• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

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

Well, no, not necessarily. Acts passed in the founding area on a subject also addressed by the constitution logically should carry weight in constitutional interpretation, but they certainly aren't the be-all/end-all.

It shows original intent.

I said it carries weight, but does not solely define it.

You say, no, it is the original intent period.




Have you drafted a brief challenging the constitutionality of a law and argued it in court? Clerked for a justice who asked you to offer an opinion on a case he is considering? Anything like that?

Honestly, I hate the idea of pulling rank on an anonymous message board, but I have to wonder where some posters are getting their ideas about how constitutional interpretation works. I'm simply telling you that your position is too broad. An act passed even that close to the time of the founding does not contain the sole exclusive "original intent" behind an amendment the act relates to. It just doesn't work that way.

The Courts look to history, to related documents like the federalist papers, to the opinions of various founders, so on and so forth. I don't recall specifically if they discussed those acts in Heller or McDonald, but they probably did. It's certainly something that would carry weight, as I said. It just doesn't constitute the sole and exclusive source for the "original intent" of the 2nd Amd.

Constitutional interpretation is a big complicated mess, which is why decisions like Heller and McDonald are often easily over 50 pages long...
 
Any schizophrenic can buy whatever they want through the gun show loopholes. Why the fierce opposition to closing them?

Because it might hurt sales for NRA members. That's why.

Actually, no, they can't. It is illegal to sell a gun to a schizophrenic. That is the law. Doesn't matter if its at a gun show or at a gun store. The "gun show loophole" is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by those that are trying to regulate guns as much as possible.
 
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?

The general definition seems to be that of a state sponsored group. There are groups of survivalists and fanatics who call themselves militias, but they are further off the deep end then most.
 
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?

During the time the Constitution was written the definition of "Well Regulated Militia" was "all white males between the ages of 15 to 45", today the translation would be "all adults". PragerU explains it best in this 4 minute video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEqGBOt32NM
 
"A well regulated militia" is a comment

The preamble if you will to the money line,

Which states "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
 
Any schizophrenic can buy whatever they want through the gun show loopholes. Why the fierce opposition to closing them?

Because it might hurt sales for NRA members. That's why.
Loopholes have absolutely no relevance to the thread, just so you know.
 
Militia is the term used for a defense force comprised of ordinary citizens and well regulated means trained and equipped. What is equally important, in the context of the 2A, is whether the people refers to only those people currently (or likely to be) engaged in militia activities.

The "people" refers to the populace.

"We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union..."

The Supreme Court’s recent Second Amendment decision, District of Columbia v Heller, asserts that the Constitution’s right to bear arms is an individual right to armed self-defense held by law-abiding “citizens.”

http://http://www.nyulawreview.org/issues/volume-85-number-5/people-second-amendment-citizenship-and-right-bear-arms
 
Last edited:
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?
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", would be clear. Is the reason really necessary to be stated here? It seems to me that the stating of the reason is what causes the confusion. If it's meant to be absolute, then it should be stated absolutely.
 
Seriously?

Seriously

US Code 311 explains the distinction quite well, I don't know why you're so confused:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
 
Seriously?
The 2nd amendment was ratified December 15, 1791.
1st militia act: May 2, 1792.

For those with wanting math skills: that's less than 5 months difference. And yet nothing about an "unregulated militia". :lamo
SO...you just affirmed that the passage of the 2nd had nothing to do with the Militia Act. On that we agree.

And if you are going to speak to the construct of the militia, speak truth to the construct of the militia. Then and now the 'militia' was 'the people'. States had organizations...the militia was only called when needed. The rights of the people to keep and bear military grade firearms for the purpose of defending the free state was the intent of the 2nd Amendment. Sounds like so far we are tracking.

As for the organized vs unorganized militia...maybe if you spent less time demonstrating your ignorance (what must by now be deemed WILLFUL ignorance) and instead learned what you were missing that might serve you better.

I'm not sure why this has to devolve into some sort of snotty snarkfest.
 
Last edited:
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", would be clear. Is the reason really necessary to be stated here? It seems to me that the stating of the reason is what causes the confusion. If it's meant to be absolute, then it should be stated absolutely.

Its pretty clear as stated in the 2A.

A "well-regulated Militia" is formed from, and refers to, "the people."

See what I did there? :)
 
"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.", would be clear. Is the reason really necessary to be stated here? It seems to me that the stating of the reason is what causes the confusion. If it's meant to be absolute, then it should be stated absolutely.
How is that not absolute? The 2nd is not affirming the right to self defense. It is not affirming the right to hunt. It is affirming the rights of the people to keep and bear military arms (military grade firearms in line with their role as militia).
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066995104 said:
Its pretty clear as stated in the 2A.

