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 Meant by "Well Regulated"?

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
5,705
Reaction score
5,228
Points
1,938
No, you don’t.

You’ll never have ‘equal or superior firepower’ to the ‘government.’

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

Conservatives need to stop with this “I need an AR 15” nonsense – it’s ridiculous and in no way compelling.

AR 15s shouldn’t be banned because it’s unwarranted government excess and overreach as well as being ineffective and pointless.
Im not talking about the government. I'm talking about criminal attackers.

Like this guy who had FIVE armed intruders claiming to be cops, one with his own AR-15...

 

Natural Citizen

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 8, 2016
Messages
17,926
Reaction score
12,772
Points
2,445
The conversation has been had. I'm just not doing it again, respectfully.

Which is why I left it at advising those who are interested in the topic to see Federalist numbers 28 and 46.

By the way. Just to add to that, do also see Federalist number 51.

There's a reason the Founders referred to our form of government as a "compound Republic" when framing the constitution.

This particular discussion is precisely one of the reasons why it was imperative to acknowledge the separation between the State Republics (who hold the majority of power) over the central, Federal Republic, particularly with regard to the State Republics' right and duty to defend itself against being usurped by the central, federal Republic.

The phrase 'Constitutional Republic', while widely and inappropriately used (much the same as terms like liberal and conservative are so widely bastardized and misused these days,) is a non sequitur, as a true Republic, by default, is dependent upon a written constitution.

Intelligent choice between 1776 Americanism and conflicting isms, primarily Socialism in the USA today (aka the 'our Democracy' spew) requires thorough knowledge of this and commitment to the broader nature of the discussion in scope, if dialogue is to be expected to be taken seriously.

The Federalist, of course, being widely regarded as the blueprint for the Constitution for the United States.
 
Last edited:

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,324
Reaction score
10,858
Points
1,140
Wrong, because the word "infringe" means "to limit". Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited.
From the UXB field manual. Disable the trigger by cutting the blue wire, but only after cutting the red wire to disable the failsafe.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
37,751
Reaction score
5,407
Points
1,130
The Bill of Rights are the rights of the people, not rights of the government.

And where did that come from?

Did I say anything about it not being an individual right? No....
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
66,682
Reaction score
24,410
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually
The Bill of Rights are the rights of the people, not rights of the government.
The Bill of Rights codifies both the rights of the people and government:

“Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker, immune from free speech challenges. It can assert its own ideas and messages without being subject to First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination.”

 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
66,682
Reaction score
24,410
Points
2,250
Location
In a Republic, actually

westwall

LET'S GO BRANDON!
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2010
Messages
80,102
Reaction score
37,386
Points
2,290
Location
Nevada
The Bill of Rights codifies both the rights of the people and government:

“Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker, immune from free speech challenges. It can assert its own ideas and messages without being subject to First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination.”





The Bill of Rights, is nine limitations on what government can do to the PERSON, and one, final option.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,324
Reaction score
10,858
Points
1,140
And where did that come from?

Did I say anything about it not being an individual right? No....
Actually not all rights in the bill of rights are "individual" rights.

Best example is the right to peaceably assemble. This is a right that can't be exercised by a single person.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,324
Reaction score
10,858
Points
1,140
The Bill of Rights, is nine limitations on what government can do to the PERSON, and one, final option.
Really, how does the 6th only limit government action?

... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense....

This actually grants a right that obligates the government.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
37,751
Reaction score
5,407
Points
1,130
Actually not all rights in the bill of rights are "individual" rights.

Best example is the right to peaceably assemble. This is a right that can't be exercised by a single person.

Well..... the rights aren't individual or collective, they're limiting the power of the US government.
However, the right to peacefully assemble is individual. An individual might not be able to do it alone, HOWEVER the individuals are the ones who have the right, they have a right to be in the group.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. It's not the militia that has the right. It's not a collective right. It's a right of an individual to be in that group. If it were collective, it'd make no sense and the government would stop all people from being in the group.
 

