What Do The Words "A Well Regulated Militia" Mean?

[RetiredGySgt]

Turned off your supersize

How then is a "well regulated militia" in proper working order?

It has a set organizational structure with established responsibilities
It trains its members
It meets regularly
It meets certain standards

How do todays gun owners support a well regulated militia?

It does not matter that most States maintain no militia, the right to be armed is separate from the States right to form militias. Or have you not read the Supreme Court ruling?

Sounds like you're hanging everything on the Supreme Court. So you'd be just fine if/when they rule in another direction in the not-too-distant future....yes?

So you won't mind when a new Court over turns Roe Vs Wade? Right?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Let's say that is, in fact, the case/correct interpretation.

All right's have limits, from the first, right on up. Remember, you have the right to say anything, anywhere you want, however you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room. That is illegal.

At what point does one citizen's right to own a gun impedes on another's right to personal safety?

Banning types of weapons because of how they look is not a REASONABLE restriction. Banning magazines because they hold more rounds then you like is not a REASONABLE restriction. Banning semi automatics is directly against numerous Supreme Court decisions.

registering gun owners is neither reasonable nor Constitutional.

So you're for guns unrestricted, Gun, Inc. Gunz Galore, Guns Across America, non stop guns, etc., etc., etc....correct?

The 2nd protects any weapon that would be effective in militia service, part of the ordinary military equipment in common use, and suitable for any of the traditionally legals purposes one might have for a gun.

If you want to ban any of these guns, you need a sound argument for doing so, understanding that the guns most commonly used for crime are specifically exempted from such a ban.

 

[Meister]

Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?

We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us

How else are they "well regulated"?

You still don't understand what the second amendment is all about, RW.

What is the matter with gun owners? Don't you love our country?

You are unwilling to join a well regulated militia to protect us?

You have no clue why the second amendment was put in place, do you? It's okay, you can admit it, we're all friends here.

 

[Contumacious]

Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?

We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us

How else are they "well regulated"?

madison intended it to be protection against our own government

Really?

Then why didn't they put that into the Constitution?

I'm sure that J.K. Rowling had a few chapters of Harry Potter material that didn't make the cut into the books, also.

They did .

Tenth Amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You still don't understand what the second amendment is all about, RW.

What is the matter with gun owners? Don't you love our country?

You are unwilling to join a well regulated militia to protect us?

You have no clue why the second amendment was put in place, do you? It's okay, you can admit it, we're all friends here.

He chooses to be wrong.

 

[Little-Acorn]

The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

The 2nd amendment is a flat ban on any government restricting or taking away your right to own and carry a gun.

.

 

[Spoonman]

Madison is not the Constitution

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

madison wrote the second amendment, in fact he wrote most of them. so yea, in a sense he is.

I'm afraid not

The Constitution was ratified by the states not James Madison

but it was written by him and you are correct, hiw words were ratified by the states. so his words stand. case closed. gun ownership is a right that shall not be infringed. it wasn't ratified by some 21st century liberal gun grabbers who have absolutely no clue what there intent was

 

[Spoonman]

Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?

We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us

How else are they "well regulated"?

madison intended it to be protection against our own government

Really?

Then why didn't they put that into the Constitution?

I'm sure that J.K. Rowling had a few chapters of Harry Potter material that didn't make the cut into the books, also.

because they put in the constitution all they needed to. that the right of citizens to bear arms shall not be infringed. they don't need to list every single purpose in might apply to. you have a right to free speech. does it spell out specifically ever instance you might use free speech? does it say where you specifically have the right to free assembly? no. by your fucked up logic you can't protest the government or speak out against them because it doens't specifically say you can in the constitution.

oh and BTW, what he did was put it in the federalist papers. you know that little document they used to convince the states to ratify the constitution. he clearly spelled out what his words meant and what the intent of the 2nd amendment was. in fact he left no room for argument.

 

[Kondor3]

So, are our Gun-Grabber colleagues making any headway with the Militia-Only argument yet?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, are our Gun-Grabber colleagues making any headway with the Militia-Only argument yet?

The OP does not even know that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd is an Individual right separate and distinct from any service in a militia. And further ruled States can not remove the right.

 

[MarcATL]

How are background checks an infringement on your rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

How are background checks an infringement on your rights?

They are a form of prior restraint, where you are denied the exercise of your right until the state determines that said exercise is not against the law.
Prior restraint is an infringement.

 

[Abatis]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

Coming in late here and I will read the whole thread but I do not give "well regulated" any weight to impact the right to arms simply because it has none.

The right to arms is not given, granted, created or established by the 2nd Amendment so it is not in any manner dependent upon the 2nd Amendment for its existence.

