The 2A and the militia

[pecksniff]

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."

But, it isn't. The militia in the 18th-Century sense -- a nonprofessional volunteer force, as distinct from a National Guard of part-time professional soldiers -- has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. And yet we remain a free society and keep winning our (conventional) wars.

 

[JohnnySavage]

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."

But, it isn't. The militia in the 18th-Century sense -- a nonprofessional volunteer force, as distinct from a National Guard of part-time professional soldiers -- has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. And yet we remain a free society and keep winning our (conventional) wars.

Interesting that you stopped your quote where you did. You left out the comma after the word state.

That comma is what people have been arguing about for 200 years. It's import varies if you read the constitution as a legal document, or a political one.

 

[Champakian]

Yeah. This thread has been done to death with no conclusion in sight.



It is just part of the religion of the Left that only government can be armed.

Of course, they assume that they will control the government and thus the guns...

 

[CornusKousa]

But, it isn't.

Look....we all know you don't belief people have any rights and especially not a right to defend themselves. Just privileges government allows.

Here in America that's not how things work.

The militia in the 18th-Century sense -- a nonprofessional volunteer force, as distinct from a National Guard of part-time professional soldiers -- has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. And yet we remain a free society and keep winning our (conventional) wars.

Oh it's already playing a role.

That's why it's such a thorn in the lefts ass.

You authoritarian control freaks would have a much easier time trying to force all your race baiting anti-American trash politics if you didn't have 150 million folks and 34 heavily armed states full of fresh outta the ultimate combat training centers of Afghanistan and Iraq...all giving you the finger... all telling you to come and take it.

 

[bellisarius]

And of course those who rely on the "Militia" interpretation completely ignore all of the documentation that exists as to WHY the 2nd amendment exists.

 

[CornusKousa]

And of course those who rely on the "Militia" interpretation completely ignore all of the documentation that exists as to WHY the 2nd amendment exists.

They even have to ignore most of the amendment itself....LOL

Flat out denial of reality and facts to push their anti-American politics, because they fucking hate life, liberty and property.

These people are mentally unwell.

 

[pecksniff]

Interesting that you stopped your quote where you did. You left out the comma after the word state.

That comma is what people have been arguing about for 200 years. It's import varies if you read the constitution as a legal document, or a political one.

We all know what comes next. The issue here is not whether 2A rights are limited to militia, or whether "militia" can be defined to mean just anybody. The point is that the stated reason for having this amendment at all is wrong.

 

[pecksniff]

And of course those who rely on the "Militia" interpretation completely ignore all of the documentation that exists as to WHY the 2nd amendment exists.

It exists to facilitate a militia-based national defense system because the FFs, having had bad experiences with the redcoats, were afraid a large standing professional army would be used as an instrument of domestic rule which they equated with tyranny. But the FFs were wrong. We've had a large standing professional army since at least the War of 1812; it has only been used for domestic rule on a couple of occasions -- during Reconstruction and the civil rights movement -- and never regrettably.

 

[JohnnySavage]

We all know what comes next. The issue here is not whether 2A rights are limited to militia, or whether "militia" can be defined to mean just anybody. The point is that the stated reason for having this amendment at all is wrong.

You are ignoring rules of statutory interpretation. But that's ok. Get enough people to agree with you, and amend the Constitution to eliminate the Second Amendment.

Otherwise, the 70 million gun owners will just smile and nod at your opinion.

 

[pecksniff]

The 2A does not exist to facilitate insurrection. The Constitution empowers the president to command the militia, and the 2A does not alter that.

 

[bobb_sledd]

It exists to facilitate a militia-based national defense system because the FFs, having had bad experiences with the redcoats, were afraid a large standing professional army would be used as an instrument of domestic rule which they equated with tyranny. But the FFs were wrong. We've had a large standing professional army since at least the War of 1812; it has only been used for domestic rule on a couple of occasions -- during Reconstruction and the civil rights movement -- and never regrettably.

Yet...

