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"?

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,324
Reaction score
10,858
Points
1,140
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.
The Texas state guard is not a "militia" as defined in the constitution, or it could be federalized under Article 2 of the US Constitution. It was set up like a domestic police force, so as not to be a militia.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
85,144
Reaction score
14,586
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
Nowhere in the 27 Grievances against England in the Declaration of Independence does it mention access to firearms

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.

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.

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.

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

Indeed, Heller was about the individual right versus the collective right.
Hence the right’s ‘militia’ canard, the failed, inane attempt to circumvent the Second Amendment, its case law, and necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures where private citizens should have access to the same weapons as the Federal military.

Wrong.

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

Correct – and controlled by their respective governments.
You are one ignorant piece of shit
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
5,705
Reaction score
5,228
Points
1,938
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.
That group holding the assemblage would only be able to do so with authorization from the school, just like a lone adult would. Being a group doesn't give them any more right than the lone individual.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
85,144
Reaction score
14,586
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
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.
How did that fire power work out in Afghanistan?
Again you ignorant leftist terrorist show the word need in the Bill of Rights? It's fucking nonsense for you too give your unwarranted opinion
 

Seymour Flops

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
1,482
Points
918
Location
Texas
The Texas state guard is not a "militia" as defined in the constitution, or it could be federalized under Article 2 of the US Constitution. It was set up like a domestic police force, so as not to be a militia.
Article two does not say a militia can be "federalized," it says it can be "called into the actual Service of the United States." The Texas State Guard's mission statement says:

The mission of the Texas State Guard (TXSG) is to provide mission-ready military forces to assist state and local authorities in times of state emergencies; to conduct homeland security and community service activities under the umbrella of Defense Support to Civil Authorities, and to augment the Texas Army National Guard and Texas Air National Guard as required.

If the president federalized the Texas National Guard, he could also request that the state guard be called into the actual Service of the United States, to augment the National Guard, or to perform the NG's missions in Texas, freeing them up to go fight in Ukraine or whatever other foreign hell-hole he wants to send them to.
 

bigrebnc1775

][][][% NC Sheepdog
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2010
Messages
85,144
Reaction score
14,586
Points
2,220
Location
Kannapolis, N.C.
This is a lie.

The rightwing racist picked the store solely to murder Americans of color.
He picked a place that would have the least resistance liar.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,324
Reaction score
10,858
Points
1,140
That group holding the assemblage would only be able to do so with authorization from the school, just like a lone adult would. Being a group doesn't give them any more right than the lone individual.
Wrong. Public school grounds are just that public. They have laws, rules and regulations regarding their use.


A public schools playground is public property- it is property paid for by taxes - However the school can restrict its use during school hours for child safety etc.

The regulations to exclude adults would have to be greater than the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

A lone adult, without an assemblage can be excluded as a danger to the students.
 

meaner gene

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
16,324
Reaction score
10,858
Points
1,140
If the president federalized the Texas National Guard, he could also request that the state guard be called into the actual Service of the United States, to augment the National Guard, or to perform the NG's missions in Texas, freeing them up to go fight in Ukraine or whatever other foreign hell-hole he wants to send them to.
Wrong. The Texas State Guard is under the exclusive control of the Governor of Texas, who could transfer them to the Texas National Guard. But the commander in chief can't make that transfer.

The Texas State Guard can't be "federalized", just like the Texas State Police, can't be federalized.
 

Failzero

Gold Member
Joined
Sep 5, 2011
Messages
2,450
Reaction score
1,115
Points
198
Location
Oak Run Ca.
So did militias.
From 2011 2015 I was never paid a Dime ( And as far as I know as an Inactive Reserve in the current California State Militia no one is paid either ( except some members of the Cottonwood Platoon & Redding Platoon who have been Extras& starred in 3-4 Regionally Produced & Made B Movies (Action/ Horror Films )
 

Seymour Flops

Platinum Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2021
Messages
2,126
Reaction score
1,482
Points
918
Location
Texas
Wrong. The Texas State Guard is under the exclusive control of the Governor of Texas, who could transfer them to the Texas National Guard. But the commander in chief can't make that transfer.

The Texas State Guard can't be "federalized", just like the Texas State Police, can't be federalized.
You're the one who keeps saying "federalized," not me. They can be called into the actual service of the United States, or state why they could not be. That isn't federalizing them, as has been done in the past to National guards against the will of the governors.
 

Ringtone

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
6,062
Reaction score
3,416
Points
940
It's the common definition at the time it was written that mattered and in the 18th century well regulated meant in proper working order not government controlled
Second Amendment
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 the Militia?

The Founders believed that all men between the ages of 18 and 45 who were physically capable were members of the Militia. It was up to these men to be the first line of defense against any enemy attack.
In United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939), we explained that "the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense." —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 22​
The Militia is not created by Congress, nor is Congress empowered to create a militia.

Unlike armies and navies, which Congress is given the power to create ("to raise . . . Armies"; "to provide . . . a Navy," Art. I, §8, cls. 12–13), the Militia is assumed by Article I already to be in existence. Congress is given the power to "provide for calling forth the militia," §8, cl. 15; and the power not to create, but to "organiz[e]" it—and not to organize "a" militia, which is what one would expect if the Militia were to be a federal creation, but to organize "the" Militia, connoting a body already in existence, ibid., cl. 16. This is fully consistent with the ordinary definition of the Militia as all able-bodied men. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23​

What does well regulated mean?
Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23​
 
Last edited:

whitehall

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Messages
55,357
Reaction score
18,514
Points
2,260
Location
Western Va.
Why isn't the 2nd Amendment guaranteed right to bear arms regulated enough for the left?
 

Ringtone

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
6,062
Reaction score
3,416
Points
940
"A well regulated militia" doesn't mean much in the context of the 2A. It's a desire to have a militia that is well regulated, rather than saying it must be.

The Amendment is about the militia, about protecting the militia.

You protect the militia by protecting the arms (keep arms) and the personnel (bear arms).

It's not a difficult amendment to understand, what's difficult is that everyone's trying to get it to fit their own agenda.
Not quite!

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23

The Founders presupposed that the able-bodied citizenry of which the Militia is comprised would necessarily be subject to and commonsensically know they were subject to proper discipline and training.
 

Ringtone

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
6,062
Reaction score
3,416
Points
940
Why do you hate a secure free state?

Why would you oppose regulating militias?
What do you mean by regulating militias? And what entity is supposed to regulate the Militia referred to in the 2nd Amendment?
 

Ringtone

Platinum Member
Joined
Sep 3, 2019
Messages
6,062
Reaction score
3,416
Points
940
How is a militia in proper working order?

Well trained, command structure, well equipped, you know who is in it

All militias have been under government control either state or local
False.

Finally, the adjective "well-regulated" implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. —Supreme Court of the United States (District of Columbia v. Heller) Page 23
 

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,028
Reaction score
3,846
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
From 2011 2015 I was never paid a Dime ( And as far as I know as an Inactive Reserve in the current California State Militia no one is paid either ( except some members of the Cottonwood Platoon & Redding Platoon who have been Extras& starred in 3-4 Regionally Produced & Made B Movies (Action/ Horror Films )
Inactive reserve doesn't get paid unless activated. Active reserve and NG get paid. Militia on active duty got paid as much as Continentials when congress got around to actually having money to pay them.
 

Wild Bill Kelsoe

Diamond Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2021
Messages
5,705
Reaction score
5,228
Points
1,938
Wrong. Public school grounds are just that public. They have laws, rules and regulations regarding their use.


A public schools playground is public property- it is property paid for by taxes - However the school can restrict its use during school hours for child safety etc.

The regulations to exclude adults would have to be greater than the constitutional right to peaceably assemble.

A lone adult, without an assemblage can be excluded as a danger to the students.
Yeah, sure, show up at a school house, with a group of 10 people without permission to occupy the playground and see how many rights you have...lol. The right to remain silent and the right to an attorney maybe.
 

frigidweirdo

Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 7, 2014
Messages
37,749
Reaction score
5,407
Points
1,130
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.

I might seem a lot of things to you.

The reality is if you have a group of people and you say "the group has the right, not the individual" then the government can come along and take individuals out of the group and say "well, the group still has the right, but you have no right, so shut up and get out of the group"

You're saying that because individuals have to be in a group for there to be a right, that only the group has the right.
I'm saying that if only the group has the right, then no individuals do, which means the government can stop ALL INDIVIDUALS from peacefully assembling, as long as it doesn't stop "the group". So if 100,000 people want to protest, they can choose two people who are "the group" and tell everyone else to go away.

Your way DOESN'T WORK.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$115.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top