Inventing conditions and qualifications on the right by misconstructing the words of the Amendment into creating actions they can not have is the real "ignoring"... Ignoring fundamental constitutional principles of conferred powers and retained rights and ignoring the clear, longstanding and boringly consistent determinations of SCOTUS on the subject:

Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [for self defense exercised by two ex-slaves in this case]. . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."

Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "

Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed … .”
​

There is only ONE conclusion / determination permitted from reading the 2nd Amendment; the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed . . .

Can you cite any authority from the philosophical, historical or legal record that states that the term "well regulated" as it appears in the 2nd Amendment imparts any conditions, qualifications, restrictions or limits on the exercise or protection of the right to keep and bear arms of an individual citizen, not a member of any militia?

It is my position that it is you that is ignoring that no such evidence exists, ignoring the vast evidence to the opposite and ignoring 137 years of SCOTUS statements that extinguish the possibility of forcing "well regulated" to have any impact on the right.

I would love to read anything you can offer to dispute that though . . . I've waited over 20 years for it!
.

 

[Spoonman]

How are background checks an infringement on your rights?

will they infringe on anyone right to own a gun? could this information ever be used to hinder the person getting a job? or pursue any other avenue in his regular life?

 

[Little-Acorn]

The OP does not even know that the Supreme Court ruled that the 2nd is an Individual right separate and distinct from any service in a militia. And further ruled States can not remove the right.

How are background checks an infringement on your rights?

And as you can see, when these facts are pointed out to the OP, he changes the subject REAL fast.

 

[thereisnospoon]

What are the words that identifies and separates the individual rights from the "Well regulated militia's?"

The Right To Bear Arms.

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

How is it doing so exactly? Can you break it up and interpret it as you understand it for me please?

Another definition of insanity is asking the same question over and over looking for the reply one wants to hear.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?

We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us

How else are they "well regulated"?

Notwithstanding your comment re: well regulated militia, I think all prospective gun purchasers should at least have to take and pass some sort of gun safety course.
For comparison's sake, we all must take and pass an exam plus a road test in order to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle.

 

[Spoonman]

Our nation depends on our gun owners to defend us. What will happen when our country is attacked and we depend on a bunch of unknown random gun owners to form an effective fighting force to defend the women and children?

We need to register all our gun owners so that we know who they are and how much guns and ammunition they own. How else can we form a well regulated militia to ensure our free state. We also need to make gun owners get off their fat asses, exercise, train and be prepared to defend us

How else are they "well regulated"?

Notwithstanding your comment re: well regulated militia, I think all prospective gun purchasers should at least have to take and pass some sort of gun safety course.
For comparison's sake, we all must take and pass an exam plus a road test in order to obtain a license to operate a motor vehicle.

do we shoot our guns on public highways and roads?

 

[thereisnospoon]

The 2nd amendment in modern language, means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for security and freedom, the right or ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

---------------------------------

That "well-regulated militia" part translates most accurately, to a populace that is armed and capable of using their weapons.

Note too, that that first phrase is simply a reason why the right cannot be infringed. Not a condition on its infringement. It actually doesn't matter exactly what a "well-regulated militia" is. It could be a pair of shoelaces or a Thanksgiving turkey or a moon rocket. The amendment says that, since it's important, the right to own and carry guns can't be taken away or restricted.

Let's say that is, in fact, the case/correct interpretation.

All right's have limits, from the first, right on up. Remember, you have the right to say anything, anywhere you want, however you cannot yell "FIRE!" in a crowded room. That is illegal.

At what point does one citizen's right to own a gun impedes on another's right to personal safety?

james madison clearly explained what his intentions were in the federalist papers. why do libs ignore the words of the author?

Felons, insane people and other mentally disabled individuals are not permitted to own firearms.
Of course that does not stop the criminal from obtaining guns.

 

[IlarMeilyr]

And why do RWers and other Republicans like to ignore it?

I don't.

In fact, let's contemplate it.

The phrase is constitutionally kind of meaningless. it is akin to a prefatory clause.

Take the First Amendment for an example. What if it read, "Because we deem it very important that the people should be free to go to any church of their choosing, or not to go to any church, as they deem fit, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...."

It might be nice to know why the Framers thought we should have a freedom of religion clause in the First Amendment. But does it change the meaning of the actionable provision, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?

I don't think so.

So, why is the Second amendment all that different? They included PART of their thinking. THEIR understanding of what "militia" meant (well regulated or not) was consistent with their times. But does that prefatory clause actually alter the meaning of what follows, ". . . the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"?

Again, I say it clearly does not.

The words mean what they say.