What is Meant by "Well Regulated"?

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

This is a lie.

The rightwing racist picked the store solely to murder Americans of color.

And because it was a gun free zone. He says so in his manifesto.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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...

Home Invasion Victims Use AR–15 To Defend Themselves Against Five Armed Intruders

Three men were asleep inside their Glen St. Mary, FL, mobile home when five young intruders claiming to be sheriffs broke down the front door at 4:00 a.m...

dailycaller.com

 

[Natural Citizen]

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.

 

[meaner gene]

The first clause justifies the right to infringed gun ownership.

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

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

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

Wrong, because the word "infringe" means "to limit". Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be limited.

 

[meaner gene]

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]

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]

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.”

Government-Speech Doctrine

Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker that can assert its own messages, immune from challenges of viewpoint discrimination.

mtsu.edu

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

And because it was a gun free zone. He says so in his manifesto.

You’re a liar, like most on the right.

 

[westwall]

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.”

Government-Speech Doctrine

Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker that can assert its own messages, immune from challenges of viewpoint discrimination.

mtsu.edu

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

 

[westwall]

You’re a liar, like most on the right.

And you are a pseudo intellectual liar. Like most on the left.

 

[meaner gene]

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]

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]

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]

"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"?

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]

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.”

Government-Speech Doctrine

Under the government speech doctrine, the government has its own rights as speaker that can assert its own messages, immune from challenges of viewpoint discrimination.

mtsu.edu

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

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

You’re a liar, like most on the right.

Nope! I'm not lying...

Buffalo Shooter Reportedly Chose a New York Target Because of the State's Gun Control Laws - The Truth About Guns

&#9664Previous Post Next Post▶ The officially unidentified shooter who opened fire at a Buffalo, New York grocery store reportedly published a racist, anti-semitic 180-page manifesto justifying his efforts to “show to the replacers that as long as the White man lives, our land will never be...

www.thetruthaboutguns.com

 

[meaner gene]

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]

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]

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.