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

[Resnic]

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?

Your opening right-wing comment is used as a back hand insult as it's well known you hate conservatives just for existing and are constantly doing your best to talk down about them with never a constructive conversation.

And your obvious sarcastic second paragraph following it shows you're not even worth taking seriously.

 

[Billy000]

So the whiny left is going to ignore Heller and pine about militias because they lost Roe? Perhaps rural America should embrace the militia movement. Oh how these urban centric liberal elites would howl then...

I’m not ignoring Heller. I’m asking why the ruling was justified in the first place.

 

[miketx]

If that is exactly what well regulated militia means, wouldn’t we be defining it as who has the right to own them?

Easy, the people.

 

[BluesLegend]

Should this apply to 5 year olds?

This is why the left never wins the debate, they throw out stupid retarded shit like this ^^^

 

[Billy000]

Easy, the people.

But what makes anyone at all being part of a well regulated militia?

 

[Billy000]

This is why the left never wins the debate, they throw out stupid retarded shit like this ^^^

Should it apply to 5 year olds? If your answer is either yes or no, what wording of the amendment specifies this?

 

[Billy_Bob]

If that is exactly what well regulated militia means, wouldn’t we be defining it as who has the right to own them?

NO... Punctuation in the sentence breaks this from the right.

The statement-reason for the right: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

The right assigned: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

The actions allowed by the government: shall not be infringed.”

The sentence structure means things... it was crafted so there would be NO AMBIGUITY of what it meant.

 

[mudwhistle]

“Shall not be infringed” could still apply to any interpretation of a well regulated militia.

Well....since I can read and comprehend English....I know that's not all it applies to.
The well regulated militia was an example provided for the 18th Century....but it doesn't give anyone the right to carve that out as the only example that is constitutional. That is why the right was spelled out with the phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed".

 

[Rogue AI]

We do embrace the militia movement.

The militia movement is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago. I'm suggesting returning to a far more active movement.

 

[mudwhistle]

Should it apply to 5 year olds? If your answer is either yes or no, what wording of the amendment specifies this?

"Shall Not Be Infringed".

 

[Billy000]

NO... Punctuation in the sentence breaks this from the right.

The statement-reason for the right: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

The right assigned: the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,

The actions allowed by the government: shall not be infringed.”

The sentence structure means things... it was crafted so there would be NO AMBIGUITY of what it meant.

Lol it would be grammatically incorrect to change the punctuation.

 

[Billy000]

"Shall Not Be Infringed".

For who? Why them?

 

[gipper]

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

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

 

[Billy_Bob]

The militia movement is a fraction of what it was a few decades ago. I'm suggesting returning to a far more active movement.

We need to get this back up and running in every state. Then people would learn about it and know their constitutional rights.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

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?

Law enforcement and security agencies, like the secret service, aren't military either and should be required to comply to the same restrictions as any civilian/private individual does.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lol it would be grammatically incorrect to change the punctuation.

Yet you fail to understand it.... Odd.....

 

[Rogue AI]

I’m not ignoring Heller. I’m asking why the ruling was justified in the first place.

Because the individual right to keep and bear arms was never in question. One need only look at how the Founders governed, and how that tradition was kept for almost 200 years before fascist progressives thought they could remove the right to keep and bear arms.

 

[daveman]

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?

"shit fam u rite imma give up all my guns now"

-- no one ever

 

[BluesLegend]

But what makes anyone at all being part of a well regulated militia?

The founders definition of the militia is every able bodied adult so everyone is part of the militia.

 

[Auld Phart]

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?

MIlitias at the time consisted of males, ages 16-45.

women did not belong to 'well regulated' militias.

males under the age of 16 did not belong to 'well regulated' militias.

IN a few states males up to the age of 59 did belong to 'well regulated' militias.