What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[frigidweirdo]

Actually many of the "rights" you think of as individual rights, are more easily explained as a group right, like the right to run for president. That group started as white males over 35 and natural born citizens.

As an individual right there were too many exceptions

Oh, "more easily explained".... it doesn't work like that. Just because you think you can "explain" it more easily like this.

They are INDIVIDUAL because this is how right work.

There are "exceptions" because IT'S NOT A RIGHT.

 

[Abatis]

And as we saw prior to Heller, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.

All 9 justices of the Heller Court settled this question one and for all, whatever the "collective right" was when it was inserted in the lower federal courts in 1942, it was never endorsed by SCOTUS.

The Heller dissents validated and confirmed that legal truth, that the individual right has always the interpretation represented in the Court's precedents and is the only interpretation represented in the 3 opinions issued that day in June 2008.

Stop your revisionist lying.

 

[Open Bolt]

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

A well-regulated militia is one that has trained sufficiently enough to fight effectively as a single coherent unit instead of fighting like a bunch of random individuals.

 

[Open Bolt]

I want certain guns, bullets and magazines banned because they serve no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers

There are no guns, bullets, or magazines that serve only that purpose.

Yes we can
We can ban weapons that have no purpose other than slaughter young children

No such weapons exist.

When was the last time an AR-15 with 35 round magazine was used to stop a mass killing?

I assume today (at least if 30 round magazines count), but I'm not going to go digging through all of today's cases to verify that assumption.

 

[Open Bolt]

The first clause explains the reasons (limits) on the second clause.

So in other words, everyone has the right to have military weapons.

 

[Open Bolt]

‘The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right to possess firearms.

Oh man. Whoever wrote this article that you are cut-n-pasting is really bad at the law.

The phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates nothing. It protects a preexisting right from infringement.

Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

In 1939 the U.S. Supreme Court considered the matter in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174. There, the Court adopted a collective rights approach,

Actually the Miller court expressly rejected the collective approach and ruled for an individual right.

determining that Congress could regulate a sawed-off shotgun which moved in interstate commerce under the National Firearms Act of 1934 because the evidence did not suggest that the shotgun "has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia . . . ." The Court then explained that the Framers included the Second Amendment to ensure the effectiveness of the military.

No. To ensure the effectiveness of the militia.

The original intent of the Framers was to codify in the Second Amendment a collective – not individual – right subject to government regulation.

They also intended to protect the preexisting individual right to keep and bear arms.

Just a bit of a nitpick here, but the Framers wrote the Constitution. The Bill of Rights came from the Anti-Federalists.

 

[Open Bolt]

Access to firearms has nothing to do with regulation; and there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that authorizes the notion of armed citizens ‘self-regulating’ completely absent government control and oversight.

I assume your comment about "self regulating" refers to militia service.

The way you use the term suggests that you might not understand what "well regulated" means.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is to do so in the service and defense of the state, as authorized and controlled by government.

Keep in mind that people also have the right to use their guns for the private defense of their homes.

That’s why the Heller Court saw fit to contrive the individual right unconnected with militia service, because the Second Amendment recognized a collective right.

The Heller court did not contrive anything. But it is true that they are not upholding the militia aspects of the Second Amendmnet.

And the collective right interpretation of the Second Amendment would allow banning individuals from possessing firearms because they weren’t in the service of a militia

Not really.

which is why the Heller Court invalidated the collective right interpretation.

Ignoring the collective aspects (as well as all the militia aspects altogether) does not really invalidate them. It just fails to enforce those aspects for now.

Indeed, Heller was about the individual right versus the collective right.

Not really. It was about "individual self-defense-related right" verses "no individual self-defense-related right".

 

[Open Bolt]

You don’t 'need' an AR 15 to defend yourself

What is this nonsense about "need"? We're not British serfs. We don't have to justify that we need a gun before we go buy it.

there are other firearms much better suited for that purpose, such as handguns and shotguns.

That is incorrect. A good rifle is superior for self defense.

Wrong.
The ‘left’ follows settled accepted Second Amendment case law; whereas the right has nothing but contempt for that case law.

That is because the right cares about following the Constitution.

But don't worry. Justice Barrett is fixing to annihilate the left's precious "case law".

And no one says you can’t have an AR 15, there’s simply no ‘need’ for one for effective self-defense.

Need doesn't matter. We have the right to have them for effective self defense.