 

[BoyNextDoor]

2A is fine. That it is misinterpreted to prevent any controls is completely asinine.

But, I guess sometimes the kid needs to touch the hot stove to really understand.

 

[HisArpy]

2A is fine. That it is misinterpreted to prevent any controls is completely asinine.

But, I guess sometimes the kid needs to touch the hot stove to really understand.

I think that you need to go back and read the 2A. The "controls" you mention are there, you just refuse to recognize them because they don't comport with your worldview.

 

[pecksniff]

I think that you need to go back and read the 2A. The "controls" you mention are there, you just refuse to recognize them because they don't comport with your worldview.

There are no such "controls" in the 2A, are there?

 

[HisArpy]

There are no such "controls" in the 2A, are there?

It's not my fault you're STUPID, IGNORANT, and UNABLE TO READ AND COMPREHEND WHAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.

I swear, someone needs to slap every fucking teacher you ever had for giving you a passing grade.

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

This has already been litigated. SCOTUS has been crystal clear on this in the Heller decision. Debate all you want but the right of individuals to own guns is not in anyway dependent on militias or military status.

 

[pecksniff]

This has already been litigated. SCOTUS has been crystal clear on this in the Heller decision. Debate all you want but the right of individuals to own guns is not in anyway dependent on militias or military status.

The topic is not legal interpretation of the 2A, but the wisdom of having it at all.

 

[pecksniff]

It's not my fault you're STUPID, IGNORANT, and UNABLE TO READ AND COMPREHEND WHAT'S RIGHT IN FRONT OF YOUR EYES.

I swear, someone needs to slap every fucking teacher you ever had for giving you a passing grade.

There are no "controls" in the 2A, all it says is "shall not be infringed."

You're really not nearly as smart as your avatar, are you?

 

[BabyBoomer50s]

The topic is not legal interpretation of the 2A, but the wisdom of having it at all.

Ok. Carry on.

 

[Rightguide]

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state . . ."

But, it isn't. The militia in the 18th-Century sense -- a nonprofessional volunteer force, as distinct from a National Guard of part-time professional soldiers -- has played no role in any American conflict since the Spanish-American War. And yet we remain a free society and keep winning our (conventional) wars.

Read Heller, it's all there. There is no need for you to invent novel interpretations of history vis a vis the plain language of the Second Amendment. The results of an exhaustive study of our history, English common law, as it might apply to the thinking of the Founders in the framing of the amendment, is included in the decision written by Scalia and backed by a majority of the Court. All that is required for your edification is a simple reading of the decision, and the intellectual honesty to accept the truth.

 

[CornusKousa]

We all know what comes next. The issue here is not whether 2A rights are limited to militia, or whether "militia" can be defined to mean just anybody. The point is that the stated reason for having this amendment at all is wrong.

How is it wrong?

 

[Rightguide]

There are no such "controls" in the 2A, are there?

The control is, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

 

[CornusKousa]

2A is fine. That it is misinterpreted to prevent any controls is completely asinine.

You need to go read the last four words of 2A then.

 

[HisArpy]

There are no "controls" in the 2A, all it says is "shall not be infringed."

You're really not nearly as smart as your avatar, are you?

*ahem*


"A well regulated..."



Do you know what words are? Or are you literally so fucking stupid you think you can come here and say that words don't exist when they clearly do?

Dr. Robert J. Cottrol is the editor of the book "Gun Control and the Constitution: Sources and Explorations on the Second Amendment." And Cottrol, a Second Amendment expert and legal historian, is the Harold Paul Green Research Professor of Law at George Washington University. He says the words "well regulated" refer to proficiency and top-notch training.

https://www.sun-sentinel.com/opinio...regulated-militia-meaning-20180412-story.html

Now ask yourself, if you can, what "top notch training" means if not "controls."

Seriously, it's like you're totally devoid of ANYTHING resembling brain function.

 

[pecksniff]

"A well regulated..."

In 18th-Century parlance, that meant "well-armed."