What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

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

22lcidw

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2018
Messages
30,288
Reaction score
12,681
Points
1,585
Lol you’re right it doesn’t. That’s why it was pointless for you to define it as able bodied males
The ghettos have men and women. Who controls the ghettos? It is closer to primal there.
 

Billy_Bob

Diamond Member
Joined
Sep 4, 2014
Messages
27,999
Reaction score
15,887
Points
1,445
Location
Top Of The Great Divide
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.
With one caveat.... The due process clause allows rights to be removed after adjudication for crimes. ie: depravation of rights.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
67,535
Reaction score
25,262
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
What would make you say that?
Because before Heller, the Second Amendment was understood to be a collective, not individual, right.

Under the collective right theory, private ownership of guns was justified only as a means to maintain a militia.

With the Militia Act of 1908 along with other measures, the ‘justification’ for private citizens to possess firearms was eliminated, as there were no longer ‘militia’ for private armed citizens to participate in.

That’s why Scalia contrived the individual right unconnected to militia service.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
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.
Uh huh. You'll support gun confiscation without question or hesitation when you're told to.
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
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.
Spoken like a true government bootlicker.
 

Failzero

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
3,062
Reaction score
1,440
Points
198
Location
Oak Run Ca.
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.
So you must not have desired to Purchase a Pistol that is not on the Roster in California lately
 

daveman

Diamond Member
Joined
Jun 25, 2010
Messages
76,343
Reaction score
29,243
Points
2,250
Location
On the way to the Dark Tower.
That’s why Scalia contrived the individual right unconnected to militia service.
"Scalia". You misspelled "the Founding Fathers who wrote the Constitution". Scalia invented nothing. He told you leftists that your whack-job interpretation is full of crap.
 

Kondor3

Cafeteria Centrist
Joined
Jul 29, 2009
Messages
29,705
Reaction score
6,645
Points
290
Location
Illinois, USA
Looks like Kondor failed commas in school too.
Doesn't matter in the slightest... but I realize that's as close as you come to intelligent feedback on the remark...
 

TemplarKormac

Political Atheist
Joined
Mar 30, 2013
Messages
49,541
Reaction score
12,953
Points
2,190
Location
The Land of Sanctuary
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.

Because for there to be a militia at all, the people who wish to be a part of it must have the right to bear arms. Or else volunteers of a militia are just a bunch of guys with fists and feet.

And if you read the opinion, you'll see how thoroughly the SCOTUS justices eviscerate that shoddy argument of yours.
 

Missourian

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 30, 2008
Messages
27,366
Reaction score
16,337
Points
1,405
Location
Missouri
Billy000

What you are missing is the philosophy behind the concept of the Bill of Rights.

Mostly what the Bill of Rights tells the Federal Government is what it can't do.

The government can't make laws establishing religion.

It can't restrict speech, assembly, the press, citizens peaceful protests or religious freedom.

It can't force homeowners to house soldiers.

It can't search or seize personal property without a warrant based on probable cause.

You see a pattern here.

It's a document of "can'ts" ... what the government does not have the power to do.


The Bill of Rights doesn't give power to the government...nor does it grant rights ... it explains the natural rights of the people and it states that the government is forever barred from attempting to infringe on those natural rights.

The militia clause is irrelevant except as a way to convey that the arms were for a defensive use.


If the Constitution said "A free and robust circulation of newspapers, being essential to the well being of a free state, the right of the people to establish a free and unfettered press shall not be infringed."

Is the newspaper clause important? Or is the PEOPLE'S RIGHT to establish a free and unfettered press the actionable and defining sentiment?



If newspapers were no longer printed and all news was digital...could the government then infringe on the PEOPLES right to a free and unfettered press?

If course not. That would be idiotic.
 
Last edited:

Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 15, 2017
Messages
43,081
Reaction score
26,906
Points
2,615
Location
Tejas
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.
FUCKING LIAR!!!!
 

Chuz Life

Gold Member
Joined
Jun 18, 2015
Messages
9,143
Reaction score
3,582
Points
345
Location
USA
Billy000

What you are missing is the philosophy behind the concept if the Bill of Rights.

Mostly what the Bill of Rights tells the Federal Government is what it can't do.

The government can't make laws establishing religion.

It can't restrict speech, assembly, the press, citizens peaceful protests or religious freedom.

It can't force homeowners to house soldiers.

It can't search or seize personal property without a warrant based on probable cause.

You see a pattern here.

It's a document of "can'ts" ... what the government does not have the power to do.


The Bill of Rights doesn't give power to the government...nor does it grant rights ... it explains the natural rights if the people and it states that the government is forever barred for attempting to infringe on those natural right.

The militia clause is irrelevant except as a way to convey that the arms were for a defensive use.


If the Constitution said "A free and robust circulation of newspapers, being essential to the well being of a free state, the right of the people to establish a free and unfettered press shall not be infringed."

It the newspaper clause important?



If newspapers were no longer printed and all news was digital...could the government then infringe on the PEOPLES right to a free and unfettered press?

If course not. That would be idiotic.
To simplify that for him any further, you might have to switch to 'connect the dots' and crayons.
 
OP
Billy000

Billy000

Democratic Socialist
Joined
Nov 10, 2011
Messages
27,922
Reaction score
8,246
Points
490
Location
Colorado

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
41,010
Reaction score
35,807
Points
3,615
Because before Heller, the Second Amendment was understood to be a collective, not individual, right.

Under the collective right theory, private ownership of guns was justified only as a means to maintain a militia.

With the Militia Act of 1908 along with other measures, the ‘justification’ for private citizens to possess firearms was eliminated, as there were no longer ‘militia’ for private armed citizens to participate in.

That’s why Scalia contrived the individual right unconnected to militia service.
You are a moron.
 

Nostra

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 7, 2019
Messages
41,010
Reaction score
35,807
Points
3,615
Doesn't matter in the slightest... but I realize that's as close as you come to intelligent feedback on the remark...
Not sure your massive dipshittery deserves intelligent feedback as it would be wasted on you.
 

Hutch Starskey

Gold Member
Joined
Mar 24, 2015
Messages
28,153
Reaction score
5,568
Points
290
In California ( Per State Constitution ) it’s EVERY adult Male age 18 -54 that is not ( Current Duty Law Enforcement Or Military , Member Of the State Legislature )
So only people aged 18-54 are eligible to keep and bear arms then?
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$225.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top