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

ecofarm · May 20, 2017

TurtleDude said:
a sound an accurate explanation of what the second amendment is about

Some people just can't understand because they don't analyze the 2nd from a position of knowledge or context. They need a sort of map:

1. Natural rights exist as socially natural agreements among free (or at least equal before the law) and sane people, as a matter of species survival.
2. The right to self defense is a socially natural right.
3. Realizing the natural right to self defense requires an individual right to the means.
4. In establishing means, we must differentiate weapons of self defense from weapons of national defense.
5. Arms of a militia (infantry) are deemed weapons of self defense.

Skipping any of those understandings leads to an inaccurate comprehension of the 2nd.

TurtleDude · May 20, 2017

ecofarm said:
Some people just can't understand because they don't analyze the 2nd from a position of knowledge or context. They need a sort of map:

1. Natural rights exist as socially natural agreements among free (or at least equal before the law) and sane people, as a matter of species survival.
2. The right to self defense is a socially natural right.
3. Realizing the natural right to self defense requires an individual right to the means.
4. In establishing means, we must differentiate weapons of self defense from weapons of national defense.
5. Arms of a militia (infantry) are deemed weapons of self defense.

Skipping any of those understandings leads to an inaccurate comprehension of the 2nd.

most avid bannerhoids know that the second amendment is violated by their schemes. So they try to reinterpret the second amendment to allow their schemes. Its dishonest and they know it but their jihad against conservative gun owners trumps intellectual honesty

ecofarm · May 20, 2017

TurtleDude said:
most avid bannerhoids know that the second amendment is violated by their schemes. So they try to reinterpret the second amendment to allow their schemes. Its dishonest and they know it but their jihad against conservative gun owners trumps intellectual honesty

I have difficulty believing that anyone with an accurate understanding of the natural rights, the Constitution and the right to self defense would be against the individual right to the means of self defense. I think they just don't get the concepts. If someone did understand all of the necessary concepts and still did not want people to be able to defend themselves, that would be evil. I hope there's not so many evil people out there.

Perhaps you underestimate the level of ignorance in the average person.

TurtleDude · May 20, 2017

ecofarm said:
I have difficulty believing that anyone with an accurate understanding of the natural rights, the Constitution and the right to self defense would be against the individual right to the means of self defense. I think they just don't get the concepts. If someone did understand all of the necessary concepts and still did not want people to be able to defend themselves, that would be evil. I hope there's not so many evil people out there.

Perhaps you underestimate the level of ignorance in the average person.

perhaps you underestimate the amount of dishonesty in the leaders of the bannerrhoid movement

Bodi · May 20, 2017

TurtleDude said:
wrong-completely wrong. how do you have an effective organized militia if those who join it don't have arms prior to joining. A militia is not a standing army but an ad hoc fighting force that is mustered in the face of an emergency. your nonsense is just that

Buying the weapon is a contract with the militia. Buy it. In it.

At least that is what the second intended... not the bastardization that we have now.

TurtleDude · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
Buying the weapon is a contract with the militia. Buy it. In it.

At least that is what the second intended... not the bastardization that we have now.

I think I am going to stick with my interpretation which is consistent with the words of the founders and most of the top constitutional law scholars rather than some silly nonsense someone who has no training in constitutional law dreamed up in order to engage in contrarian silliness.

Aberration · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
Buying the weapon is a contract with the militia. Buy it. In it.

At least that is what the second intended... not the bastardization that we have now.

Not according to the Constitution. Nor does any law define the bastardization of a contract that you created.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

VanceMack · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
Buying the weapon is a contract with the militia. Buy it. In it.

At least that is what the second intended... not the bastardization that we have now.

I think maybe you go off the rails just to attempot to be contrarian. Its like you tell Moot and some of the others "You can take a break from making the repeated stupid comments in guns and gun control...I got it this month..." And then...you do.

sear · May 21, 2017

The language is: "... shall not be infringed."

Some say it's an individual right.

Some say it's a right of individual States.

Whatever:
I have a right to religion, and don't have to apply for a license to exercise it.

I have a right to free speech, and don't have to apply for a license to exercise it.

