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

[SassyIrishLass]

Uh no i don’t. You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. You’ll say anything to justify the fantasy you have about suits showing up at your door and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” You would respond with “come take it mother fucker!”

Something like that will NEVER happen so long as the current government exists. It’s just a fantasy you entertain because it makes you feel like a badass.

Why would I be expecting that? I even made it clear I am not opposed to gun ownership.

Under red flag laws they can do exactly that

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.

Plain language is vague?

Because a militia is necessary, no federal authority. It's that easy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. Y

Say the idiot who can't understand simple definitions.

You folks like to make broad generalizations and without a facts... You ignore laws because you think they mean nothing... When the vigilantism starts, there will be nowhere to hide.

 

[Chuz Life]

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?

The Constitution for the State of Indiana (Article 12 Section 1) sheds some light on the historical setting for how a militia is defined before it ever became so politically polarized.

Article 12. - Militia.​

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).

Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.

All that being said, as I pointed out before, the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to an individual's participation and place within a militia. The right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment by decades if not by hundreds of years.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This ignorance makes no sense.

Dumbass the constitution doesn't give the government rights it places restrictions. Remember when Obama was crying about the constitution giving the government negative rights? You truly are a moron.

 

[Chuz Life]

Don't insult the Primus front man. Clayton is nowhere near as cool as Les Claypool.

True enough.

Clayton wouldn't rate being equated to more than a pimple on "Winona's Big Brown Beaver." But Les was not the Claypool, I was thinking of.

 

[bodecea]

"Well regulated militia" was probably put in there accidently.

What would make you say that?

 

[Nostra]

I’m not against the public owning guns. I’m simply pointing out how vague the amendment is and how it can be interpreted.

Not vague at all. It is quite clear.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What would make you say that?

Obama in his interview disparages the Constitution as merely "a charter of negative liberties. It says what the states can't do to you. Says what the federal government can't do to you but doesn't say what the federal government or state government must do on your behalf." He believes—and he's right—that changing this is the way to bring about "redistributive change

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

When ya comin commie?

Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to have the same arms as the military.

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to be ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures because they falsely claim to be in a ‘militia.’

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with the militia.

 

[Billy000]

The Constitution for the State of Indiana (Article 12 Section 1) sheds some light on the historical setting for how a militia is defined before it ever became so politically polarized.

Article 12. - Militia.​

Section 1. A militia shall be provided and shall consist of all persons over the age of seventeen (17) years, except those persons who may be exempted by the laws of the United States or of this state. The militia may be divided into active and inactive classes and consist of such military organizations as may be provided by law.
(History: As Amended November 3, 1936; November 5, 1974).

Section 2. The Governor is Commander-in-Chief of the militia and other military forces of this state.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 3. There shall be an Adjutant General, who shall be appointed by the Governor.
(History: As Amended November 5, 1974).

Section 4. No person, conscientiously opposed to bearing arms, shall be compelled to do so in the militia.

All that being said, as I pointed out before, the right to keep and bear arms is not limited to an individual's participation and place within a militia. The right to keep and bear arms predates the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment by decades if not by hundreds of years.

Why are you citing definitions made after the constitution?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to have the same arms as the military.

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to be ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures because they falsely claim to be in a ‘militia.’

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with the militia.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to have the same arms as the military.

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to be ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures because they falsely claim to be in a ‘militia.’

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with the militia.

Gee, Einstein don't you think if it that was true SCOTUS wouldn't keep slapping gun grabbers down?

You really are stupid

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Uh no i don’t. You gun nuts come up with such silly stuff. You’ll say anything to justify the fantasy you have about suits showing up at your door and saying “give me your guns! I’m here to collect!” You would respond with “come take it mother fucker!”

Something like that will NEVER happen so long as the current government exists. It’s just a fantasy you entertain because it makes you feel like a badass.

Why would I be expecting that? I even made it clear I am not opposed to gun ownership.

Correct.

Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’

Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.

 

[Chuz Life]

Why are you citing definitions made after the constitution?

In your op, you asked for "interpretations." That section from Indiana's Constitution was provided towards that end.

Derp much?

 

[buckeye45_73]

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?

It means trained and equiped......the word regulation has several meanings just like arms does.......

 

[night_son]

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?

The full text of the Second Amendment applies to every single last American, period. Further, due to the very recent pro-Second Amendment ruling, the Supreme Court has rendered ALL current and future gun laws unconstitutional, period. If a law or rule or legal process did not exist at the time the Second Amendment was written then it cannot be applied to modern day control gun restrictions, infringements or laws. For instance, in 1791 no laws existed which restricted or prohibited a convicted felon from owning a firearm, restricted 18-21 year old Americans from owning firearms; no red flag laws existed, no magazine or barrel length or suppressor restrictions existed, no age requirements at all, no laws for possessing, transporting or storing firearms and on and on. Pretty soon, due to the recent SC ruling, NO GUN LAWS will remain in the United States. Hope you have a great day, dude . . . chewing on all that.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Correct.

Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’

Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.

Ok you want to explain that and your last position? If we didn't have a right to firearms as private citizens why haven't the government started CONFISCATION yet?

Insurrectionist dogma is completely devoid of Constitutional merit.

There is nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes private citizens to 'take up arms’ against a lawfully, constitutionally elected government incorrectly and subjectively perceived by an armed minority to have ‘become tyrannical.’

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to have the same arms as the military.

There is no ‘right’ of private citizens to be ‘exempt’ from state and Federal firearm regulatory measures because they falsely claim to be in a ‘militia.’

The Second Amendment codifies an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense, unconnected with the militia.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Correct.

Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’

Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.

Then there's no reason for our legislators to work on legislation for it..... NEXT!!!

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Chuz Life]

Correct.

Guns are not going to be ‘banned’; guns are not going to be ‘confiscated.’

Such ridiculous rhetoric is nothing but fearmongering and lies contrived by the dishonest right.