What do the words "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd amd mean to you?

However, there are people on this forum who do want to take our guns away. Does that mean that our guns will be taken away? Probably not in the near future, but they can make it very inconvenient. Eliminate this, eliminate that, make it more difficult to this, make it more difficult to do that. It all adds up to making life more difficult for legal gun owners.

For example. Walmart's decision not to stock ammo used in semi-automatic pistols or "assault weapons" is just a start. I tend to buy from Walmart because they cost less. I can get the ammo I want at other stores, but it will be more expensive. I doubt that a casual observer walking into Walmart would even notice the difference. They will still see shelves full of ammo with little knowledge of what it is for. Will Walmart's decision save even one life? Probably not. Someone who wants ammo to kill someone will just go somewhere else. For those of us who depend on the ammo for self defense and target practice are the ones who pay the penalty.

 

Your post has nothing to do with the topic. Try to focus or maybe a new hate Trump thread is in order?

 

Just because you are psychotic about Trump doesn't mean that everyone else is.

 

Then you want to amend the Constitution.

No. What we now call the National Guard was provided for in A1S8, C15&16; but irrespective of that, states already had the inherent right to form their own militias.

Negatory. The danger in private possession of a nuclear warhead arises not just from the possibility the owner will detonate it and take out thousands of his neighbors, but from the attraction that warhead will have for terrorists, which makes it detrimental to the security of a free state - to say nothing of a free country.

 

The founders recognized that in order for a functional, effective militia to be possible, that the people's ability to arm themselves and remain proficient must not be hindered.

 

No, "well regulated" does not mean "well equipped." Regulation is not equipment, although it might include it.

 

If nobody is going to take my guns away from me, then why can't I buy a machine gun?

 

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789

"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788

 

Yeah well, I defended my argument with a federalist paper that explains exactly why the well regulated part is included in the 2nd.

You can say "no" all you like, but that's not an argument. It's just saying no.

 

You can claim the Founding Fathers actually meant "equipped" when they said "regulated."
I recognize that they said and meant "regulated."

 

So you disagree with Hamilton.

A guy who was a federalist, signed the declaration of independence, elected to congress in 1782, and wanted to explain why the constitution says what it says, but... you disagree.

Mmmmkay.

 

If all the checks and balances failed and the government became like Nazism controlling all the military could you fight them and change the outcome?

 

A well regulated militia means (by the framers) any group of able bodied men who voluntarily could follow directions, had guns, and knew how to use guns. Militias were only localized in communities and states. Period.

 

There are so many freaking federal safety and health regulations, no private individual would ever be able to manufacture and possess a nuke.

Do you know how high the tariffs are on importing a nuke into America ?

 

The Federalist papers were written by Federalists who's desire it was to have a central controlled government much in the mold of British.
They were opposed by true Americans like Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Pane, and Benjamin Franklin.
None of that changes the fact that regulated in the case of the 2nd Amendment means equipped and anyone who argues that point is ignorant of the use of English language at that time.

 

Regulated in those days meant that the firearm was properly sighted in.

 

In the case of the 2nd Amendment the meaning was obviously closer to well equipped, which is what a militia needs to be in order to function properly. As with all words with multiple meanings, we must look to the context of the paragraph to understand their true meaning. In the case of the 2nd, it was explaining that the national security depended on then, and still does, an armed population which could be called on to defend the nation in the case of invasion.

The Constitution was well thought out and very well written. Your definition of the word does not make sense in the context of the statement, and cannot seriously be considered to correct.

So far as able bodied, it is a military term meaning a person who is in condition to go into combat. the definition of this term is variable depending how desperate the situation.

 

What are you talking about? What do checks and balances and Nazism have to do with the need for a citizens militia?
The concept is that in a patriotic nation, in the event our armed forces are overrun and our country invaded by hostel forces, the citizenry would rise up and with the arms guaranteed them by the Constitution form local militias to fight the enemy. Now you can call this guerilla warfare, you can call resistance, or whatever term you like, but it is intended to serve as a supplement for the military and the purpose is the defend the country. Damn, didn't you people learn anything in school?

 

Yes they chose them quite carefully indeed. They were the explanation for why the citizenry could not be denied whatever weapons it chose it use. It wasn't meant to limit who could own a weapon since and it clearly wasn't referencing the national guard which term doesn't even exist for another few decades and is found no where else in the document or the federalist papers. By the way interesting self portrait....

 

There apparently exists a class called 'word twisting 101' whose prerequisite is illogic 102.

 

LOLOLOL...

 

Of course the founding fathers had no way of knowing that 200 years down the road we would become a nation of complete idiots incapable of understanding what they said or why they said it......

 

Remember it was a Republican who finally stood up to Joe McCarthy.. Not all Republicans are spineless.

 

I think the point is that your AK47 isn't going to work well against Apache Attack Helicopters, F35 stealth fighters, and MOABs. I'm pretty sure the founding father's didn't take this into account.

What's more, there is nothing saying you have a right to own arms, only to bear arms. This can be achieved by having the government issue guns and making all privately-owned weapons illegal.

 

Seem to work just fine for the North Vietnamese. Not to mention the Afghans against the USSR..... But don't let facts interfere with your educated opinion.....