[RexImperator]

With the talk of gun control in the US ramping up again, I thought I'd mention this part of the second amendment. Many people are unaware of what it means. "Well-regulated", in 18th century parlance, means well-trained, or drilled, not "constrained by regulations/laws" as we think of the word today. The "regular army" was the phrase used to refer to the professional trained army, while a militia was made up of citizenry.

I do think training and being part of a militia are two aspects of gun ownership lacking in America today.

[Paracelsus]

That's because you're looking for a militia that doesn't have a black flag with Arabic writing all over it. This particular form of militia is likely to be the only legal militia in the West by the year 2025.

[porscheguy]

(06-19-2016 09:02 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I do think training and being part of a militia are two aspects of gun ownership lacking in America today.

You do understand that if more than 4 or 5 gun owners get together, lots of cultural marxists and SJWs concerned citizens get nervous and want to start making trouble?

[J. Spice]

As defined in Title 10 of the US Code, there are 2 types of militia: organized and unorganized. Organized militia refers to members of the National Guard or reserve units. Unorganized militia refers to male citizens between 17 and 45.

[BassPlayaYo]

(06-19-2016 10:11 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 09:02 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I do think training and being part of a militia are two aspects of gun ownership lacking in America today.

You do understand that if more than 4 or 5 gun owners get together, lots of cultural marxists and SJWs concerned citizens get nervous and want to start making trouble?

When lots of cultural marxists and SJWs concerned citizens get guns everyone else gets nervous and want to start making trouble?

Quote:

The reference to the Black Panther Party probably refers to the Mulford Act enacted in 1967 under Ronald Reagan during his period as Governor of California. This act effectively restricted citizens from carrying guns in public and created one of the countries most strict gun control regulations. This was a direct reaction to the Black Panther Movement’s rise in California and in the 1960s, the NRA would not yet have been a hard-line advocate for gun ownership rights. In the 1980s Reagan changed his opinion on the subject. He would begin to actively encourage 2nd amendment rights to keep citizens safe from the despotism that could be enacted by government, just what African Americans had been hoping to achieve in the 1960’s when he had instead endorsed the Mulford Act. The post 1977 NRA endorsed their first presidential candidate, Ronald Reagan, after both had switched to a more strict 2nd amendment rights defense.

https://blog.uwgb.edu/alltherage/fact-ch...hemselves/

[Parzival]

A fair government should not fear armed citizens because it represents the citizens. I support the idea of a society that is able to defend itself. In the past it was a duty to serve your country to defend the rights of your tribe, group or nation but military service get abolished because most governments work for greedy elites that are not better then corporations with no social responsibility.

[Shrodax]

(06-19-2016 10:11 PM)porscheguy Wrote:  

(06-19-2016 09:02 PM)RexImperator Wrote:  

I do think training and being part of a militia are two aspects of gun ownership lacking in America today.

You do understand that if more than 4 or 5 gun owners get together, lots of cultural marxists and SJWs concerned citizens get nervous and want to start making trouble?

Can you imagine the SJW outrage if Roosh decided to start his own militia?

[Valentine]

^ If the enemy doesn't want you to do it, then it's probably the right step to take.

[Leonard D Neubache]

"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."

Notice that everything up until the asterisk applies no legal burden on the latter part. It may as well read "A well banged bitch, being necessary to the notch rating of the player, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I know it's a minor derail, but I hate it when gun rights advocates get enticed into debates about the first half of the 2A when it's unnecessary and they stand only to lose from it. Pretend the first half doesn't exist. Legally speaking it's just fluff.

As for being part of a militia, for most people it's just too much effort, and certainly a waste of time if someone were simply attempting to tick the "well regulated militia" box since the parasite gun-control class would never confer you such a title regardless of how solid your G-unit was.

[Shrodax]

(06-23-2016 02:25 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  

"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."

Notice that everything up until the asterisk applies no legal burden on the latter part. It may as well read "A well banged bitch, being necessary to the notch rating of the player, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I know it's a minor derail, but I hate it when gun rights advocates get enticed into debates about the first half of the 2A when it's unnecessary and they stand only to lose from it. Pretend the first half doesn't exist. Legally speaking it's just fluff.

As for being part of a militia, for most people it's just too much effort, and certainly a waste of time if someone were simply attempting to tick the "well regulated militia" box since the parasite gun-control class would never confer you such a title regardless of how solid your G-unit was.

I haven't supported changing the Second Amendment, but now I might be willing to have it changed to your new suggestion!

Every time an anti-gun idiot tries to spout nonsense about how the Second Amendment only applies to militias, I like to point out that certain state constitutions, written around the same time as the U.S. constitution in 1787, are even more specific about gun rights. The Founding Fathers would certainly have been aware of these clauses, so looking at these other wordings about keeping and bearing arms, it's fairly obvious what they intended regarding the Second Amendment.

For example:

Quote:

Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it. Pt. 1, art. 17 (enacted 1780).

Pennsylvania: The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned. Art. 1, § 21 (enacted 1790, art. IX, § 21).

Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State -- and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power. Ch. I, art. 16 (enacted 1777, ch. I, art. 15).

