HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » The exact wording from th...

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 10:54 PM

The exact wording from the 2nd Amendment. How do you define it?



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.

24 replies, 2202 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 24 replies Author Time Post
Reply The exact wording from the 2nd Amendment. How do you define it? (Original post)
demtenjeep Dec 2012 OP
demtenjeep Dec 2012 #1
BlueJazz Dec 2012 #2
moobu2 Dec 2012 #3
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #4
demtenjeep Dec 2012 #5
Chorophyll Dec 2012 #6
RagAss Dec 2012 #7
sarisataka Dec 2012 #8
demtenjeep Dec 2012 #10
sarisataka Dec 2012 #13
Loudly Dec 2012 #9
Mel Content Dec 2012 #11
X_Digger Dec 2012 #12
moondust Dec 2012 #14
sanatanadharma Dec 2012 #15
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #21
ecstatic Dec 2012 #16
kestrel91316 Dec 2012 #17
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #19
ComplimentarySwine Dec 2012 #18
Zoeisright Dec 2012 #20
demtenjeep Dec 2012 #24
jody Dec 2012 #22
Dems to Win Dec 2012 #23

Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:12 PM

1. seems the well regulated Militia is always left out of the rest. Most just say right of the people

to keep and bear arms

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:13 PM

2. The second and third words speak volumes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:13 PM

3. I think it means you have the right to bear a musket.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:14 PM

4. I define it as a sensible idea for a brand new country, vulnerable to being reabsorbed by

the British Empire, having very little infrastructure and only muskets for protection.

In other words, obsolete and ready for a massive re-think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chorophyll (Reply #4)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:23 PM

5. yes, that was the direction I hoped this would go. I posted amendment 3 and pointed out it was very

obsolete.

These were all responses of the oppressive actions of the king we were fighting to cut bonds with

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Reply #5)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:28 PM

6. I think a lot of us have been forced to do a lot of quick thinking about these things

in the last few days. Thanks for being one of them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:28 PM

7. Keep a musket in the closet and 3 cannon balls behind the shithouse !

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:30 PM

8. It doesn't matter how I define it

what is important is how SCOTUS defines it

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sarisataka (Reply #8)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:32 PM

10. how do you think the framers of the constitution defined it?

we had no true organized military at the time the "militia" was to protect the states after meetings to agree on how to proceede

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Reply #10)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:46 PM

13. My belief is that

SCOTUS was pretty much on with the idea of the 2A. Individuals have a right, though not unlimited, to keep and bear arms. The arms would be the typical individual weapon(s) of the infantry.

While I believe the militia clause is the subordinate, like every clause in the BOR there is a purpose. In this case I can see that while the arms are not regulated, the militia can be. As the militia is defined as all adult males (and presumably females, given the recognition of equality), the people can be regulated. To me it fits both the 18th century definition and the modern that those who bear arms can be required to be 'regulated' i.e. vetted in such fashion as to assure they are able to fulfill their militia duties if called. I have had a very recent change of heart as not many days ago I would have disputed the notion. Some good discussions here gave me a new angle to consider the letter and spirit of the 2A.

Reading some texts, I wonder why no one has questioned the Constitutionality of the army...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:32 PM

9. A free State was supposed to be reassured by that.

States were being appeased with the implication that they could revoke the compact, throw off the Federal government, and secede from the Union.

It was a way of courting States so they would ratify the Constitution.

This, of course, was rendered quite entirely moot by the Civil War.

The Appomattox covenant is that armed rebellion is never legitimate in this country.

Modern claims of some right of access to convenient mass murder are therefore fraudulent. Spoken by liars and traitors.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:34 PM

11. "a well regulated militia" is a rationale, NOT a condition.

 

it does not require active membership in a militia to own firearms. nor does it require the militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:37 PM

12. Here's a couple of modern analogs..

"Because pizza is necessary for late-night study sessions, the right to grow and harvest tomatoes is protected." -- are tomatoes only used in tomato paste?

"I'm out of soda, I'm going to the store." -- Do stores only sell soda? Am I obligated to only buy soda?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:47 PM

14. It lays the groundwork for inevitable murder and mayhem if...

you choose to believe it gives individuals the right to keep and bear unspecified/unlimited "arms" (artillery? really?) If that's what they were trying to constitutionally guarantee then there was no reason to mention anything about a "well-regulated militia."

The framers were not sociopaths guaranteeing murder and mayhem in their "more perfect union." IMO it's about ensuring the common defense in the absence of a standing army.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:52 PM

15. "security of a free State"...

...not personal defense, but rather the needs of society is the sole reason for the 2nd amendment.
Today's society needs more "well regulated" security.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to sanatanadharma (Reply #15)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:05 AM

21. Security of a free state vs. security of a police state n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:54 PM

16. it sounds like they meant each state should have a well regulated

army. Of course, there's no way gun owners will accept a change of interpretation, at this point.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Tue Dec 18, 2012, 11:59 PM

17. Well-regulated militia = the National Guard, IMHO.

So I just do a big WTF about this whole gun thing.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to kestrel91316 (Reply #17)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:04 AM

19. When did the National Guard come into being? n/t

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:04 AM

18. I'm really only interested in the last 14 words.

 

The first 13 really only server as an explanation, but not as a restriction of the last 14. I imagine that if enough people don't like it, though, we can get it changed or repealed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:05 AM

20. You can own as many muskets as you want, as long as you

join a militia and have to spend months training in it.

The Framers would be simply appalled if they knew about what happened with that Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Zoeisright (Reply #20)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 04:56 PM

24. I agree

!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 12:14 AM

22. Congress has all the authority it needs for the militia in Article I, Section 8, clauses 15 & 16. nt

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to demtenjeep (Original post)

Wed Dec 19, 2012, 01:38 AM

23. Gun lovers private arsenals are more important than other's freedoms and lives

Children are expected to wear body armor in the park if they don't want to get shot, go to school in armed fortresses, and never ever go to a movie in a theater. Just because other people love to stockpile and shoot and sometimes lose and sometimes have stolen indescribably lethal weaponry. Sounds fair, right?

I've had enough. Repeal the Second Amendment Now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread