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

[danielpalos]

Not THAT separate. There is a fair amount of cross-over and overlap.



And besides, now you are talking about regulation by the state government. That's still a government. The assertion was made earlier that some "sincere" or well-meaning people wrongly thought that well regulated did not mean it was to be regulated through some kind of government. Historically, those have been the only well regulated militias.

In fact, by definition, any form of regulation necessarily means there has to be some kind of governing body.

Nobody takes the right wing seriously about the law, Constitutional or otherwise.

Our Second Amendment clearly and specifically enumerates what is Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

[Oozlefinch]

Well, I think the position of "regulation" being the job of the government has some support other than just some people's opinion. The Millitia Act of 1792, passed the year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, put the responsibility of keeping the militias well regulated and trained on the state legislatures. The militias themselves were then under the command of the commander-in-chief, IOW, the POTUS. In fact, the first use of these well regulated and trained militias was by George Washington himself, to put down a tax rebellion in PA.

Militia members who would disobey the state legislatures or the POTUS could face court martial. These founding fathers were not fooling around when they talked about beign "well regulated". They clearly meant business with these militias. Reading these militia acts, it becomes clear that they did not have in mind these paranoid middle aged weekend warriors we have now who are stocking up to fight a potentially tyrannical federal government.

Actually, the Militia Act was really universal conscription. In this law, every male between the ages of 18 and 45 was enrolled in the militia. And could be called up at any time, either by their state Governor, or Nationalized by the President.

But the last part of your statement really does not matter. I am sure that the Founding Fathers would also be shocked that today we have so many people trying to voluntarily throw away the liberties that they fought and died to achieve.

 

[Moot]

https://fakehistory.wordpress.com/2011/01/25/madison-and-the-advantage-of-being-armed/

Your quotes are BS

You're right...almost all of those quotes were fake or taken out of context.

 

[TurtleDude]

Well, I think the position of "regulation" being the job of the government has some support other than just some people's opinion. The Millitia Act of 1792, passed the year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, put the responsibility of keeping the militias well regulated and trained on the state legislatures. The militias themselves were then under the command of the commander-in-chief, IOW, the POTUS. In fact, the first use of these well regulated and trained militias was by George Washington himself, to put down a tax rebellion in PA.

Militia members who would disobey the state legislatures or the POTUS could face court martial. These founding fathers were not fooling around when they talked about beign "well regulated". They clearly meant business with these militias. Reading these militia acts, it becomes clear that they did not have in mind these paranoid middle aged weekend warriors we have now who are stocking up to fight a potentially tyrannical federal government.

there is nothing in the constitution that even hints the federal government had any jurisdiction over arms owned by private citizens. Congress can dictate to active duty soldiers what they wear in the barracks, in the field and on parade-congress cannot tell private citizens or soldiers not on active duty what they can wear at home, shopping or in non-military jobs either. the militia act has never been cited by gun control authors as a jurisdictional grounds for gun control. So banish from your head the thought that the militia act has any value to claiming a federal gun control power

 

[TurtleDude]

Yeah sure, any citizen can sign up for the National Guard.

that's blatantly inaccurate

 

[Tennyson]

Well, I think the position of "regulation" being the job of the government has some support other than just some people's opinion. The Millitia Act of 1792, passed the year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, put the responsibility of keeping the militias well regulated and trained on the state legislatures. The militias themselves were then under the command of the commander-in-chief, IOW, the POTUS. In fact, the first use of these well regulated and trained militias was by George Washington himself, to put down a tax rebellion in PA.

Militia members who would disobey the state legislatures or the POTUS could face court martial. These founding fathers were not fooling around when they talked about beign "well regulated". They clearly meant business with these militias. Reading these militia acts, it becomes clear that they did not have in mind these paranoid middle aged weekend warriors we have now who are stocking up to fight a potentially tyrannical federal government.

The militias themselves were then under the command of the commander-in-chief.

Actually that is not accurate.

 

[TurtleDude]

Actually that is not accurate.

How many people think the founders wanted so many Americans to try to use weasel words and dishonesty to create a debate over an Amendment they all saw as clearcut. that there was almost no court cases until FDR's dishonesty appeared is pretty much proof there was no debate or any belief that the courts were to constantly determine what was allowed. that's because no on thought the federal government had any jurisdiction in this area for the first 140 years or so

 

[danielpalos]

The Wild West happened during that time.

 

[ataraxia]

Actually that is not accurate.

What is not accurate? That the Militia Act of 1792 put the responsibility of the training and regulation of the militias which were formed on the legislatures of the state governments, and under the command of the federal commander-in-chief? Or that those refusing to obey orders faced court martial?

 

[ataraxia]

How many people think the founders wanted so many Americans to try to use weasel words and dishonesty to create a debate over an Amendment they all saw as clearcut. that there was almost no court cases until FDR's dishonesty appeared is pretty much proof there was no debate or any belief that the courts were to constantly determine what was allowed. that's because no on thought the federal government had any jurisdiction in this area for the first 140 years or so

Even if what you say is true, that's because the breathtaking advances in weapons technology since the 18th century have been a complete game changer. If we still had the weapons technology of 18th century agrarian America, I would have no problem with the 2nd amendment. The problem we are having now, with technology having outpaced the laws, traditions, habits, and customs of our society, is a good example of what sociologists call "cultural lag".

The term cultural lag refers to the notion that culture takes time to catch up with technological innovations, and that social problems and conflicts are caused by this lag. Subsequently, cultural lag does not only apply to this idea only, but also relates to theory and explanation. It helps by identifying and explaining social problems to predict future problems.

As explained by James W. Woodward, when the material conditions change, changes are occasioned in the adaptive culture, but these changes in the adaptive culture do not synchronize exactly with the change in the material culture, this delay is the culture lag...

Cultural lag creates problems for a society in a multitude of ways. The issue of cultural lag tends to permeate any discussion in which the implementation of some new technology is a topic. For example, the advent of stem cell research has given rise to many new, potentially beneficial medical technologies; however these new technologies have also raised serious ethical questions about the use of stem cells in medicine. Cultural lag is seen as a critical ethical issue because failure to develop broad social consensus on appropriate applications of modern technology may lead to breakdowns in social solidarity and the rise of social conflict.[5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_lag

And don't forget: if no social consensus is reached on some limits on what weapons the general public is allowed to carry around, weapons technology is not going to stop advancing. I am sure the kind of things which will be available even in 20-30 years' time will blow our minds away, quite literally. You really want any idiot Joe Public off the street having unrestricted access to any of that stuff he wants just because of a law which was written primarily when we just had swords and front-loading muskets for weapons? It doesn't make sense. This mindset that any limits or regulations is unconstitutional is, and will become ever-more, unsustainable.

 

[SirGareth]

The Second Amendment to the 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."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?

"A Well Regulated Stock Market being necessary to the growth of a free economy, the right of the people to buy and sell securities shall not be infringed"

How would you interpret this statement?

Would you say that the reason we allow the people to buy and sell securities is subordinate to the maintenance of a well regulated stock market?

No, that would be nutty wouldn't it ?


Furthermore, we the people never granted the federal government the right to regulate our firearms so the whole 2A is a moot point.

 

[ttwtt78640]

The Second Amendment to the 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."

Please focus on only the three words on bold. No thing else, no other part. What do they mean? Is their meaning clear, or open to interpretation?

Is a militia the people in general, or is it a state-sponsored organized and approved government body? Does the fact that "Militia" is capitalized lean toward an organized government body (as a formal name, essentially), or is that irrelevant? Maybe just grammatical peculiarities of the day.

If you believe their meaning is clear, why do many people have other definitions? Are they being dishonest and/or insincere?

Thoughts?

OK, now apply those super important, three bolded, words to the type of arms to which the 2A refers - would that include "military style" guns and/or "weapons of war" or would the potential militia members (the people) be limitted to keeping and bearing only guns suitable for self defense, hunting or sporting use?

 

[ataraxia]

"A Well Regulated Stock Market being necessary to the growth of a free economy, the right of the people to buy and sell securities shall not be infringed"

How would you interpret this statement?

Would you say that the reason we allow the people to buy and sell securities is subordinate to the maintenance of a well regulated stock market?

No, that would be nutty wouldn't it ?


Furthermore, we the people never granted the federal government the right to regulate our firearms so the whole 2A is a moot point.

Well apparently Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court disagree.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”
-Antonin Scalia

.

 

[SirGareth]

Well apparently Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court disagree.

