HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » Two words: "well reg...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:34 PM

Two words: "well regulated" are the answer to the whole thing.

The 2nd Amendment says well regulated. If these creeps are so about Constitutionality, then they should be all for regulating the weapons.

Problem solved, now all we have to is get the gun crazies to shut the f#$% up long enough to see the error of their ways.

96 replies, 5825 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 96 replies Author Time Post
Reply Two words: "well regulated" are the answer to the whole thing. (Original post)
liberal N proud Jan 2013 OP
veganlush Jan 2013 #1
Kalidurga Jan 2013 #2
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #3
Glassunion Jan 2013 #5
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #8
Glassunion Jan 2013 #10
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #14
Glassunion Jan 2013 #19
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #23
Glassunion Jan 2013 #28
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #40
Glassunion Jan 2013 #41
madokie Jan 2013 #66
derby378 Jan 2013 #16
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #26
Ptah Jan 2013 #53
WillyT Jan 2013 #78
lastlib Jan 2013 #7
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #9
immoderate Jan 2013 #35
lastlib Jan 2013 #42
immoderate Jan 2013 #47
petronius Jan 2013 #38
Ptah Jan 2013 #54
X_Digger Jan 2013 #79
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #15
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #27
Hugabear Jan 2013 #81
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #82
rustydog Jan 2013 #83
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #94
bluerum Jan 2013 #4
Buzz Clik Jan 2013 #13
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #17
DirkGently Jan 2013 #6
Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #22
Historic NY Jan 2013 #55
DirkGently Jan 2013 #80
rrneck Jan 2013 #11
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #20
rrneck Jan 2013 #25
mucifer Jan 2013 #21
rrneck Jan 2013 #24
RC Jan 2013 #34
rrneck Jan 2013 #37
immoderate Jan 2013 #43
RC Jan 2013 #46
immoderate Jan 2013 #49
davepc Jan 2013 #86
mucifer Jan 2013 #58
immoderate Jan 2013 #73
Berserker Jan 2013 #85
immoderate Jan 2013 #39
Ed Suspicious Jan 2013 #12
libdem4life Jan 2013 #18
xoom Jan 2013 #29
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #30
xoom Jan 2013 #31
Proud Liberal Dem Jan 2013 #32
Historic NY Jan 2013 #56
Recursion Jan 2013 #87
riverwalker Jan 2013 #33
onenote Jan 2013 #36
grasswire Jan 2013 #44
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #61
cheyanne Jan 2013 #45
sarisataka Jan 2013 #50
Recursion Jan 2013 #88
petronius Jan 2013 #48
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #62
regjoe Jan 2013 #64
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #67
regjoe Jan 2013 #68
pipoman Jan 2013 #70
petronius Jan 2013 #74
slackmaster Jan 2013 #51
Paladin Jan 2013 #71
hack89 Jan 2013 #72
Recursion Jan 2013 #89
Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #52
davidn3600 Jan 2013 #60
Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #77
Recursion Jan 2013 #90
Great Caesars Ghost Jan 2013 #91
Riftaxe Jan 2013 #57
cali Jan 2013 #59
bluestate10 Jan 2013 #63
madokie Jan 2013 #65
Volaris Jan 2013 #69
beevul Jan 2013 #75
libodem Jan 2013 #76
Heimer Jan 2013 #84
liberal N proud Jan 2013 #95
Heimer Jan 2013 #96
Whovian Jan 2013 #92
krispos42 Jan 2013 #93

Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:43 PM

1. exactly.

The authors put "well regulated" for a reason, and only the delusional can deny it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:43 PM

2. Yes, words have meaning.

And ignoring them has consequences in this case thousands of people dying every year due to violence and accidents. I consider suicide a form of violence, but I do separate the two kinds of violence outward and inward so to speak.

If you want a gun you should be part of the militia. If you want one for self defense you should be limited to the amount of guns you have for that purpose and the size of the magazine clip.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:43 PM

3. WRONG!

Keys words are "shall not be denied." The Founding Fathers (direct descendants of Jeebus) didn't give a shit what kind of weapon that might be developed. SHALL. NOT. BE. DENIED.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:50 PM

5. Your key words are wrong.

Just sayin'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #5)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:52 PM

8. Hey! You commie pinko freak!

What about Monica Lewinski?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #8)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:54 PM

10. What about her?

All I'm saying is that your key words do not exist in the 2nd Amendment. You are mistaken in your quote.

