2A definition: "...well regulated Militia..."

[exoplanet]

What you have successfully shown is that in spite of your contempt for the civilian militia, there is zero question as to who the civilian militia is and what the intent of the 2nd Amendment is.

You don't appear to have been paying attention or even responding to my points.

You also ignore the numerous times the civilian militia was used for local service while the Army and organized militia were otherwise encumbered. As for the militia as a fighting force...you still want to ignore the reality that we do not merely have a ragtag group of individuals but a capable force of 50+million trained, armed, and capable.

Well yes, when the mightiest army in the world is defeated, I'm sure a citizen militia will be able to do a better job. This is fantasyland stuff.

The 10th Amendment addresses limitations on the federal government. The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

The people.

And the States as it clearly says.

No matter how hard you try...you cant get around reality.

Oh that's rich. Have fun fighting Sauron or Voldemort or the Bildebergers or whoever.

 

[sear]

"actually I don't buy that except if" TD #424

Reality remains reality whether acknowledged or not.

Conservative columnist George Will acknowledged the centuries old controversy:

In order to argue your point of view you have to say 3 things.
1st of all that only the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights does not protect individual rights, it protects the rights of the government.
2nd you have to say that George Mason widely called the father of the Bill of Rights was wrong when he said by the militia we mean the whole People.
3rd you have to say the Founders were clumsy framers of the Constitution because if they wanted to do what you say they did with the [2nd] Amendment which is say, States can have militias, all they needed to say was, Congress shall have no power to prohibit State militias period.
They didn't.
They talked about the rights of the People.

George Will ABC-TV This Week 02/05/12

I vaguely recall news that during the Bush administration SCOTUS was going once and for all to rule on it, and declare by ruling whether 2A enshrines a right of individual citizens, or not.
But I don't recall any outcome of it, and don't know what happened about it.

But it may be worth mentioning that our judicial branch retains the authority via the power of stare decisis to enshrine such ruling for perpetuity, or it being papered over by Constitutional amendment, or reversed by itself.

 

[OpportunityCost]

Reality remains reality whether acknowledged or not.

Conservative columnist George Will acknowledged the centuries old controversy:

I vaguely recall news that during the Bush administration SCOTUS was going once and for all to rule on it, and declare by ruling whether 2A enshrines a right of individual citizens, or not.
But I don't recall any outcome of it, and don't know what happened about it.

But it may be worth mentioning that our judicial branch retains the authority via the power of stare decisis to enshrine such ruling for perpetuity, or it being papered over by Constitutional amendment, or reversed by itself.

In case you missed it, and judging by the above post, you did, Heller ruled that it was a individual right.

 

[sear]

"Heller".
Thanks.
Yes.
Completely forgot.

I confess I'm puzzled by how little the impact has been since then.

 

[VanceMack]

You don't appear to have been paying attention or even responding to my points.

Well yes, when the mightiest army in the world is defeated, I'm sure a citizen militia will be able to do a better job. This is fantasyland stuff.

And the States as it clearly says.
Oh that's rich. Have fun fighting Sauron or Voldemort or the Bildebergers or whoever.

Oh...I think I have been pretty clear. I dont think anyone hopes for a time when the civilian militia will have to be deployed...but I dont think its out of the realm of possibility. And all your blathering aside, all you have managed to accomplish is to say you dont LIKE what the 2nd Amendment is, not that it isnt what it actually is.

 

[VanceMack]

actually I don't buy that except if you are talking about ignorant people who have no learning in Constitutional theory or history. The reason why we have arguments is that there is a sizable number of people-from former Justices Stevens, Souter, Burger and others to leaders of the anti gun movement, who despise the fact that the founders did NOT INTEND AT ALL for the federal government to have ANY powers as to what firearms or other individual weapons private citizens could own or possess. these individuals pretended that there were alternative and valid interpretations of the second amendment and used their office or standing to try to confuse the issue.

At the end of the day, thats what it always comes down to. Its not that they dont KNOW what was intended. They just dont like it. Its the Biden mentality. You dont need an AR with high cap magazines...just get yourself a double barrel shotgun. Its the Feinstein mindset...you cant have weapons that have high capacity, or front grips, or rails, or are black and look scary. Single shot weapons should do just fine. Its the Schumer mindset...we'd rather you not have any but if we cant defeat the 2nd, we'll limit you to a narrow scope of weapons and make you register them so we know where they are. Its the typical anti-gun mindset...if you dont capitulate on what we decide are 'reasonable' gun control measures, we'll just take them all.

The 2nd Amendment and intent was clear. BECAUSE citizens are the militia and to preserve the country, the citizens shall have the right to keep and bear military grade firearms. Self defense...hunting...that was ALWAYS a given. And heres the best way we KNOW their intent. Today...some 240 years after the passage of the Constitution and Bill of Rights...we still have them. Its always been a fringe section of society that insists it isnt what it is.

 

[TurtleDude]

Reality remains reality whether acknowledged or not.

Conservative columnist George Will acknowledged the centuries old controversy:

I vaguely recall news that during the Bush administration SCOTUS was going once and for all to rule on it, and declare by ruling whether 2A enshrines a right of individual citizens, or not.
But I don't recall any outcome of it, and don't know what happened about it.

But it may be worth mentioning that our judicial branch retains the authority via the power of stare decisis to enshrine such ruling for perpetuity, or it being papered over by Constitutional amendment, or reversed by itself.

GW is one of the few conservatives who is statist on gun issues. I don't have much use for him as supporting constitutional rights

 

[sear]

"BECAUSE citizens are the militia and to preserve the country, the citizens shall have the right to keep and bear military grade firearms." VM #431

And in the 18th Century, it may have been so.

BUT !!

It surely is not today.

During the Cold War, my weapons card drew an M-16-A1,
a serviceable carbine that could fire in either semi-auto,
or full auto-fire modes.

Ordinary citizens are denied access to such weapons.

I know.

Jump through enough hoops, and those that live outside NYC
may be issued a rare and special license, with lots of burdensome stipulations
including government license to search your premises without warning.

MEANING:
One must waive our 4th Amendment right, to exercise our 2nd Amendment right.

I don't mind your hinting at the point VM.
But if you're going to tell it, please tell it like it is.
Our 2nd Amendment right is ALREADY infringed !!

AND !!

Locally it may be even worse!
In New York State for example, the SAFE act limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds,
regardless of the original design of the gun.

Amendment Ten
a) does not, and
b) was never intended
to trump 2A.

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do you and they not get?!

"the citizens shall have the right to keep and bear military grade firearms." VM

You're soooo 19th century!

 

[OpportunityCost]

And in the 18th Century, it may have been so.

BUT !!

It surely is not today.

During the Cold War, my weapons card drew an M-16-A1,
a serviceable carbine that could fire in either semi-auto,
or full auto-fire modes.

Ordinary citizens are denied access to such weapons.

I know.

Jump through enough hoops, and those that live outside NYC
may be issued a rare and special license, with lots of burdensome stipulations
including government license to search your premises without warning.

MEANING:
One must waive our 4th Amendment right, to exercise our 2nd Amendment right.

I don't mind your hinting at the point VM.
But if you're going to tell it, please tell it like it is.
Our 2nd Amendment right is ALREADY infringed !!

AND !!

Locally it may be even worse!
In New York State for example, the SAFE act limits magazine capacity to 7 rounds,
regardless of the original design of the gun.

Amendment Ten
a) does not, and
b) was never intended
to trump 2A.

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" do you and they not get?!

You're soooo 19th century!

So your "solution" is because it is already infringed, why not go all the way?

That like cutting off your leg because you lost a toe.

 

[sear]

"So your "solution" is because it is already infringed, why not go all the way?" OC

Your quote of my post is nearly complete (except for the quotation I was responding to).

Concisely which specific wording did I post that remotely struck you as meaning I thought: "because it is already infringed, why not go all the way?"

 

[TurtleDude]

In case you missed it, and judging by the above post, you did, Heller ruled that it was a individual right.

and there was no CENTURIES OLD controversy
. the bannerrhoid nonsense didn't start until statist judges who were usually racists, wanted to sustain laws that disarmed blacks or "Papists"

 

[sear]

"and there was no CENTURIES OLD controversy" TD #436

Oh.
So the twentieth century (the debate intensified in the 1960's)
and the twenty first century are the same century. Got it.

Though you haven't said so, the nature of the debate shifted, from a
philosophical grammatical, low intensity, low passion debate earlier on,
to a more passionate contest of citizen's rights.

The notion that the debate sprung out of the mind of Zeus fully formed
in the 1960's is amusing, but naïve.

They haven't reworded it.
It's been poorly phrased since its ratification on December 15, 1791.
That was centuries ago.

 

[TurtleDude]

Oh.
So the twentieth century (the debate intensified in the 1960's)
and the twenty first century are the same century. Got it.

Though you haven't said so, the nature of the debate shifted, from a
philosophical grammatical, low intensity, low passion debate earlier on,
to a more passionate contest of citizen's rights.

The notion that the debate sprung out of the mind of Zeus fully formed
in the 1960's is amusing, but naïve.

They haven't reworded it.
It's been poorly phrased since its ratification on December 15, 1791.
That was centuries ago.

there was no controversy until the scummy FDR decided he needed to pander to the slow witted with the 1934 NFA and he created a federal power that didn't exist out of the commerce clause

so your argument is ignorant of the law, history and common sense

 

[sear]

"there was no controversy " TD

iirc it was debated, and even an alternately worded draft proposed.

