What is a “well-regulated militia” and why are we so sure it refers to everyone?

[Billy000]

OK, I'll try again......They certainly had no government that could arm them. Everyone already had a gun or rifle. They were armed and were able to form a militia. It is not a militia that grants the right to own and bear arms it is the right to own and bear arms that allows for the formation of a militia.

A militia to do what?

 

[Leo123]

No, really, it's all been explained to you. Your choice to ignore is on you; don't blame anybody else.

I find it interesting that 'Billy' rejects accepted definitions of words in the American language in order to make a point.

 

[Rigby5]

The rightwing will cite court precedent for this issue, but they don’t actually offer an explanation for why it should be interpreted this way.

Should this apply to 5 year olds? Should it be made legal for kids to buy firearms from a licensed firearm business because of how this is interpreted?

This is silly, because the Founders and all state constitution constantly tell us that the militia is all able bodied, male, adults.

And if you preface the restriction on the feds from having any firearm jurisdiction, with 1 particular reason, that does NOT at all imply that is the ONLY one.
You only have to give one reason for something to be true, for it to then be true.
But there could still be dozens of other reasons as well.
Nor does it at all matter.
The 2nd amendment clearly denied any jurisdiction over firearms, to the federal government.
So it does not really matter at all why.
And that should be obvious.
The Founders wanted a minimal federal government, after dealing with the abuses of the British federal government.
No one should have wanted to allow that disaster to happen again, and yet that is what happened.
The federal government is illegally legislating things like firearms, drugs, medicine, etc., which it has ZERO jurisdiction over.
Considering other criminal acts, like Congress lying over Iraqi WMD, we likely need another armed rebellion?

 

[daveman]

Hey dumass… the militia has as one of its duties… to put DOWN insurrection.

THAT is in the Constitution

That's in the Constitution? Where? Not the 2nd Amendment.

The framers intended the militia to both defend the nation against outside aggressors and to destroy a tyrannical government. They did both against England. The Crown decided the colonists should give up their guns.

So we shot them.

 

[scruffy]

A militia to do what?

^^^



(rolls eyes)

 

[Leo123]

A militia to do what?

Not the point. There is no militia requirement to own and bear arms in the U.S. There is a requirement for the right to own and bear arms in order to form a militia. I have already explained this to you multiple times now but, you still don't seem to get it.

 

[Rigby5]

Where is the justification in the constitution that it refers ONLY to able bodied men? If that were true, should we be making it illegal for a woman to buy a gun?

You have it backwards.
The Founders wanted to REQUIRE that all able bodied males be mandated to be armed.
That does not mean women could not also be armed, and many women did fight in the American revolution.
The 2nd amendment is clearly putting firearms outside the jurisdiction of the federal government.
So that means the federal government can't pen any firearm law at all, including for women, children, natives, felons, drug users, etc.
Any legal firearm laws have to be done by the state or municipality.
And the 14th amendment restricts what even states or municipalities can legislate.

 

[daveman]

In the case of a tyrannical government, where the owning and bearing of arms is prohibited, citizens are not going to ask that government for arms to form a militia against that same government.

 

[daveman]

I find it interesting that 'Billy' rejects accepted definitions of words in the American language in order to make a point.

It should tell leftists something that they can't make arguments without re-defining words.

It should -- but they're not that bright.

 

[Rigby5]

But why can we be sure the context of the right to bear arms applies to any context outside of a well regulated militia?

As already explained, the militia essentially is everyone who wants to be part of a militia.
Remember there were essentially no police back then.
No phones or cars either.
So everyone had to defend their own home, city, state, and country.

 

[daveman]

 

[Leo123]

That's fuckin' great!!

 

[Billy000]

Not the point. There is no militia requirement to own and bear arms in the U.S. There is a requirement for the right to own and bear arms in order to form a militia. I have already explained this to you multiple times now but, you still don't seem to get it.

Lol not the point? The founders wanted to guarantee a militia and they didn’t have a reason why?

 

[Nostra]

Lol not the point? The founders wanted to guarantee a militia and they didn’t have a reason why?

See post 431.

Since a link with words was too much for your pea brain, maybe a video will be more your speed, Simp.

 

[Lesh]

Again...no minds will be changed here.

But if the COURT changes...these are the arguments you could well here.

Get used to it

 

[Rigby5]

Lol not the point? The founders wanted to guarantee a militia and they didn’t have a reason why?

No one can be sure ahead of time why an armed militia might be necessary.
If a gang robs the bank, then you need a militia in the form of a posse.
If the government goes tyrannical, be it municipal, state, or federal, you many need a much larger militia.
If the country is invaded, you likely need the largest militia possible.
It does not matter what actually happens in the future.
The point is the only way to be ready for everything, is for as many people to be armed and trained as possible.

 

[Leo123]

Lol not the point? The founders wanted to guarantee a militia and they didn’t have a reason why?

NO!!! The Founders wanted to guarantee the right to own and bear arms in order to be able to form a militias!!! The reason is obvious, they fought the Revolutionary War with militias. You are really confused. Have you studied American history?

 

[scruffy]

Again...no minds will be changed here.

But if the COURT changes...these are the arguments you could well here.

Get used to it

No court is going to disarm me, you dumb leftie.

Get used to it

 

[Billy000]

No one can be sure ahead of time why an armed militia might be necessary.
If a gang robs the bank, then you need a militia in the form of a posse.
If the government goes tyrannical, be it municipal, state, or federal, you many need a much larger militia.
If the country is invaded, you likely need the largest militia possible.
It does not matter what actually happens in the future.
The point is the only way to be ready for everything, is for as many people to be armed and trained as possible.

Well this is a terrible plan because if anyone can form the militia, the very wrong people could. People with nefarious intentions.

 

[Leo123]

Well this is a terrible plan because if anyone can form the militia, the very wrong people could. People with nefarious intentions.

The 'very wrong people' could take over the government as well, namely those who would seek to disarm US.