Do youself a favor and read the 2nd Amendment. The word "denied" is not in it anywhere.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:58 PM

14. Damn, man.

I was being sarcastic.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #14)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:01 PM

19. Cheers!

Trolls, zombies and sock puppets are abound, my armor is thick as of late. Perhaps too thick...

My bad...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #19)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:04 PM

23. I debated putting in a :sarcasm:, but I thought I was being obvious

Nevertheless, I understand completely.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #23)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:06 PM

28. Damn! I was about to go to DEFCON 2.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #28)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:39 PM

40. Yikes!

Is there a hair dryer in that mess?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #40)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:41 PM

41. Yes.

And an Easy Bake Oven.

It will also get your whites white and lift tough stains out of your carpet.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #41)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:00 AM

66. But while wearing a blue dress will it give a BJ

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Glassunion (Reply #10)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:58 PM

16. Psst!

I think he's pulling our legs. (At least, I hope he is...)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to derby378 (Reply #16)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:05 PM

26. I've been hanging our these guys too long. My imitation must be dead on.

My apologies.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #8)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:18 AM

53. the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service

Mail Message
At Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:

Hey! You commie pinko freak!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2211439

REASON FOR ALERT:

This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)

ALERTER'S COMMENTS:

Name calling is not allowed

You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:17 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.

Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Comedy is allowed, leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: being sarcastic
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter failed to read the rest of the subthread.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: it was SARCASM!

Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Ptah (Reply #53)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:29 PM

78. Whew...






Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:52 PM

7. Why is there a comma between "right of the people..." and "shall not be denied"?

"A well regulated Militia (comma) being necessary to the security of a free State (comma) the right of the people to keep and bear Arms (comma) shall not be infringed."


It makes a difference in the logic. The phrase "a well-regulated militia" becomes a superior clause and thus the subject of the phrase "shall not be infringed." The other two clauses become subordinate, thus are modifiers of the superior clause. In other words, the sentence could be written without the two subordinate clauses.


http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:54 PM

9. Rules of grammar. Setting off the clause.

What?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:29 PM

35. Your grammar is confused.

The militia "clause" can't be a main clause because it has no verb. It sports a gerund.

The subject of the main (independent) clause is "the rights" and the verb is "shall (not) be infringed."

The commas are irrelevant.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #35)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:42 PM

42. No.

the verb is "be".

You are confused. "A well-regulated militia" is a nominative clause--it does not require a verb to do its job. The verb is in the predicate clause "shall not be infringed" following.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #42)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:01 AM

47. It does not say "be." Being is the verbal, in this case a gerund.

"A well regulated militia shall not be infringed" does not make sense.

It's "rights" that are not infringed.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #7)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:35 PM

38. In modern usage, those extra commas, make it, pretty much, gibberish

In historical usage it just means the printers felt like tossing in a couple of extra commas (and not all of them did)...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:19 AM

54. Two versions:

As passed by the Congress:

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.

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to lastlib (Reply #7)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:30 PM

79. 18th century grammar rules were weak at best.

They used commas like we use salt shakers. Check different drafts, even versions between the different houses of congress.

No, arguing about the placement of commas in an 18th century document is like arguing about the placement of bolts holding up a stop sign.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:58 PM

15. Well regulated does not tread on shall not be denied.

You can have you fucking gun, but it must be regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #15)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:06 PM

27. We're on the same page.

I was being a jackass and pulled you in.

Sorry.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:49 PM

81. FULLY AUTOMATIC FOR EVERYONE, NO BACKGROUND CHECK REQUIRED

You really think there should be no limits whatsoever?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Hugabear (Reply #81)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:31 PM

82. When God wrote the Constitution...

... He made it perfectly clear that we can own any weapons of any kind. And not just firearms. If I can afford it, I could buy a tactical nuke.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Buzz Clik (Reply #3)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:14 PM

83. A well regulated militia SHALL NOT BE DENIED.

Keep your fucking AR15's, HK's, 100-round drum shotgun....but we'll regulate the hell out of it. it says so in the 2nd Amendment!