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/statecon.htm

[Leonard D Neubache]

(06-23-2016 05:31 AM)Shrodax Wrote:  

...
Every time an anti-gun idiot tries to spout nonsense about how the Second Amendment only applies to militias, I like to point out that certain state constitutions, written around the same time as the U.S. constitution in 1787, are even more specific about gun rights. The Founding Fathers would certainly have been aware of these clauses, so looking at these other wordings about keeping and bearing arms, it's fairly obvious what they intended regarding the Second Amendment.
...

Absolutely. The progressives are perfectly willing to ignore all historical context as and when it suits their purposes.

[Volbeck]

In case anyone is curious, the grammatical term for the first part of the second amendment is "nominative absolute."

A plain reading of the sentence indicates that the right to keep and bear arms is the people's. And I'm not aware of any other place in the Constitution where "the people" is supposed to refer to the National Guard or whatever else detractors claim: "We the National Guard of the United States… do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." Or: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the National Guard." Something seems off.

I once listened to a talk by Eugene Volokh on the historical and legal context of the phrasing of the second amendment. It was probably a variation on his 1998 testimony to Congress, in which he argued that the second amendment protects an individual right:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/beararms/testimon.htm

And that was probably a shorter version of his law review article from that same year:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.htm

Here are various historical sources that he has gathered together for educators:

http://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/2amteach/sources.htm

I don't get too deep into this stuff, because for many people the precise wording of the Constitution doesn't matter, and never will. And in a way, it doesn't matter, since those in the federal government don't care. Just today the U.S. Supreme Court was one justice away from deciding that Congress really doesn't have power to establish a uniform rule of naturalization, and instead that it's up to the president to act arbitrarily. And Congress had already decided to fully fund an amnesty pushed by the executive after they chickened out on passing their own. By the way, amnesty (or continued mass immigration) would mean death to the second amendment, irrespective of arguments about grammar and historical context:

http://www.breitbart.com/big-journalism/...amendment/

[RexImperator]

Quote:

Every time an anti-gun idiot tries to spout nonsense about how the Second Amendment only applies to militias

Well, you can take that and turn it around. It's clear that the second amendment refers to guns used for defensive and military purposes and has nothing to do with hunting. This makes it clear why an outright ban on "assault style" or military type rifles would properly be unconstitutional.

Not that it matters...if Hillary is elected she will fill the court with more left-wing justices who believe it means "the army can have guns".

[merkit]

Maybe a stupid question, but I'm not really familiar with American law and all. When I read
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State
I'm wondering if private security firms or your local neighborhood watch are covered by that, and if so, if that gives them some special rights over other groups or individuals as far as gun ownership is concerned.

[realologist]

I believe the founding fathers understood the importance of this Amendment which is why they placed as the 2nd Amendment. It is a protection against a government becoming tyrannical, unjust and unfair.

It was how America won their Freedom from England. I believe they feared that The US government could do the same thing in the future so they kept it as a safe guard to allow the citizens to protect their other rights and amendments to the Constitution.

All "A well-regulated militia" really means is an organized militia force that would protect the rights of American citizens if the government pushed it's power too far and infringed on too many rights.

[sixsix]

Here's my explanation from an older thread:

(01-26-2016 06:05 AM)sixsix Wrote:  

Since so many people get it wrong, and since that view is intentionally being pushed in the media by so-called objective experts, this is what the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution means linguistically:

2nd Amendment Wrote:

"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, then-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.

Despite being placed at the back, the second part is the independent clause, the main sentence the amendment is about, a sentence that can stand by itself. In contrast, the first part cannot stand by itself. It is an dependent clause meant to give more information about the independent clause.

Independent clause: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

In other words, the people have a right to be armed and the government is not allowed to touch that. Like the other amendments of the Bill of Rights, it is meant to limit governmental powers and safeguard rights and freedoms.

Dependent clause: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state."

This can not stand as a separate sentence, and is meant to modify the main clause. It is a bit old and therefore confusing. It provides a reason for the amendment. Why should the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed by the government?

The United States of America was founded in a context of tyrannical governments. Power corrupts people and governments, however noble at this moment, cannot be trusted to stay benign. It's why government powers were limited. And as a last protection against a dictatorship, against slavery, they wanted the people to be able to fight a government-gone-rogue.

An armed population is a constant reminder to the people in power that they can be held responsible. One person with a gun can't do much, but when they organize into well thought out militias, they can protect the free state.

Enemies foreign and domestic. We're being distracted with false foreign enemies, so we do not see the intentions and machinations of the real domestic ones. They lie via omissions, they lie with statistics, and they want to take your weapons.

Since it is necessary for the protection of the free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Really? Let's ask Jefferson:

Thomas Jefferson Wrote:

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

So when they come for your guns, it is very clear that would be exactly the authoritarian scenario the Founding Fathers wanted to protect against, and there is only one possible response to that.

The point is that it doesn't matter if the progressives get to stack the Supreme Court with their ideological operatives. They will just argue for the wrong meaning of the 2nd Amendment and the mainstream media will only let the public hear about why that's correct. Controlling the airwaves is why they win. And they have been priming the masses for acceptance of gun confiscation for a long time, and in combination with changing demographics of people who are pro-gun-confiscation, they will get their legislation passed step-by-step.

[Samseau]

Correct, Sixsix. However, please remember that according to the founder's, "rights are inalienable" and "God-given." So it doesn't matter what the Supreme court or lawyer says, everyone has a right to bear arms. God says so.

[LeeEnfield303]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_o..._v._Heller