I have a right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed, but I would have to apply for a license to exercise it.

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" are they having trouble with?

Apart from that, this "well regulated militia" thing isn't even a fig leaf.

I have a friend that has CCP. He has no chain of command. He doesn't have a squad leader, or a company commander.

So what?
So the State HANDLES this as an INDIVIDUAL right, not about paramilitarism.

Bodi · May 21, 2017

Aberration said:
Not according to the Constitution. Nor does any law define the bastardization of a contract that you created.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes. According to the Constitution. Simple English.

Bodi · May 21, 2017

VanceMack said:
I think maybe you go off the rails just to attempot to be contrarian. Its like you tell Moot and some of the others "You can take a break from making the repeated stupid comments in guns and gun control...I got it this month..." And then...you do.

See post #310

VanceMack · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
See post #310

Your flippant comment is inconsistent with your regularly stated positions. The 2nd Amendment is simple and plain English. Its intent was as obvious and valid today as it was 230+ years ago. The only people that cant see that are agenda driven folk that wont see that.

VanceMack · May 21, 2017

sear said:
The language is: "... shall not be infringed."

Some say it's an individual right.

Some say it's a right of individual States.

Whatever:
I have a right to religion, and don't have to apply for a license to exercise it.

I have a right to free speech, and don't have to apply for a license to exercise it.

I have a right to keep and bear arms which shall not be infringed, but I would have to apply for a license to exercise it.

Just what part of "shall not be infringed" are they having trouble with?

Apart from that, this "well regulated militia" thing isn't even a fig leaf.

I have a friend that has CCP. He has no chain of command. He doesn't have a squad leader, or a company commander.

So what?
So the State HANDLES this as an INDIVIDUAL right, not about paramilitarism.

The phrase 'well regulated' did not then nor does it now imply a full time state militia. The founding fathers...those that wrote the document were quite clear. It is the right and in fact responsibility for all able bodied individuals to own firearms and ammunition and remain proficient in their use for times of need. 230 years ago there was a structure in place...but the citizen soldier did not gather up, train, march, wear uniforms, or participate in an organized militia until they were needed. They werent talking about hunting weapons or self defense weapons and the 2nd was not written to gaurantee those rights. Those rights were and always have been understood. They were specifically written to address weapons that could be used in a time of military need to stand against tyranny. The Amendment was written to guard the people against an oppressive government.

This is all further codified in the US Code which clearly identifies both the organized militias (the Guard) and the unorganized militias (the people).

TurtleDude · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
See post #310

we did, it was silly and VM is correct, you are engaging in contrarian silliness. anyone who claims that the second amendment was limited to those actively serving is completely ignorant of the entire constitutional foundation.

Μολὼν λαβέ · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
Buying the weapon is a contract with the militia. Buy it. In it.

At least that is what the second intended... not the bastardization that we have now.

I've seen some delusional explanations for the 2nd A, this one included. How could one arrive at this conclusion?

On June 26, 2008, in District of Columbia v. Heller (PDF), the United States Supreme Court issued its first decision since 1939 interpreting the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Court ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution confers an individual right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense.

I don't see any quid pro quo, you?

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

ttwtt78640 · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
It is extremy clear that the second intends all gun owners be part of an organized militia...

Nope, only you seem to think that people = militia members. How hard would it have been, if that was truly the intent of the 2A, to write "the right of the militia to..." as opposed to "the right of the people to..."?

The militia clause was included to define (limit?) the type of arms protected not the type of people.

VanceMack · May 21, 2017

ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, only you seem to think that people = militia members. How hard would it have been, if that was truly the intent of the 2A, to write "the right of the militia to..." as opposed to "the right of the people to..."?

The militia clause was included to define (limit?) the type of arms protected not the type of people.

Yeah...once Bodhi goes 'there' it becomes quite clear he is trolling for the sake of trolling, or he has zero grasp of history.

sear · May 21, 2017

"The phrase 'well regulated' did not then nor does it now imply a full time state militia." VM #313

You are correct. Generally that would have been referred to as a "standing army", what we know as a full-time professional military.

None the less, our 2A is one of the most poorly phrased passages in any part of our amended Constitution.