A "well-regulated Militia" is formed from, and refers to, "the people."

See what I did there? :)
Not sure if you understand the purpose of the thread. Yes, I see what *you* did there. Does everybody do the same? Not just anybody, do people in positions of relevance, i.e. lawmakers and judges, all do the same?
 
How is that not absolute? The 2nd is not affirming the right to self defense. It is not affirming the right to hunt. It is affirming the rights of the people to keep and bear military arms (military grade firearms in line with their role as militia).

Are we on the same wavelength? I meant that as an absolute statement, but I read your comment as questioning that. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
How is that not absolute? The 2nd is not affirming the right to self defense. It is not affirming the right to hunt. It is affirming the rights of the people to keep and bear military arms (military grade firearms in line with their role as militia).

Actually, it does...

1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
 
Not sure if you understand the purpose of the thread. Yes, I see what *you* did there. Does everybody do the same? Not just anybody, do people in positions of relevance, i.e. lawmakers and judges, all do the same?

I'm not sure you understand the purpose of my post.
 
Are we on the same wavelength? I meant that as an absolute statement, but I read your comment as questioning that. Maybe I'm missing something.
I understand what you meant it as. The problem is we have people...today...that are completely ignoring the military intent of the 2nd Amendment and solely focusing on the rights to self defense and hunting. That has enabled democrat senators to propose bans on over 160 specific commonly owned weapons. That has allowed states like New York and Connecticut to enact gun bans on military style weapons. The Militia statement I believe MUST be included.
 
Μολὼν λαβέ;1066995143 said:
I understand what they have done with interpretation...I just think its kind of crazy. To assume that the founding fathers would have EVER sacrificed their ability to defend themselves or provide for their families is just not logical knowing what we know about them. Pretty much everything I have ever seen written by them states clearly their intent was to protect the citizens rights to weapons of war.
 
Most of us got tired of English by this point but the well regulated Militia would be, I think, a dependent clause. The well regulated Militia is not the subject of the sentence and does not even have a verb connected to it. The "real" sentence is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It is a rather convoluted sentence but it is hard to put much emphasis on that well regulated Militia bit because it lacks a verb and is not the main, dominant part of the sentence. Where is the verb? The verb "shall not be infringed" clearly does not refer back to the "well regulated Militia " bit, it refers to the "right of the people".
 
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?

It is made clear by complementary and contemporary legislation that required all men of military age to muster twice annually and bring a specific firearm corresponding to their rank and role in the militia for inspection and registration.
 
I understand what you meant it as. The problem is we have people...today...that are completely ignoring the military intent of the 2nd Amendment and solely focusing on the rights to self defense and hunting. That has enabled democrat senators to propose bans on over 160 specific commonly owned weapons. That has allowed states like New York and Connecticut to enact gun bans on military style weapons. The Militia statement I believe MUST be included.
Ok, gotcha. But I don't agree on the militia statement. The shortened version just says 'shall not be infringed', period, and as such is all-inclusive without needing to explain. All the militia statement has done is to confuse people and/or give them what they see as an "out".
 
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?



I go back what the founders said about it. I've quoted them a few hundred times on DP. Can do it again if need be.

The militia was everyone capable of bearing arms in defense of their state. This was quite clear.

Military terminology of the time used the phrase "well-regulated" to mean properly equipped and ready to deploy into combat.



In modern terms it would probably be said this way: "A well-armed citizenry, being necessary to maintain the freedom of the citizenry and states..."


That's pretty much what they meant. They disliked the idea of a "standing army" and distrusted having that power lie exclusively in the hands of the central government; an armed citizenry capable of defending itself and defending their individual State against aggression from any quarter foreign or domestic was clearly their primary purpose.


I think it is important to note that the Founders wrote this amendment with the idea that the "right of all free men to keep and bear arms" was fundamental, essential and predated the Constitution by millennia.
 
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?

Taken out of context, it's an incomplete sentence and means nothing.
 
Actually, no, they can't. It is illegal to sell a gun to a schizophrenic. That is the law. Doesn't matter if its at a gun show or at a gun store. The "gun show loophole" is nothing more than a myth perpetrated by those that are trying to regulate guns as much as possible.

A seller is just interested in selling his gun. If he is not required to do a background check on his potential private customer and possibly turn him away because of what he may find, guess what? He's not going to do it.

That's not a myth.
 
Back
Top Bottom