What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[frigidweirdo]

Have you ever heard of a class action lawsuit. The group has the right to sue, not the individual. But as a member of the group, you can't be excluded from recovering as in your no individual right theory.
The fact is, tight to assemble is a group right, and being a member of the group (freedom of association) is what grants the individual the right to be in the group.

Well, again, this is individuals having the right to do something.

Individuals may have the right to sue from the First Amendment, we don't need to discuss whether this is or isn't right, but we assume it is.

If only the group has the "right to sue" then the government could prevent individuals within the class action lawsuit from suing as part of that group until there are few or no people left.

The fact is that if it were a "group right", then only the "group" and not the "individuals" would be able to have this right, which would mean none of the actual members would be protected. Which would mean the group would fall apart.

Do you understand that concept?


The reason I say this is because... ironically... the discussion of the Second Amendment way back in in 1789

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

They were discussing this clause to the Second Amendment: "but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."

Mr Gerry said "Now, I am apprehensive, sir, that this clause would give an opportunity to the people in power to destroy the constitution itself. They can declare who are those religiously scrupulous, and prevent them from bearing arms."

Literally, if you say "these people can be exempt from militia duty" then the government could say "well, we're making these people exempt from militia duty".

You're giving the government POWER to "take away" (not sure this is the right terminology here, but hopefully you get the idea) the right from individuals. Once you start exempting certain people from a right, it no longer is a right, it's a privilege, which can be taken away at will from everyone else. Hence why he said it would destroy the Constitution. Because then the collective would be unable to meet together.

In order to protect the collective, they gave INDIVIDUALS the right to own weapons (keep).

This meant that when called up into Federal service, the US govt could NOT take the arms from the soldiers because they were not government property.

In order to protect the collective, they gave INDIVIDUALS the right to be in the militia (bear). This meant they could not throw out individuals from the group, to make it a privilege rather than a right, and therefore couldn't destroy the militia.

Ironically they did the opposite with the Dick Act, by making everyone in the "unorganized militia" and then made this militia redundant, and had the National Guard as a select militia.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Given his record, it is surprising that Team Biden passed up a chance to do an idiotic thing.

As a former Army NCO and officers, I don't find it newsworthy that troops complain about something.

It's newsworthy and worrying when the troops STOP complaining.

 

[Who_Me?]

"A well regulated Militia", - certainly not the goat ropers that run around on the weekends wearing military garb and carrying their AR-15's. These are called insecure men with undersized junk.

 

[meaner gene]

Well, again, this is individuals having the right to do something.

Individual citizens do not have the right to run for political office.
The law requires that they be part of a group (file nominating signatures).
So the right to run for political office is only a collective right.

 

[Seymour Flops]

Individual citizens do not have the right to run for political office.
The law requires that they be part of a group (file nominating signatures).
So the right to run for political office is only a collective right.

You are describing the right to be on the ballot, not the right to run.

I wonder if any polling places do not allow write in votes? Now that I think of it, I do not remember being given that opportunity the last time I voted.

 

[BackAgain]

Poorly regulated militias might not be effective.

 

[meaner gene]

You are describing the right to be on the ballot, not the right to run.

You need to be part of a group, to get your name on the ballot, and you need to be part of a group to get your name on the write-in list to have ballots cast for you counted.

Without being part of a group, no-one can vote for you, and have that vote count.

So technically you have the right to campaign (tell people to vote for you) but it's a collective right to have people actually vote for you.

 

[Dante Reawakened]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

constitutioncenter.org

What is your definition of a "well regulated Militia"?

If my understanding/definition of the phrase differs from those of the people who ratified the Constitution?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Poorly regulated militias might not be effective.

As well as Well regulated ones. Define what constitutes An effective militia?

 

[Seymour Flops]

You need to be part of a group, to get your name on the ballot, and you need to be part of a group to get your name on the write-in list to have ballots cast for you counted.

Without being part of a group, no-one can vote for you, and have that vote count.