"The founding fathers...those that wrote the document were quite clear. It is the right and in fact responsibility for all able bodied individuals to own firearms and ammunition and remain proficient in their use for times of need." VM #313

I consider it a stretch to call it "quite clear".
The precise meaning of 2A has been debated for centuries.

And regarding original intent, even if that is what was originally intended, due to 3rd Millennium realities, a nation of Minute Men would not seem to be as critical to preserving our sovereignty as it might have been in the 18th Century.

Kim Jong Un isn't threatening the U.S. with an invasion force of slanty-eyed infantryman flooding over the border from Vancouver.

KJU is threatening us with nuclear warhead and delivery systems development that may lead to a nuclear capability that can reach the lower 48.

"Those rights were and always have been understood." VM

But the meaning of the WORDING agreed upon?

I don't know whether you're unaware of the intense controversy over it; or whether you're aware of it but denying it.
Either way, the debate has raged for centuries.

I thought during the Bush (younger) administration SCOTUS was going to rule on whether 2A defined a right of citizens, or States.
I do not recall any such ruling being announced.

"They were specifically written to address weapons that could be used in a time of military need to stand against tyranny. The Amendment was written to guard the people against an oppressive government."

Yes.
And to support that pov, President Washington has been quoted having said:

"Firearms stand next to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples liberty teeth, & keystone under independence." sometimes attributed to George Washington

BUT !!

This source says no:
HugeDomains.com - RepublicAffair.com is for sale (Republic Affair)

That being the case, why the fabrication? If they were right, they wouldn't have to lie.
So the fact that the attribute is declared false by that source suggests something else is going on here.

"This is all further codified in the US Code which clearly identifies both the organized militias (the Guard) and the unorganized militias (the people)."

Which yet once again raises the as yet unanswered question; what does a "well-regulated militia" have to do with you packin' heat when you're strolling through the bear-infested forest?
What about "well regulated militia" pertains to any of that?

If it merely stipulated a "militia" we could let it go, dismiss it as an 18th Century anachronism, or whatever.

But a "well regulated militia"?

"Words mean things." Rush Limbaugh

Clearly that was a reference to something specific.

Again!!
I'm not taking sides in this post.
Instead, I'm merely acknowledging the debate.

jimbo · May 21, 2017

hado117 said:
where is it written that it is only for the self defense of the country? and not for individual states

Or just the individual.

If I had the chance to make just one change to the Constitution, I'd remove the explanatory phrase "A well regulated militia". It serves no purpose and confuses people. Nowhere else in the Constitution did the founders feel the need to explain their position. Why in the second?

It should also be noted that in 1770 there were no military grade weapons. Just weapons. The musket used in the war in Massachusetts was the same one hanging over the fireplace in Kentucky. So too the cannon. Particularly along the navigable rivers there were cannons exactly the same as those used in battle.

VanceMack · May 21, 2017

sear said:
You are correct. Generally that would have been referred to as a "standing army", what we know as a full-time professional military.

None the less, our 2A is one of the most poorly phrased passages in any part of our amended Constitution.

I consider it a stretch to call it "quite clear".
The precise meaning of 2A has been debated for centuries.

And regarding original intent, even if that is what was originally intended, due to 3rd Millennium realities, a nation of Minute Men would not seem to be as critical to preserving our sovereignty as it might have been in the 18th Century.

Kim Jong Un isn't threatening the U.S. with an invasion force of slanty-eyed infantryman flooding over the border from Vancouver.

KJU is threatening us with nuclear warhead and delivery systems development that may lead to a nuclear capability that can reach the lower 48.

But the meaning of the WORDING agreed upon?

I don't know whether you're unaware of the intense controversy over it; or whether you're aware of it but denying it.
Either way, the debate has raged for centuries.

I thought during the Bush (younger) administration SCOTUS was going to rule on whether 2A defined a right of citizens, or States.
I do not recall any such ruling being announced.

Yes.
And to support that pov, President Washington has been quoted having said:

"Firearms stand next to the Constitution itself. They are the American peoples liberty teeth, & keystone under independence." sometimes attributed to George Washington

BUT !!