One of the concerns was, the shift from State control to federal law promoted concerns that States would be at greater risk.

My intended point was, it has been controversial, it has been debated LITERALLY from the start. That means the 18th Century.

I include the following URL not as an authoritative source. I almost never use Wiki myself.
But I skimmed this entry, didn't see any obvious errors (if you find any, I'd welcome you calling them to our attention), and thought the overview
(rather than any one specific "fact") might be of some use to you, or others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

"so your argument is ignorant of the law, history and common sense" TD

Are you trying to hurt my feelings?

And btw, herpetology?

 

[OpportunityCost]

iirc it was debated, and even an alternately worded draft proposed.

One of the concerns was, the shift from State control to federal law promoted concerns that States would be at greater risk.

My intended point was, it has been controversial, it has been debated LITERALLY from the start. That means the 18th Century.

I include the following URL not as an authoritative source. I almost never use Wiki myself.
But I skimmed this entry, didn't see any obvious errors (if you find any, I'd welcome you calling them to our attention), and thought the overview
(rather than any one specific "fact") might be of some use to you, or others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Are you trying to hurt my feelings?

And btw, herpetology?

Seriously. Wikipedia? You aren't even worth talking to with sourcing like that.

 

[sear]

"Seriously. Wikipedia? You aren't even worth talking to with sourcing like that." OC #440

a) Agreed!
Thus my comment: "I almost never use Wiki myself.
But I skimmed this entry, didn't see any obvious errors (if you find any, I'd welcome you calling them to our attention)" s #439

b) You have not refuted my point, which is that the wording of 2A has been a controversy for centuries; literally since before ratification.
Candidly I posted the URL out of sloth. The tiny C-&-P was a lot easier than doing a lot of typing.

No problem. I don't need validation on it. I've been a voting NRA life member since the elder Bush administration.
I've taken an interest in, and studied some history of our Bill of Rights, including 2A.
U.S. Founding history is an interest & hobby of mine. I could only jeopardize my own integrity by asserting a falsehood.
Men of integrity know there's nothing to gain by doing so.

Anyone that wishes to prove that Madison penned 2A, and there was no attendant controversy at all, and that there was no discussion of it until 1970 is free to attempt it.

Good luck w/ that !!

AND !!

Anyone that wishes to prove any comment I have posted as fact is actually wrong, and has an authoritative source to prove my posted comment is factually wrong,
is vehemently urged to do so!

Thanks.

 

[TurtleDude]

iirc it was debated, and even an alternately worded draft proposed.

One of the concerns was, the shift from State control to federal law promoted concerns that States would be at greater risk.

My intended point was, it has been controversial, it has been debated LITERALLY from the start. That means the 18th Century.

I include the following URL not as an authoritative source. I almost never use Wiki myself.
But I skimmed this entry, didn't see any obvious errors (if you find any, I'd welcome you calling them to our attention), and thought the overview
(rather than any one specific "fact") might be of some use to you, or others.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

Are you trying to hurt my feelings?

And btw, herpetology?

I have taught constitutional law, I have lectured peer groups at ABA accredited law schools on the second amendment. I have consulted with some of the top law professors in the country concerning second amendment issues and have been a guest on the NRA satellite station concerning the history and meaning of the second amendment. For the first 100+ years of our nation, the federal government was not considered to have any authority in this area and there was no suggestion that this right was not individual. Remember, where there federal government had no power to act, the rights remained with the people or the several states.

 

[sear]

TD #442

Very impressive!
Thank you for your service.

Yes. The 9th & 10th Amendments.

" the federal government was not considered to have any authority in this area and there was no suggestion that this right was not individual. " TD

Yes.
But that's not the only controversy, even if it was for most of my ~63 years of living.
There was concern among the Founders that a federal government too powerful might bulldoze States rights, subordinate their sovereignty, potentially to practical meaninglessness. *

And as you know, though it may not be doing so with the gun, it does it to the People directly with the social engineering of our labyrinthine federal tax code,
and to the States with the almighty greenback, withholding federal highway funds to punish non-compliance for obvious example.

I'm not talkin' bad about human rights.

Again, thanks for your service. And thanks for sharing your expertise with us here.

TD,
Can you tell me / us?
I can't think of any significant case where Amendment #9 was a primary component of a defense of a right.
Is there a risk that this centuries of disuse (virtually total disuse if I'm not mistaken) will de facto if not de jure diminish, perhaps even eventually nullify the practical utility of Amendment #9?

* It's one of the reasons Wickard v. Filburn leaves me shaking my head in dismay. Why should congress neuter the States if SCOTUS can do it for them?

"Political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Chairman Mao

 

[Master PO]

TD #442

Very impressive!
Thank you for your service.

Yes. The 9th & 10th Amendments.