You can own any fuckin firearm made on planet earth...BUTyou must store it at a state/federally-licensed gun range. You cannot remove anything from the range. All discharging of such weaponry must and will be done at said gun range.

When you purchase a new assault weapon,it will be shipped to your chosen gun range.
Your ammunition must be purchased through the gun range you store your firearms at. You cannot remove any ammunition from the gun range.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rustydog (Reply #83)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 10:33 AM

94. What?

Is this a fantasy of yours?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:48 PM

4. Creeps? You really know how to talk to people.

No. Not really.

How many guns did you see today?

Why are you so afraid?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluerum (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:56 PM

13. You win the prize for the catch phrase of the day! "Why are you so afraid?"

Personally, I am not afraid. I own firearms but do not carry them because I am not afraid of my own shadow.

By the way, "creeps" pretty well describes people who flatly refuse to help find a solution while enabling thousands of deaths every year.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bluerum (Reply #4)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:01 PM

17. Concealed carry

That is why I am so very afraid, that and short fused people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:51 PM

6. "militia" is rather significant as well.


It's a poorly drafted Amendment, frankly. Reeks of being worked over by too many committees. But it is kind of funny to hear "strict constructionist" arguments that neatly excise the entire "militia" clause.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #6)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:04 PM

22. That there were two versions doesn't help matters either. For being such skilled writers, they

really muffed that one up.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to DirkGently (Reply #6)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:26 AM

55. Actually Madison drafted 20 amendments, reconstituted to 17 and then

They condensed them into eleven, and removing the language which Madison had used so they would be integrated into the body of the constitution. I think some things were lost in the translations of the meaning by more contemporay generations.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Historic NY (Reply #55)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:46 PM

80. Interesting draft. Seems to solidify the "military" nature of militias.


I like Madison. He was crystal clear in his later years that a true "separation of church and state" WAS intended in the First Amendment.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 10:56 PM

11. Can't have a militia without people

whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:02 PM

20. Regulated does not deny.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #20)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:05 PM

25. True. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #11)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:02 PM

21. But, it is "well regulated" militia.

Seems to me the whole thing is open to interpretation.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:05 PM

24. Sure it is.

That's why we have a mountain of case law sitting on top of it. A selection of "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms would members of the "well regulated" militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to rrneck (Reply #24)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:25 PM

34. That mountain of case law is because the 2nd Amendment is so poorly written.

 

It wound have been much clearer if it were written as: To keep and bear arms, you must be a member of a well regulated militia.

Just because one has "arms", it does not follow they are a member of any militia, regulated or not.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:29 PM

37. Maybe.

There is one fundamental truth about all weapons, including guns. They can be used for offense and defense. That was the case before the eighteenth century, it's the case now, and it will always be so. The militia part was probably a necessary recognition of the times, while the fundamental truth of human aggression and hate are eternal.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #34)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:43 PM

43. A militia was comprised of anyone with a gun.

"Well regulated" meant you knew how to shoot it. (See federalist #29.)

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #43)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:54 PM

46. Brahahahahahahahahahahah... :::catches breath:::

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #46)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:10 AM

49. ...and here I was feeling sorry for you...

I can explain it, but I can't understand it for you.

In Federalist 29, Hamilton discusses the problems of supporting standing armies. He uses the terms well regulated several times. And you'll get an idea of what that phrase meant in the 18th century.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #46)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 01:29 AM

86. Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 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.


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to immoderate (Reply #43)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 03:46 AM

58. White men with guns.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #58)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 11:57 AM

73. LOL



--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #58)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:12 AM

85. YESSSSSSS

 

We are the only one with guns now. Next we are taking over the world.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mucifer (Reply #21)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:38 PM

39. In Federalist #29, Hamilton discusses the problems of a standing army.

He uses the term "well regulated militia" several times in such a way as its meaning can be inferred. It is similar in meaning to "well qualified" or "adequate." The founders wanted to allow citizens to keep their guns, so they would know how to shoot them if they were called up.

The militia itself was more like a posse than a national guard.