This source says no:
HugeDomains.com - RepublicAffair.com is for sale (Republic Affair)

That being the case, why the fabrication? If they were right, they wouldn't have to lie.
So the fact that the attribute is declared false by that source suggests something else is going on here.

Which yet once again raises the as yet unanswered question; what does a "well-regulated militia" have to do with you packin' heat when you're strolling through the bear-infested forest?
What about "well regulated militia" pertains to any of that?

If it merely stipulated a "militia" we could let it go, dismiss it as an 18th Century anachronism, or whatever.

But a "well regulated militia"?

Clearly that was a reference to something specific.

Again!!
I'm not taking sides in this post.
Instead, I'm merely acknowledging the debate.

I agree people want desperately to redefine it based on THEIR ideology. But the mere fact that people try to redefine it or cite 'archaic' 18th century realities kinda proves the point. Their intent was clear, then and now.

I certainly hope that it will never happen, but judging from the course of history have no reason to believe that it won't happen, that some day we may need the citizen militia. I don't believe it will be to oppose North Korea. I don't believe it will be to oppose a despotic tyrannical US leader that turns the US military against us. Won't happen. But a civil war? Sure. That's looming as a possibility. A war against Muslim extremism? You would have to be naive to hear their rhetoric and not see that as a potential reality. Is it possible a globalist could be elected and try to disarm the country and move us towards a one world government? Hell...who do you think is backing the democrat presidential candidates?

The founding fathers intent was valid then and now.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

ecofarm · May 21, 2017

sear said:
Kim Jong Un isn't threatening the U.S. with an invasion force of slanty-eyed infantryman flooding over the border from Vancouver.

Wait, what?

OpportunityCost · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
Buying the weapon is a contract with the militia. Buy it. In it.

At least that is what the second intended... not the bastardization that we have now.

False. As people are not forced to participate in the militia. As people are not disarmed prior to or after service within the militia. As people do not illegally possess weapons when they are not within the militia and have no intent to serve.

The militia is dependent upon the right to keep and bear. The right to keep and bear is not dependent upon the militia. The militia statement is a prefatory clause that is dependent upon a well armed people to fill its ranks in times of crisis.

Logically, your argument isn't an argument, its more of a belief.

Aberration · May 21, 2017

Bodhisattva said:
Yes. According to the Constitution. Simple English.

So then quote the part that says purchasing a firearm is a contract with the militia. Since its so simple it shouldn't be very hard.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

sear · May 21, 2017

"The phrase 'well regulated' did not then nor does it now imply a full time state militia." VM #313

Splendid.
But I never asserted otherwise.
What the phrase a "well regulated militia" implies is what the dictionary says it means:

militia
[mi-lish-uh]

Examples
Word Origin

See more synonyms on Thesaurus.com
noun
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

Militia | Define Militia at Dictionary.com

"The phrase 'well regulated' did not then nor does it now imply a full time state militia." VM #313

You state the obvious.
Now address the issue. WHERE'S THE REGULATION?

"I don't believe it will be to oppose North Korea." VM #320

Me too.

BUT !!

It was widely reported that during the lame-duck, between election and inauguration, President Obama entertained President Elect Trump in the oval orifice, and warned Trump that North Korea was the most severe threat facing the U.S.
Thus my citing it as an example.

Let's try a sanity check.
I've already mentioned our Minute Men; one if by land, two if by sea, and all that. Paul Revere
What was the most recent time we had to dip into our martial resources beyond our full-time standing "army" (our ~5 branches). President Bush (younger) activated our reserve, for Iraq.
That's fine.

BUT !!

What does that have to do with whether you have a Smith & Wesson .32 under your pillow?

Switzerland famously proliferates military arms among its citizenry.

BUT !!

When was the last time it mattered?
Switzerland was "neutral" in WWII.
Can you tell me the most recent time Swiss civilian citizens actually put up a viable, sovereignty-preserving national defense?

The notion of the U.S. preserving its sovereignty not because of the best efforts of our full-time, and part-time militaries, but because of the difference making martial power of a COMPLETELY DISORGANIZED group of grandfathers with 30-30 carbines, and two dozen rounds of ammunition; laughable.