Seymour Flops

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
1,482
Points
918
Location
Texas
"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."


What is your definition of a "well regulated Militia"?
I think this is a fair point, even if from a fanatical anti-gunner.

Of all the amendments, the second kind of interprets itself. That amendments specifically forbids government on any level from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. But its purpose is to allow each state to encourage and regulate militias within it.

That isn't the National Guard, which is . . . national. Texas has the Texas State Guard, which is more what the founders would have had in mind if they could have predicted how the nation would grow. For their time, they expected that each state would keep track of available armed citizens as it saw fit, and train, equip and organize them as it saw fit. But they cannot do any of that at the cost of infringing on an individual person's right to keep and bear arms.

The fact that the post-civil war amendments gave that same right to freed slaves, was what first drove the Democratic Party to become fanatical gun regulators. At first they assumed that the new gun control laws would never be applied to good 'ol boys, but the modern Democratic party fears armed whites as much as armed blacks.

Anyone can form a militia, counting on the arms that they are guaranteed the right to keep and bear. Suppose there is a grumpy old man in town who keeps lots of firearms, but says they are to protect himself against anyone trying to get him to join their dang militia, or anyone claiming that he is a one-man militia and trying to regulate him. "I'll regulate on them, the dad-burned whippersnappers!" You could argue that he was not acting in the spirit of the second amendment. But, the amendment says clearly "shall not be infringed," so he's good.

Even if the court ruled that one must be a member of a militia, or intend to join one, for the second to apply, the ninth and tenth would still protect the right to purchase, store, practice with and carry, firearms.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
5,705
Reaction score
5,228
Points
1,938
The Bill of Rights codifies both the rights of the people and government:

“Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker, immune from free speech challenges. It can assert its own ideas and messages without being subject to First Amendment claims of viewpoint discrimination.”

And, the 2nd Amendment prohibits the government from infringing (limiting) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
5,705
Reaction score
5,228
Points
1,938
You’re a liar, like most on the right.
Nope! I'm not lying...

 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,324
Reaction score
10,858
Points
1,140
Well..... the rights aren't individual or collective, they're limiting the power of the US government.
However, the right to peacefully assemble is individual. An individual might not be able to do it alone, HOWEVER the individuals are the ones who have the right, they have a right to be in the group.

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. It's not the militia that has the right. It's not a collective right. It's a right of an individual to be in that group. If it were collective, it'd make no sense and the government would stop all people from being in the group.
You seem to be confused about rights granted to a collective, that devolve down to the individuals who are members of that collective. Such as if a group of adults hold an assemblage on a public school playground, they can do so. But a lone adult hanging around a school playground claiming his right to assemble would be removed or arrested.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,324
Reaction score
10,858
Points
1,140
That isn't the National Guard, which is . . . national. Texas has the Texas State Guard, which is more what the founders would have had in mind if they could have predicted how the nation would grow. For their time, they expected that each state would keep track of available armed citizens as it saw fit, and train, equip and organize them as it saw fit.
You couldn't be more wrong. From the very birth of our nation, they had state level militias which were intended to serve the nation when called upon. They saw from the start the need for common training and equipping of those militias, in order that they could be formed into coherent units, and integrated with the army under a single commander-in-chief.
 

Seymour Flops

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
2,128
Reaction score
1,482
Points
918
Location
Texas
You couldn't be more wrong. From the very birth of our nation, they had state level militias which were intended to serve the nation when called upon. They saw from the start the need for common training and equipping of those militias, in order that they could be formed into coherent units, and integrated with the army under a single commander-in-chief.
Yes, that's what the Texas State Guard is. The difference between it and the Texas National Guard, is that the Texas National Guard can be federalized at any time. It essentially is federal and on loan to the state of Texas, for approved purposes.

I'm a little surprised that Biden has not federalized the Texas National Guard on the border to stand them down. But, he certainly has the ability to do that, so the Texas National Guard has nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$115.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top