--imm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:01 PM

18. What is a 21st century militia ... is every domicile a militia? Every truck with a gun rack?

Well regulated seems to speak for itself in modern terms, albeit debatable.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:08 PM

29. Who decides what "well regulated" means?

 

Everyone will have a different opinion.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xoom (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:11 PM

30. That should be what the debate is about

Not all this rhetoric about having their precious killing machines taken away.

We can't have a civil discussion about gun control in this country because of the crazies in the gun nut realm.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #30)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:13 PM

31. I agree completely.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xoom (Reply #29)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:18 PM

32. The point IMHO

is that the Amendment implies/suggests that gun ownership can be regulated (just not banned/prohibited completely) and, presumably, the manner and type of regulation can be decided by the legislature. It's an badly written Amendment that would practically require the resurrection of its authors to figure out just what the hell they meant!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xoom (Reply #29)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:57 AM

56. It pretty clear if you read the constitutional debates....

both in Philadelphia and the states conventions....what they were thinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2171843

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to xoom (Reply #29)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:25 AM

87. No, the Constitution is very clear that it's Congress

Regulating the militia is one of its enumerated powers in Article I.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:20 PM

33. they emphasized WELL regulated

not just regulated, but WELL regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:29 PM

36. There are conflicting interpretations of those two words

One more justice on our side and a different interpretation probably would have ruled the day. But the interpretation that was adopted by a majority of the court looked at those two words and concluded that (1) its the militia that the Constitution refers to as being "well regulated" not the right to bear arms and (2) the phrase "well regulated" as used in the 18th century meant "well trained". I'm not saying I agree with those interpretations, just that those are the interpretations that a majority of the court adopted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #36)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:44 PM

44. then "well regulated" demands even closer scrutiny of owners!

If they are required to be "well trained" prior to owning the guns ---- what provision is there for training at this time?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onenote (Reply #36)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:41 AM

61. Gun owners today are neither well trained or regulated

Too many gun owners have little or no official training on the use of such a machine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Thu Jan 17, 2013, 11:50 PM

45. Isn't the National Guard our militia?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheyanne (Reply #45)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:11 AM

50. Nope

The ruling of Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) gives the Federal Government power over the NG superior to that of the State. The power to order the NG to duty in non-emergency situations is not limited by the militia clause Art. 1 Sec. 8. Essentially declaring the NG is a part of the US Army and not a State militia.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cheyanne (Reply #45)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:26 AM

88. No, the militia is defined in the 1947 National Security Act

It's currently all able-bodied males between 17 and 45.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:03 AM

48. "Well regulated" isn't what matters, it's "infringed"

The meaning of the second is pretty clear: the Framers believed that the ability to call forth a properly functioning militia is essential, and that ability relies on an armed (and competent) citizenry. So, the right of individuals to own small arms was protected.

However, what is "infringed"? It could be a completely hands-off, no restriction, anything goes sort of rule - but it's been pretty well accepted that that isn't the case for any right. They're all subject to some sort of restriction and limitation. So what sort of limitations are allowable on 2A before it becomes 'infringement'?

The second really is only about militias - it doesn't refer to hunting, self-defense, target shooting, collecting, investment, or anything else that gun owners mosty care about. The Framers probably took those things for granted - enumerating the right to keep a gun for hunting perhaps sounded as silly to them as enumerating the right to wear shoes - but it's not in the BoR.

So, that militia clause is really a double-edged sword - if all that really matters is protecting the ability to summon a militia, the arms that are really protected are those that a modern infantryman would carry - today, that's a true (select-fire) assault rifle. Gun controllers certainly don't want to argue that. But, if 2A doesn't really protect anything other than the ability to summon a militia, there's no reason to think that laws against public carry, or target shooting, or even hunting are impermissible. Pro-RKBA folk don't want to go down that road...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to petronius (Reply #48)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 06:44 AM

62. You can regulate without infringing

You can allow people to own weapons, just regulate the number of rounds they are allowed to fire without reloading.

You still have your gun and there is less chance of someone killing 26 people at one pull of the trigger.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #62)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:55 AM

64. Which explains why

 

we already regulate the abillity to kill 26 people "at one pull of the trigger."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to regjoe (Reply #64)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:12 AM

67. IF YOU can't hit the target in 7 shots, you need to consider a new hobby

And who hunts with an assault weapon?