So technically you have the right to campaign (tell people to vote for you) but it's a collective right to have people actually vote for you.

The "write-in list?"

Are you sure about that?

Well . . . I looked at ballotpedia and in some states, you are correct:

As of 2020, most states allow voters to write in the name of a candidate who does not appear on the ballot. However, states have varying rules about which write-in votes they count. These rules can be grouped into three categories:

• No requirements for whom voters may write-in
• Only write-in votes for registered candidates will be counted.
• No write-in votes allowed[2]

Eight states do not have any requirements and will allow voters to write in any name as a write-in vote. This means that regardless of who you write in, the vote will be counted.[3] Those states are Alabama, Delaware, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Vermont, and Wyoming.

Thirty-three states will only accept votes for write-in candidates who have officially registered with the state. In order for the vote to be counted, the candidate must have submitted all the necessary registration documents by a specific deadline, either by filing paperwork, paying a fee, collecting signatures, or some combination of the aforementioned.[4] Conversely, if a voter writes in the name of a candidate who has not properly filled out and submitted the paperwork, the vote will not be valid and counted.[5]

Nine states (Arkansas, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, New Mexico, Oklahoma, South Carolina and South Dakota), do not allow write-in votes.

I stand corrected! (forkup) If a state does not allow write-in votes, or requires signatures to be a registered write-in candidate, the right to run for office is indeed dependent on others, and therefore can be said to be "collective."

I smell the Twoparties.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Individual citizens do not have the right to run for political office.
The law requires that they be part of a group (file nominating signatures).
So the right to run for political office is only a collective right.

So collective groups have the right to run for political office? No. So what's your point? There's no right to run for political office?

 

[Dante Reawakened]

So collective groups have the right to run for political office? No. So what's your point? There's no right to run for political office?

Think: write in candidates

 

[BackAgain]

As well as Well regulated ones. Define what constitutes An effective militia?

Does the Constitution address the concept of an “effective” militia?

No.

The original question was what a well regulated militia means. And it means one that is not poorly regulated.

Now hurry back with another meaningless comment. You’re on the clock, Dainty. Go!

 

[Dante Reawakened]

Individual citizens do not have the right to run for political office.
The law requires that they be part of a group (file nominating signatures).
So the right to run for political office is only a collective right.

Yes we do. It happens all the time

 

[frigidweirdo]

Think: write in candidates

Think: no right to be a candidate

 

[meaner gene]

Thirty-three states will only accept votes for write-in candidates who have officially registered with the state. In order for the vote to be counted, the candidate must have submitted all the necessary registration documents by a specific deadline, either by filing paperwork, paying a fee, collecting signatures, or some combination of the aforementioned.[4] Conversely, if a voter writes in the name of a candidate who has not properly filled out and submitted the paperwork, the vote will not be valid and counted.[5]

As you documented, the majority of states do not grant the right to run for political office to the individual, but ONLY to the group.

Making it a group right.

 

[frigidweirdo]

As you documented, the majority of states do not grant the right to run for political office to the individual, but ONLY to the group.

Making it a group right.

So they can ban all individuals, but they can't ban the Republican Party from running.

How's that even possible?

You can't even vote for the Republican Party. You can ONLY vote for individual candidates.

 

[meaner gene]

So they can ban all individuals, but they can't ban the Republican Party from running.

How's that even possible?

That's the law.

And it's the law in the majority of states.

 

[frigidweirdo]

That's the law.

And it's the law in the majority of states.

No, it's not the law.

The law says an individual needs to be in a political party.

A political party without candidates CANNOT win an election because NOBODY can vote for just the political party.

So it can't be a right for a political party.

 

[meaner gene]

No, it's not the law.

The law says an individual needs to be in a political party.

A political party without candidates CANNOT win an election because NOBODY can vote for just the political party.

So it can't be a right for a political party.

I didn't say it was the right of a political party, but the right of a "group"

That group need not be a political party. And only that "group" has the right to have votes for a member of that group be counted in an election for political office.