"The founding fathers intent was valid then and now."

Realistically, I don't think so.
I challenge you to define a threat scenario that would make that plausible.
Take all the time you need. I'll wait.

Bodi · May 21, 2017

VanceMack said:
Your flippant comment is inconsistent with your regularly stated positions. The 2nd Amendment is simple and plain English. Its intent was as obvious and valid today as it was 230+ years ago. The only people that cant see that are agenda driven folk that wont see that.

Because it disagrees with you it is flippant? THAT conclusion is flippant.

VanceMack said:
The phrase 'well regulated' did not then nor does it now imply a full time state militia. The founding fathers...those that wrote the document were quite clear. It is the right and in fact responsibility for all able bodied individuals to own firearms and ammunition and remain proficient in their use for times of need. 230 years ago there was a structure in place...but the citizen soldier did not gather up, train, march, wear uniforms, or participate in an organized militia until they were needed. They werent talking about hunting weapons or self defense weapons and the 2nd was not written to gaurantee those rights. Those rights were and always have been understood. They were specifically written to address weapons that could be used in a time of military need to stand against tyranny. The Amendment was written to guard the people against an oppressive government.

This is all further codified in the US Code which clearly identifies both the organized militias (the Guard) and the unorganized militias (the people).

Yes. We see how many trustworthy gun owners were forming militias during WWII when there was worry of the Japanese invading the Homeland. :roll:

TurtleDude said:
we did, it was silly and VM is correct, you are engaging in contrarian silliness. anyone who claims that the second amendment was limited to those actively serving is completely ignorant of the entire constitutional foundation.

I never said it was limited to those actually serving so instead of accusing a person of being a contrarian you should first educate yourself on the argument so as to avoid sounding ignorant.

Μολὼν λαβέ;1067226036 said:
I've seen some delusional explanations for the 2nd A, this one included. How could one arrive at this conclusion?

I don't see any quid pro quo, you?

https://www.loc.gov/law/help/second-amendment.php

Yes... Millions of delusional people out there. :lol:

Look, I can read. Words mean what they mean. It is not me twisting **** in order to fit an agenda... it is gun owners *****ing out of their responsibility.

ttwtt78640 said:
Nope, only you seem to think that people = militia members.

Yes. "Only Me". :lol:

How hard would it have been, if that was truly the intent of the 2A, to write "the right of the militia to..." as opposed to "the right of the people to..."?

The militia clause was included to define (limit?) the type of arms protected not the type of people.

Because the right of the people to bear arms is specifically for the purpose to maintain a militia, or be ready to join one in needed times.

VanceMack said:
Yeah...once Bodhi goes 'there' it becomes quite clear he is trolling for the sake of trolling, or he has zero grasp of history.

Or both...

...or neither...

OpportunityCost said:
False. As people are not forced to participate in the militia.

False. The people ARE the militia by the mere fact that they own a gun.

As people are not disarmed prior to or after service within the militia. .

Because they are a part of the militia... they are not disarmed.

As people do not illegally possess weapons when they are not within the militia and have no intent to serve

Laws written with a misinterpreted interpretation are unconstitutional...

1. The militia is dependent upon the right to keep and bear.
2. The right to keep and bear is not dependent upon the militia.
3. The militia statement is a prefatory clause that is dependent upon a well armed people to fill its ranks in times of crisis.

Logically, your argument isn't an argument, its more of a belief.

No. It is an argument. Hence the arguing.

1. Correct
2. Incorrect. They are symbiotic.
3. Incorrect. It is an Ablative Absolute Clause.

Aberration said:
So then quote the part that says purchasing a firearm is a contract with the militia. Since its so simple it shouldn't be very hard.

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.

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

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

global liberation

warrior of the wetlands

global liberation

warrior of the wetlands

Just waiting for my set...

warrior of the wetlands

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Advisor, aka "bub"

Just waiting for my set...

Just waiting for my set...

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

warrior of the wetlands

Si vis pacem, para bellum

Sometimes wrong

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

Advisor, aka "bub"

Less like the tiger...more like the lion.

global liberation

Advisor, aka "bub"

Just waiting for my set...