Yes.
But that's not the only controversy, even if it was for most of my ~63 years of living.
There was concern among the Founders that a federal government too powerful might bulldoze States rights, subordinate their sovereignty, potentially to practical meaninglessness. *

And as you know, though it may not be doing so with the gun, it does it to the People directly with the social engineering of our labyrinthine federal tax code,
and to the States with the almighty greenback, withholding federal highway funds to punish non-compliance for obvious example.

I'm not talkin' bad about human rights.

Again, thanks for your service. And thanks for sharing your expertise with us here.

TD,
Can you tell me / us?
I can't think of any significant case where Amendment #9 was a primary component of a defense of a right.
Is there a risk that this centuries of disuse (virtually total disuse if I'm not mistaken) will de facto if not de jure diminish, perhaps even eventually nullify the practical utility of Amendment #9?

* It's one of the reasons Wickard v. Filburn leaves me shaking my head in dismay. Why should congress neuter the States if SCOTUS can do it for them?

to solve this problem, the states controlled the senate by appointing senators who were instructed how to vote by their state legislative - pre 17th amendment

by doing this it made all legislation a slow and steady process, so that all legislative bills would be read before voting on them and that the states could kill any legislative bill which threaten the powers of the states or the rights of their Citizens

with the 17th amendment, the states were left powerless to stop the federal government from violating states powers and now have to turn to the USSC

 

[sear]

Yes.
We rely on the good faith of the feds for the most part.

Colorado for example, just hoped their cessation of hostilities in the War on Marijuana would go un-challenged by the feds.
During the Obama administration it did.
Now the Trump administration is threatening to maximize penalties etc.
Too soon to know how it'll affect decriminalized marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

BUT !!

Perhaps the reason the feds haven't already overrun our 50 States is that they're already getting what they (the feds) want; nothing to gain by conquest.
Woe betide the States should it ever go otherwise.

"Location
93,000,000 miles from Earth"

93M miles from the Sun?

 

[Master PO]

Yes.
We rely on the good faith of the feds for the most part.

Colorado for example, just hoped their cessation of hostilities in the War on Marijuana would go un-challenged by the feds.
During the Obama administration it did.
Now the Trump administration is threatening to maximize penalties etc.
Too soon to know how it'll affect decriminalized marijuana in Colorado and Washington.

BUT !!

Perhaps the reason the feds haven't already overrun our 50 States is that they're already getting what they (the feds) want; nothing to gain by conquest.
Woe betide the States should it ever go otherwise.

93M miles from the Sun?

iam very hot here

 

[sear]

"iam very hot here" MP #446

No worries. It cools off at night.

 

[OpportunityCost]

a) Agreed!
Thus my comment: "I almost never use Wiki myself.
But I skimmed this entry, didn't see any obvious errors (if you find any, I'd welcome you calling them to our attention)" s #439

b) You have not refuted my point, which is that the wording of 2A has been a controversy for centuries; literally since before ratification.
Candidly I posted the URL out of sloth. The tiny C-&-P was a lot easier than doing a lot of typing.

No problem. I don't need validation on it. I've been a voting NRA life member since the elder Bush administration.
I've taken an interest in, and studied some history of our Bill of Rights, including 2A.
U.S. Founding history is an interest & hobby of mine. I could only jeopardize my own integrity by asserting a falsehood.
Men of integrity know there's nothing to gain by doing so.

Anyone that wishes to prove that Madison penned 2A, and there was no attendant controversy at all, and that there was no discussion of it until 1970 is free to attempt it.

Good luck w/ that !!

AND !!

Anyone that wishes to prove any comment I have posted as fact is actually wrong, and has an authoritative source to prove my posted comment is factually wrong,
is vehemently urged to do so!

Thanks.

You want me to pick apart a source you know isn't reliable, why, exactly?

Your posts are precluded on ignoring stated intent of the framers on the 2nd.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring the logic inherent in the Bill of Rights enumerating rights protected, not rights granted.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring multiple speech studies detailing the 2nd and what it means.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring multiple SCOTUS decisions and the denouncing of your EXACT argument in Heller.

But hey, Wikipedia! Oy vey.

 

[jet57]

You want me to pick apart a source you know isn't reliable, why, exactly?

Your posts are precluded on ignoring stated intent of the framers on the 2nd.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring the logic inherent in the Bill of Rights enumerating rights protected, not rights granted.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring multiple speech studies detailing the 2nd and what it means.
Your posts are precluded on ignoring multiple SCOTUS decisions and the denouncing of your EXACT argument in Heller.

But hey, Wikipedia! Oy vey.

State the framer's intent on the second amendment.

 

[OpportunityCost]

State the framer's intent on the second amendment.

Right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that the government is not to restrict. The right to keep and bear is integral to have a functioning militia.