Semi Automatic Weapons have one purpose, to kill people, why do you need one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:23 AM

68. Not what you claimed

 

YOU falsely stated "...less chance of someone killing 26 people at one pull of the trigger." More than likely intentionally in order to incite fear so as to garner support.

Fact is, one would have to have a fully automatic weapon in order to do what you say and those weapons are heavily regulated.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #67)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:42 AM

70. Semi-automatic weapons are used extensively for hunting

and other lawful uses and have been for at least 8 decades..

Others may also say the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with "needs"..if we are going to only protect "needs", most of the Bill of Rights is unnecessary..

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #62)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:57 PM

74. That's what I'm saying. I disagree that "well-regulated" is the key, because that

"regulated" really doesn't refer to legal, statutory, political regulation. "Infringed" is the word that matters - rights are subject to some limitation and restriction, the question is always where that restriction becomes infringement...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:13 AM

51. I'm regulated just fine, and I don't need you to tell me what the Second Amendment means

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to slackmaster (Reply #51)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:50 AM

71. Yeah, But Antonin Scalia Could Use Some Help. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Paladin (Reply #71)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:52 AM

72. Scalia specifically says that government can regulate guns

I thought that is what you wanted.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hack89 (Reply #72)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:45 AM

89. Yeah. Heller doesn't say what its proponents or opponents seem to think it says

IANAL, but as I read it even Scalia said that pretty much anything but an actual literal ban on firearm ownership in the home a la DC or Chicago is permissible.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:14 AM

52. This is why we need a new constitution.

 

Everthing is either vague or outdated

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Reply #52)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:09 AM

60. Seriously...we would end up in civil war trying to draft a new constitution

No one would agree on anything. We would literally be at each other's throats.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to davidn3600 (Reply #60)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:25 PM

77. What's the difference?

 

We're in a civil cold war anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Great Caesars Ghost (Reply #77)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 02:46 AM

90. What's the difference between a civil war and a civil cold war?

Something on the order of 20 million deaths.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Recursion (Reply #90)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:21 AM

91. With the way things are going, it is becoming inevitable.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 01:40 AM

57. My firearms are in good

working order, so i am in compliance.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 05:03 AM

59. you're wrong. the constititution is not interpreted by me or thee

and that is not what the damned SCOTUS has ruled. They are the arbiters of the Constitution.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:25 AM

63. Those Mofos have seen only what they want to see in the Second Amendment for decades.

Why do you expect them to now read and think about what the Amendment really says? The Founders never intended for people to run around with guns willy nilly, with no role for governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 09:58 AM

65. Damn I wish I could rec this a hundred times

maybe if I erased my cookies I could do it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 10:33 AM

69. lol you apperently have yet to learn the Republican Mantra, young Padawan...

"Constructionism is only allowed to work in OUR favor. Fool."

I'm NOT being a troll. This is what they REALLY believe over there...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:00 PM

75. The bill of rights itself clarifies the significance of "well regulated". N/T

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Fri Jan 18, 2013, 07:08 PM

76. Exactly

No where does it state "running amuck".

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 12:03 AM

84. Well regulated refers to the people. Not the weapon.

Which I would agree we have none of. There is no regulation at all. Hence the problem. -Replace regulated with trained and it will read the way it was intended by the founders.


It will never boil down to the weapon. Just the people. There are adults out there that cannot safely handle a screw gun, let alone the real thing.

However, I know 14 yo children I would trust with my life, a bazooka and a minigun - and some of them can even outshoot me.

It's the people, people.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Heimer (Reply #84)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:24 AM

95. So we can regulate how much amo one person can own.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Reply #95)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 11:31 AM

96. How did you draw that conclusion? Nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 06:23 AM

92. I think you have a very good point.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to liberal N proud (Original post)

Sat Jan 19, 2013, 07:12 AM

93. Ah... so only men should be allowed to own guns.

Gotcha.


Because, you see, as a male between the ages of 17 and 45, I'm in the militia as defined by 10USC311.


The unorganized militia, of which I'm a part, is as well-regulated as Congress mandates it be... which seems to consist entirely of me being able to breathe.






There are 3 entities in the amendment: the State, the People, and the Militia. One of them is required to be well-regulated, and another of them is required to have the right to keep and bear arms.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread