at the 2nd amendment line by line.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. And throughout the history this was done over and over. The intent was good but the application was often times not. But that doesn't change a thing. The intent was the same for the original formation. But due to the Spanish American War, the first part of the National Guard Act was passed but no one really took it seriously. It was tightened up a bit more in 1908. But due to the War Department finally coming to the realization that the original 75,000 strong Army could no longer apply ever again, the law of the National Guard Act of 1917 was passed and it still stands today. All of a sudden, the States had no Organized Militia anymore. And even if they did form a separate State Militia (the name was changed to SDF to get around the new Militia laws) the State could not afford to equip and train their SDF people to the level that the Feds could the National Guard or the Regulars. The intent of the first line of the second amendment became lost. The Feds did take control of it but it was gleefully relinquished by each and every state. The States could have blocked it just by standing together. But with WWI coming on the States were scared shitless. The clause was telling the Feds what they could not do but the States allowed it to happen anyway.

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

People break these two apart. We shouldn't. It's really all one thought. The Rights of the People (or the State) to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. The Federals cannot infringe on the rights of the State when it comes to firearms. Yes, according to this even the 1934 Firearms Act might be deemed illegal unless it's done under the guise of Public Safety and not under Gun Control which is something entirely different. That should be up for debate at state levels, not Federal Levels. I doubt if the Feds could legally do anything to a State that decides to disregard the 1934 Firearms act in the Supreme Court or any Federal Court unless they can prove that the original intent of the Firearms act was Public Safety. It might be an interesting case. Certainly much more deserving than what is usually tried to argue lately on firearms. The second half of the 2nd amendment is telling the Feds that they cannot infringe on the States Firearms Rights and this includes all people in the State.

While the first half is out of date, the second half is not and stands as it is written. And it must be taken in it's intended purpose by our Founding Fathers and the Bill of Rights.

I won't bother taking all that nonsense apart. I'll simply point this out

"This means that the well regulated Militia is formed by the state to guard against the forming of the tyranny of the Federal Government. The problem with this is, as late as 1898, Governors were using their Organized Militia as bully boys to support their Rich Cronies business ventures. In 1898, that happened here. "

So the Constitution gives as one of the purposes and duties of a "Well Regulated Militia" that of putting DOWN insurrections...you acknowledge this and point out several contemporaneous uses (Shay's and the Whiskey Rebellion). But somehow this means the opposite of what it says and how it was used?

You really need to go sit in the corner

The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

The 2nd Amendment does not read as mentioning the Organized Militia, but instead mentions that to have a well practiced militia, you need "the people" to be armed already.
It specifically does not mention the Organized Militia, and instead only "the people".

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our Second Article of Amendment, a Constitution unto itself.

 

[Rustic]

The constitution does not at all detail the purpose, need, etc., of militias.
ALL the federal constitution would have jurisdiction over or need to point out would be the rare emergency when the federal government would need and be able to draw on the militias.
That is NOT at all the main point of the militias.
And being able to put down immoral insurrections does not at all imply all insurrections are immoral or should be put down.
Clearly the founders implemented a good insurrection and were VERY fond of the ability to commit insurrections.
They would NEVER have at all implied anything that would prevent needed insurrections, and in fact verbally and in writing said they though insurrections would likely be necessary on a semi regular basis.

And NO, militias are NOT formed by the states alone. They are individual, local, and state. Most militias were private.
Clearly the 2nd amendment implies it is the PEOPLE themselves who form well regulated militias, not states.

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

You are not reading it in the context of the era

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

 

[Lesh]

"A Well Regulated Militia..." only means one thing as well

 

[danielpalos]

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

You are not reading it in the context of the era

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

 

[Rustic]

You are not reading it in the context of the era

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

 

[danielpalos]

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our Second Article of Amendment, a Constitution unto itself.

 

[Lesh]

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections

 

[Rigby5]

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections

In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era", militias had MAINLY been used to institute a legal rebellion against Gt. Britain.

If not for the militia successfully rebelling from Gt. Britain, there could not have been any constitution written.
The Constitution is quite clear that individual rights are inherent and superior to any federal government.
The implication of the threat of rebellion if the federal government violates the Bill of Rights is very clear.

 

[Rigby5]

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our Second Article of Amendment, a Constitution unto itself.

The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state. It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks. And we all do. No one is trying to rob the police.

 

[Rigby5]

"A Well Regulated Militia..." only means one thing as well

Everyone knows exactly what a "well regulated militia" means.
It means a militia that is practiced, familiar, and efficient with the arms it has.
If you think that means somehow under government control, that is totally wrong, for example, a "well regulated clock" refers to one that is functioning consistently. Well regulated or regular means working normally, such as in regular bowl movements.
It means the opposite of controlled.

{...
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <halonen@csd.uwm.edu>

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

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. 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.
...}

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

 

[Rustic]

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections

It was personal firearm ownership, not up to the government

 

[Lesh]

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era" , militias...were used to put down insurrections

In the context of the CONSTITUTION...as well as "the era", militias had MAINLY been used to institute a legal rebellion against Gt. Britain.