Collective rights do exist as legal doctrine – such as the right to engage in collective bargaining (NLRB v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp. (1937)); clearly a worker alone possesses no such right.

Agreed.

And as we saw prior to Heller, The Second Amendment codified a collective right – there was no individual right to possess a firearm.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment has always protected an individual right.

 

[rightwinger]

There are no guns, bullets, or magazines that serve only that purpose.

Yes there are

You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits
You don’t need a 35 round magazine unless you want to slaughter more 10 year olds
You don’t need body armor to hunt deer

We don’t need wife beaters, seriously depressed, people who are making threats having open access to their weapons of choice

 

[Pellinore]

The Second Amendment has always protected an individual right.

That's not accurate. When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use. The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.

A hundred-ish years later, when Madison & Co. were debating the Bill of Rights, each State has its own militia, and many (especially the Anti-Federalists) were concerned that the American government were going to try and pull a King James. The debate then was about State resistance against a federal authority; there was no discussion about individual rights to own a firearm for hunting or self-defense, and Madison didn't mention it in his notes once. The first draft of the Amendment even included an exception for conscientious objectors.

That was mostly the view of gun rights until the 1970s, when the NRA changed direction from being about sporting to opposing gun control, and the push began in earnest in the 1980s. Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 was a change in direction from earlier rulings, not a continuation of it. It is, however, a legit ruling that will stand until it is superseded by law or a future ruling, but it wasn't always that way.

 

[Abatis]

That's not accurate. When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use. The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.

A hundred-ish years later, when Madison & Co. were debating the Bill of Rights, each State has its own militia, and many (especially the Anti-Federalists) were concerned that the American government were going to try and pull a King James. The debate then was about State resistance against a federal authority; there was no discussion about individual rights to own a firearm for hunting or self-defense, and Madison didn't mention it in his notes once. The first draft of the Amendment even included an exception for conscientious objectors.

That was mostly the view of gun rights until the 1970s, when the NRA changed direction from being about sporting to opposing gun control, and the push began in earnest in the 1980s. Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 was a change in direction from earlier rulings, not a continuation of it. It is, however, a legit ruling that will stand until it is superseded by law or a future ruling, but it wasn't always that way.

Well, all that is wrong, a fabrication, simply a revisionist pile of excrement.

First off, the 2nd Amendment doesn't do anything but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted. No right to do anything was created, established, granted or given to anyone through or by the 2nd Amendment.

SCOTUS has been boringly consistent reaffirming that principle multiple times for 146 years running . . .

The organized, enrolled militia needs no "right" to be armed or to do militia shit; everything an enrolled militia member does, is under mandate of law with exposure to legal penalty for avoidance. That goes for the initial "providing oneself" with the firearm if the citizen did not own one . . . That was not an exercise of any right, it was obeying a legal obligation set out in the Militia Act.

As SCOTUS has said, the right to keep and bear arms is not granted by the 2nd Amendment thus the right is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

That truth extinguishes any theories that argue the right is dependent upon a structure (the organized §8, cl. 15 & 16 militia) that is itself, ENTIRELY dependent on the Constitution for its existence.

"In no manner dependent" means, IN NO MANNER DEPENDENT.

 

[Open Bolt]

That's not accurate. When the Bill of Rights was written, the term "bear arms" meant to carry a weapon into battle; it had no connotation to individual use.

Being about carrying a weapon into battle does not mean that it is not an individual right.

Individuals have the right to carry arms into battle.

Individuals have the right to keep arms.

The wording of the Second Amendment was based on English law going back to the time of King James II, who tried to disarm local militias so his royal goons could collect taxes, and the right to "bear arms" meant for those locals to collectively resist the King's efforts.

The British also had the right to use their firearms for the private defense of their homes against common criminals.

A hundred-ish years later, when Madison & Co. were debating the Bill of Rights, each State has its own militia, and many (especially the Anti-Federalists) were concerned that the American government were going to try and pull a King James. The debate then was about State resistance against a federal authority; there was no discussion about individual rights to own a firearm for hunting or self-defense, and Madison didn't mention it in his notes once. The first draft of the Amendment even included an exception for conscientious objectors.

Being about state militias though does not mean that it is not an individual right.

It is individuals who have the right to serve in the state militia.

It is individuals who have the right to keep arms.

The fact that they did not discuss people using their guns (which they expressly have the right to keep) for private home defense does not mean that people stopped having the right to do so.

