Would you be willing to accept this Second Amendment compromise?

[Auld Phart]

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

 

[Correll]

No. Any requirement to join a government organization or register the arms owned is a non-starter so far as I'm concerned.

One of tge main points for owning firearms is to protect yourself from the Government; so why would I want to join a Government agency to get the Right to own arms?

Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.

You've got a gun.

They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.

32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.

If you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.

 

[jon_berzerk]

nope forget it

 

[Correll]

Actually, anyone who tells me he needs guns to protect himself from government is crazy.

You've got a gun.

They've got tanks, and bombers, and drones, and missiles.

32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries every year doesn't justify humoring your fantasies.

Better to die on my feet than live on my knees.

How many of those deaths involve legal guns in the hands of legal gun owners (not including self defense) instead of criminal actions...... very few.

Very, very few.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

If you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.

Wut?

 

[Pogo]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

 

[Auld Phart]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfluous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

within a militia

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

 

[Pogo]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfluous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

within a militia

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

Then answer the question -- what is the function of that leading clause? Words don't just show up on their own; somebody put the phrase there. For a reason.

If it means "people" in general --- then why would you even mention "militia", let alone a "well regulated" one? Why don't you mention "postal carriers" or "blacksmiths"?

Aye, there's the rub.

This would mean "people in general":

Amendment 2: "The right of the People to bear Arms shall not be infringed".​

But that isn't what they wrote, is it?

 

[Auld Phart]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfluous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

within a militia

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

Then answer the question -- what is the function of that leading clause? Words don't just show up on their own; somebody put the phrase there. For a reason.

If it means "people" in general --- then why would you even mention "militia", let alone a "well regulated" one?

Aye, there's the rub.

This would mean "people in general":

Amendment 2: "The right of the People to bear Arms shall not be infringed".

But that isn't what they wrote, is it?

My point exactly, the phrase about the militia is no longer needed.


BUT, in those days, with no standing army, militias were necessary for a variety of reasons, and they realized that those reasons would no longer be an issue..

So they insured that the right of the people would have the right to keep and bear arms.

a right many did NOT have before coming to this country.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia are the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.

 

[Auld Phart]

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia are the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.

I'm well aware of what a 'militia' is.

and, per the Amendment, membership in a militia is NOT required for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia are the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.

I'm well aware of what a 'militia' is.

and, per the Amendment, membership in a militia is NOT required for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

You would see that I agree with you if you read the OP. The fact that it isn't is half of what the compromise we're discussing would be about. You want everyone to get to have one. The other side wants few to no one outside the active military and police to have one. I'm proposing a deal where you both get part of what you want that actually leans closer to you. Require that everyone who wants one register with their local defense force, where they can be given the training they need not to be a danger to themselves and me by professionals. Set the bar for registration low yet not so low as to be nonexistent. It's still technically an armed military force, and you don't want deathbed grampa or Crazy Eddie who lives under the bridge anywhere near one - especially when the Ruskies invade and you're depending on them to ensure your freedom and survival.

 

[Correll]

If you really cared about those deaths you wouldn't support policies that encourage illegitimacy, or importing the Third World.

Wut?

Two policies that reversing would be an easier way to reduce crime.

 

[Auld Phart]

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

I feel like you might not understand what a militia is. The militia are the people. It's the able bodied civilian population that can be levied by the local government as a military force should the need arise. The reason I chose the state defense forces for the proposal specifically is that they serve only the local government. Their chain of command only goes up to the adjutant general and governor. They can't be federalized and have no federal authority in their chain of command. It's purely defensive in nature and conforms best to the meaning of the term at the time and the intent of the amendment.

I'm well aware of what a 'militia' is.

and, per the Amendment, membership in a militia is NOT required for the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms.

You would see that I agree with you if you read the OP. The fact that it isn't is half of what the compromise we're discussing would be about. You want everyone to get to have one. The other side wants few to no one outside the active military and police to have one. I'm proposing a deal where you both get part of what you want that actually leans closer to you. Require that everyone who wants one register with their local defense force, where they can be given the training they need not to be a danger to themselves and me by professionals. Set the bar for registration low yet not so low as to be nonexistent. It's still technically an armed military force, and you don't want deathbed grampa or Crazy Eddie who lives under the bridge anywhere near one - especially when the Ruskies invade and you're depending on them to ensure your freedom and survival.

Not going to happen.

registering a gun is the first step in losing them.

Or did you miss where some hacker posted the addresses of all registered gun owners in NYC a couple of years ago.

The government is not the only ones interested in knowing who has firearms.

criminals would love to have a shopping list of armament to select from.

and as far as grandpa, grandpa probably knows more about firearms than soldiers on their first tour do.

Now, if you can figure a way for Crazy Eddie to be denied access to firearms, WITHOUT infringing on the rights of the rest, I'd love to hear it.

 

[Pogo]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfluous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

within a militia

within?

where did you get the idea the word 'within' is in the Amendment.

They gave the right to the PEOPLE, not the militia.

no other way to read it.

Then answer the question -- what is the function of that leading clause? Words don't just show up on their own; somebody put the phrase there. For a reason.

