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

[22lcidw]

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]

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]

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]

I'd like to see that fool debate a constitutional lawyer

Now, now. Jonesy is smarter than any constitutional lawyer -- because he says so.

 

[daveman]

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.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Now, now. Jonesy is smarter than any constitutional lawyer -- because he says so.

Well no, I've let my attorney husband read some of Jones' material. Lots of eye rolls

 

[daveman]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

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]

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.

 

[Billy000]

Uh huh. You'll support gun confiscation without question or hesitation when you're told to.

Lol this is so stupid.

 

[Nostra]

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

As women are now allowed to be in combat, it means any able-bodied person.

So literally everyone then?

 

[Nostra]

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]

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?

 

[Rogue AI]

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

Shall not be infringed is simple enough. You can stop your worrying now.