That was mostly the view of gun rights until the 1970s, when the NRA changed direction from being about sporting to opposing gun control, and the push began in earnest in the 1980s. Scalia's Heller decision in 2008 was a change in direction from earlier rulings, not a continuation of it. It is, however, a legit ruling that will stand until it is superseded by law or a future ruling, but it wasn't always that way.

The change in direction was not about the existence of individual rights. Rather, the change in 2008 was about "enforcing part of the Second Amendment" instead of "completely disregarding the entire Second Amendment".

The Supreme Court has always ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual right. Note the 1939 Miller ruling for example. The government wanted the Supreme Court to rule that the Second Amendment was not an individual right and thus deny Miller's standing to even make a Second Amendment claim. The Supreme Court refused and recognized Miller's standing as an individual to make a Second Amendment claim.

The problem with the 1939 ruling is, while they ultimately recognized an individual right to keep and bear arms, they didn't bother to actually enforce the ruling, and instead the Supreme Court just disregarded the Second Amendment as if it didn't even exist.

 

[Godboy]

"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"?

Its not about our definition, its about the definition of the people who wrote it. Unfortunately they didnt define that first part very well, but the second part is unmistakable.

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

If their intent was not to have normal every day citizens carrying guns, they would have made that more clear the next day when everyone was still walking around with guns. Everyone at that time agreed on the definition. It wasnt until the past few decades when people tried to redefine its meaning.

 

[Open Bolt]

Yes there are

No there aren't. No one can name any gun/bullet/magazine which has the sole purpose of slaughtering school children, church goers and shoppers.

You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits

Is this supposed to be an attempt to name a gun that "serves no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers"?

If so, you are wrong. AR-15s serve the purposes of protection against criminals and of protection against foxes and coyotes.

AR-15s are of no use in hunting rabbits. They are useful for protection against varmints however, in addition to the uses that I listed above.

Your focus on this meaningless term "need" is way out of place. This is America. We are not serfs like the people of the UK.

You don’t need a 35 round magazine unless you want to slaughter more 10 year olds

That is incorrect. People who are trying to slaughter 10 year olds do not need a 35 round magazine. Ten-round magazines work just fine for massacres.

I am not sure that there is even such a thing as a 35 round magazine. There is however such a thing as a 30 round magazine.

Is this supposed to be an attempt to name a magazine that "serves no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers"?

If so, you are wrong. 30 round magazines are useful both for protection against criminals and for protection against varmints.

You don’t need body armor to hunt deer

Is this supposed to be an attempt to say that body armor "serves no purpose but to slaughter school children, church goers and shoppers"?

If so, you are wrong. Body armor is quite useful in saving your life if someone is shooting at you.

We don’t need wife beaters, seriously depressed, people who are making threats having open access to their weapons of choice

I agree that the government has a compelling interest in disarming dangerous people.

 

[Open Bolt]

Unfortunately they didnt define that first part very well,

The correct definition is still out there. All you need to do is look at how Alexander Hamilton used the term in Federalist 29.

A well regulated militia is one that has trained sufficiently so that they can fight effectively as a single coherent unit instead of fighting ineffectively as a bunch of random individuals.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Absolutely
We cannot have the security of a free state without well regulated militias

A bunch of rednecks running around with AR-15s is not well regulated

But you completely missed the point. The second amendment is not there to establish a well regulated militia. It is there to protect the right of the people.

You and the rest of your left wing cocksuckers keep getting the shit wrong...ON PURPOSE!!!

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes there are

You don’t need an AR-15 to hunt rabbits
You don’t need a 35 round magazine unless you want to slaughter more 10 year olds
You don’t need body armor to hunt deer

We don’t need wife beaters, seriously depressed, people who are making threats having open access to their weapons of choice

We are all in a militia. We are the militia.

In order to be a member of the militia, and be "well regulated" we need fucking machine guns to shoot people who attack us.

nothing about the second amendment was ever intended to be interpreted as a hunting clause.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You do not get to decide what I need, rightwinger.

I decide what I need.

You arrogant fuck how dare you tell me what I need and don't need.

You don't need your stupid face.

 

[miketx]

"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"?

Something in good working order.

And it's not my definition, butcher, it the definition of the founders. Now, 3, 2, 1, spin!!!!

 

[miketx]

We are all in a militia. We are the militia.

We don't want him. His name is probably Gertz Kuntzman.