If not for the militia successfully rebelling from Gt. Britain, there could not have been any constitution written.
The Constitution is quite clear that individual rights are inherent and superior to any federal government.
The implication of the threat of rebellion if the federal government violates the Bill of Rights is very clear.

Here we go again. The Revolution occurred a considerable number of years prior to the Constitution and was fought primarily by the Regular Army.

After the war the Army was largely disbanded and the militia again became our source of Defense. That was how the Founders wanted it because they did not want the expense or the potential danger of having an Army looming over a tottering fledgling government.

 

[progressive hunter]

You are not reading it in the context of the era

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

what do you have against people paying their fair share???

 

[danielpalos]

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our Second Article of Amendment, a Constitution unto itself.

The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state. It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks. And we all do. No one is trying to rob the police.

You confuse what is necessary to the security of a free State with natural rights.

 

[Rustic]

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our Second Article of Amendment, a Constitution unto itself.

The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state. It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks. And we all do. No one is trying to rob the police.

You confuse what is necessary to the security of a free State with natural rights.

Natural rights are a bunch of horseshit

 

[danielpalos]

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

only in right wing fantasy would that ever be true.

Shall not be infringed means only one thing

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

what do you have against people paying their fair share???

why envy the poor? should the rich have to dig ditches in front of car washers in the summer time or forgo their tax breaks?

 

[danielpalos]

Only well regulated militias of the United States enjoy literal recourse to our Second Amendment when in the service of their State or the Union.

Only the unorganized militia complains about gun control laws.

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our Second Article of Amendment, a Constitution unto itself.

The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state. It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks. And we all do. No one is trying to rob the police.

You confuse what is necessary to the security of a free State with natural rights.

Natural rights are a bunch of horseshit

we don't take right wingers seriously in abortion threads.

 

[Rustic]

Lol
Read it in the context of the era… shall not be infringed says everything you need to know about it

Only in the vacuum of special pleading and right wing fantasy is our Second Article of Amendment, a Constitution unto itself.

The first half of the 2nd amendment clearly does NOT at all say state militia, and even if it did intend that, the states define the state militia as everyone capable and interested in the whole state. It still protects the right of everyone to be armed.
The militia is not a current designation to any of its members, but is only the future potential, in case they are needed.
Nor is the 2nd amendment the only reason federal gun control is totally illegal.
The 4th and 5th make individual weapons absolutely necessary as well.
And the 14th essentially says that if police and other government employees have the need to be armed, then clearly so do all those who are not government employees, but have similar needs and risks. And we all do. No one is trying to rob the police.

You confuse what is necessary to the security of a free State with natural rights.

Natural rights are a bunch of horseshit

we don't take right wingers seriously in abortion threads.

Just existing is not enough

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The original intent was for the State to control the Militias and the total of all of the Militias to outnumber the total number of Federal Troops allowed by law. Each state did not have to have a larger number but the combined number of all the states had to be a larger number than the legal Federal troops. The Federal Troops were limited to 75,000 for many decades. With the Indian Wars taking up so many of that Federal Total, this gave the Confederates a decided advantage at first. Had it not been for the States Militias being called up, the Confederates would have marched in and taken DC. In those days, it was traditional when you took the other guys capital city the war ended much like taking Richmond ended the Civil War the other direction.

When the 2nd amendment reads Organized Militia, by tradition and wordage, it means the State Controlled Militia not a bunch of dudes wearing pickle suits and waving a bunch of guns while running around the woods.

You are not reading it in the context of the era

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

Read the rest of the 2nd amendment. It limits the Feds, not the States. Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue. I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself. It all depends on the thought behind it. Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue. Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see. As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed. Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.

Na, not really
The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...

According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with. Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check. The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check. I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes. I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit. I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not. Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys. Time to grow up.

 

[Rustic]

You are not reading it in the context of the era

I am reading it EXACTLY in context for the Era. The little private armies running around in the woods were never intended to try and overthrow the Governments. The Protections in that context was left to the States, not the individual. It still is.

Federal government and the states were never intended to control private firearm ownership. In fact it was supposed to be none of their business in anyway. Hence.... shall not be infringed

Read the rest of the 2nd amendment. It limits the Feds, not the States. Unless you add in the Interstate Public Safety issue then it can become a Federal Issue. I sometimes question the 1934 Firearms act myself. It all depends on the thought behind it. Was it done for Gun Regulation or was it done as an Interstate Public Safety Issue. Now, that is a fight in court I would like to see. As for the States, they have every right to limit firearms and the Courts have agreed. Well at least for the last 100 years anyway.

Na, not really
The states are far too overbearing if they include any type of regulations on sporting rifles...

According to you but not according to the Constitution of the United States and that is what we have to work with. Colorado is one law away from joining a few others with the complete Universal Background Check and that is where when the check includes a mental health check. The common sense gun regs includes a universal background check. I can still buy a gun in about 15 minutes. I can still carry my handgun on the street openly without a permit. I can easily get a CCW whether I need one or not. Most of the crap you spew is just a scared little kid scared that some boogey man will take his toys. Time to grow up.

Any sort of American government does not have the moral authority to deny firearm ownership to law abiding citizens. Obviously that’s their ultimate goal