.

Well what are mere "words set on paper" in the wind of the utterances of our "wise" rulers?

Although I concede his point that carrying weapons for the purpose of murder should be discouraged by the law

 

[danielpalos]

Well apparently Antonin Scalia and the Supreme Court disagree.

.

Only well regulated militia of the whole and entire People, are declared Necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[American]

The People are the Militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.

Well regulated must be defined by our federal Congress.

What makes you think that?

 

[American]

there is nothing in the constitution that even hints the federal government had any jurisdiction over arms owned by private citizens. Congress can dictate to active duty soldiers what they wear in the barracks, in the field and on parade-congress cannot tell private citizens or soldiers not on active duty what they can wear at home, shopping or in non-military jobs either. the militia act has never been cited by gun control authors as a jurisdictional grounds for gun control. So banish from your head the thought that the militia act has any value to claiming a federal gun control power

As though it was not intended that the military or militia would be armed. What good is an unarmed military?

 

[American]

Well, I think the position of "regulation" being the job of the government has some support other than just some people's opinion. The Millitia Act of 1792, passed the year after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, put the responsibility of keeping the militias well regulated and trained on the state legislatures. The militias themselves were then under the command of the commander-in-chief, IOW, the POTUS. In fact, the first use of these well regulated and trained militias was by George Washington himself, to put down a tax rebellion in PA.

Militia members who would disobey the state legislatures or the POTUS could face court martial. These founding fathers were not fooling around when they talked about beign "well regulated". They clearly meant business with these militias. Reading these militia acts, it becomes clear that they did not have in mind these paranoid middle aged weekend warriors we have now who are stocking up to fight a potentially tyrannical federal government.

Only when called up for federal duty, but otherwise no. And I can tell you that Washington didn't have a high opinion of the militia he called up; which likely led to the actions taken later to establish a standing army.

 

[TurtleDude]

Even if what you say is true, that's because the breathtaking advances in weapons technology since the 18th century have been a complete game changer. If we still had the weapons technology of 18th century agrarian America, I would have no problem with the 2nd amendment. The problem we are having now, with technology having outpaced the laws, traditions, habits, and customs of our society, is a good example of what sociologists call "cultural lag".



And don't forget: if no social consensus is reached on some limits on what weapons the general public is allowed to carry around, weapons technology is not going to stop advancing. I am sure the kind of things which will be available even in 20-30 years' time will blow our minds away, quite literally. You really want any idiot Joe Public off the street having unrestricted access to any of that stuff he wants just because of a law which was written primarily when we just had swords and front-loading muskets for weapons? It doesn't make sense. This mindset that any limits or regulations is unconstitutional is, and will become ever-more, unsustainable.

opinion noted and not shared. Citizens should have available whatever weapons the state is prepared to use against them: any firearm police use on our city streets, I ought to be able to own in my home. You just don't get the fact that the second amendment was not intended to be something nickel and dimed-its a complete ban on the federal government

I will turn this around on your statist position-Do I want the servants of the public to have any weapon the state wants to give them, but we cannot own? OF COURSE NOT

 

[danielpalos]

What makes you think that?

Our Constitution.

 

[American]

Our Constitution.

Please quote the clause.

 

[jet57]

Only when called up for federal duty, but otherwise no. And I can tell you that Washington didn't have a high opinion of the militia he called up; which likely led to the actions taken later to establish a standing army.

No... that would have been the war of 1812 that brought that idea back around. A militia system just couldn't handle full scale war by then. Too much time training and money was needed.

 

[American]

No... that would have been the war of 1812 that brought that idea back around. A militia system just couldn't handle full scale war by then. Too much time training and money was needed.

Washington wasn't president then. In fact he wasn't even alive. The complaint about the sufficiency of the militia came from him first.

 

[jet57]

Washington wasn't president then. In fact he wasn't even alive. The complaint about the sufficiency of the militia came from him first.

You didn't understand my post did you. You were asserting - why - the standing army was organized again: I corrected you.

 

[Tennyson]

What is not accurate? That the Militia Act of 1792 put the responsibility of the training and regulation of the militias which were formed on the legislatures of the state governments, and under the command of the federal commander-in-chief? Or that those refusing to obey orders faced court martial?

The President has no power over the militia unless called up.