If it means "people" in general --- then why would you even mention "militia", let alone a "well regulated" one?

Aye, there's the rub.

This would mean "people in general":

Amendment 2: "The right of the People to bear Arms shall not be infringed".

But that isn't what they wrote, is it?

My point exactly, the phrase about the militia is no longer needed.


BUT, in those days, with no standing army, militias were necessary for a variety of reasons, and they realized that those reasons would no longer be an issue..

So they insured that the right of the people would have the right to keep and bear arms.

a right many did NOT have before coming to this country.

You didn't address the question at all.
If you don't mean to limit to a militia --- then there's no reason to single out and specify such. Fact.
But they did. Another fact.

 

[gipper]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

NOpe.

Any attempt to raise the cost of gun ownership is a restriction on a important Right.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

Not happening, we have you anti gun loons by the short hairs with the 2nd as it is

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.

This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.

 

[Correll]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

What the amendment does is to PREVENT stinking tyrannical government (sorry for the redundancies) from infringing on the NATURAL right to keep and bear arms.

This is but one exceptional thing about America...exceptional in the sense that nearly ALL prior governments restricted the right so they could impose tyranny...which is why the Left whats to restrict the right today...to impose tyranny....history repeats because people fail to learn from it.

Good point about Rights being God Granted, or Inherent.

 

[Pogo]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia, then shouldn't we be barring those incapable of entering the militia to have one? Think about the kind of person who couldn't even join a volunteer irregular military-lite.

I'm not anti-gun. I'm taking the Second Amendment at its word as to its meaning. It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns. What I want is to make gun owners the militia and give them the regulation and training they need to pose more of a danger to foreign and domestic enemies than to themselves and innocent bystanders.

If the whole point of the amendment is arming the militia,

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

It says that we can own guns because the militia needs to have guns.

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist. Except those granted by man. And voilà, right back where we started. Lather, rinse, repeat. Deflection fails.

The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?

 

[gipper]

Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

I'm not saying that, nor is the Amendment. It's saying implicitly that the right of the people to bear arms within a militia shall not be infringed. Doesn't exactly say freelancers can't be.

Nope, it's to give THE PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms

Not what it says

Actually it is what it says. "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State" is what the dependent clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" DEPENDS on. If that wasn't a dependent clause, it would have no reason to be written there.

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State"

Superfulous.


Even in those days, one didn't need to belong to a militia to own a firearm

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

The meat of the Amendment.

if it were only for those in the militia, it wouldn't state "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would state 'the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'

I agree that it's poorly written (vague) but --- why would you write a superfluous phrase into a Constitutional Amendment? If it's not the basis of the dependent clause that follows, then what is its function sitting there?

And before you say it's a basis of its own reasoning --- none of the other Amendments contain such a basis. Absent that, the only other function it can have is as a limitation (and even if it is a basis, it still serves as implied limitation). You don't write superfluous clauses into a Constitution.

The RIGHT to keep and bear arms is NOT granted or given by government. That right is a natural right...a God given right.

Since "God" is a man-made invention, if we accept this premise then no rights exist. Except those granted by man. And voilà, right back where we started. Lather, rinse, repeat. Deflection fails.

The question remains standing untouched -- what is the FUNCTION of the initial phrase?

You sure God is a man-made invention? Prove it.

Would you prefer having your rights given to you by man or by God? If you prefer by man, I feel sorry for you because you are most ignorant.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

The current text: "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 right generally interpret the militia to be the unorganized militia, that is the entire body of all militarily capable men. The left generally interprets it to be the organized militias of the old colonies, or at least the current National Guard. Instead let us consider it the collective term for the various state defense forces. They're much like the Guard except in that they do not fall under federal authority in any way. To own a firearm legally, one would to buy and register it. To register as a gun owner, one would need to enlist in their state's defense force. What this would mean in practice is that those people carrying a concealed firearm around you in public would be required to attend regular safety and marksmanship instruction from professionals. The pasty white guy packing the Glock in his jacket pocket would pose less of a danger to you and other bystanders when he decided to play big badass hero.

What do you say? Yea? Nay? Yea with modifications?

Actually there's no need to 'compromise.'

The Second Amendment enshrines an individual right to possess a firearm pursuant to the right of lawful self-defense, unrelated to militia service – meaning such a prerequisite to possessing a firearm would be un-Constitutional.

Private citizens are perfectly capable of exercising their Second Amendment right absent some sort of formal 'training,' and that can be applied to carrying a concealed firearm as well.

When government seeks to place restrictions or limitations on a Constitutional right, such measures must be rationally based, supported by objective, documented evidence, and pursue a proper legislative end.

Firearm regulatory policy that meets the above requirements will likely pass Constitutional muster – those that don't, won't.

For example, to require a firearm owner to receive 'training' as a condition to exercising his Second Amendment right is in no way rational, that absent 'training' a gun owner 'might' have an 'accident' is not consistent with fundamental Constitutional jurisprudence – that a citizen 'might' abuse his rights is not justification to manifest an undue burden to him exercising that right; there is no evidence that 'training' will have the desired effect of preventing 'accidents,' and consequently such a measure pursues no proper legislative end, rendering it un-Constitutional.