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

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Turin, Sep 11, 2019.

  1. therooster

    therooster Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2014
    Messages:
    13,004
    Likes Received:
    5,494
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Lol. Oh you guys ....
     
  2. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The term "well regulated" is defined as follows in the historical context of the day.

    The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

    https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

    The purpose of the phrase doesn't create the foundation then of the standing army, nor does it mean that government can, or should oversee the kinds, or uses of weapons. That seems entirely clear in the context then of the amendment. I know, that will entirely undercut the progressive narrative. And it should.
     
    Hotdogr likes this.
  3. drluggit

    drluggit Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2016
    Messages:
    30,990
    Likes Received:
    28,460
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You would be entirely wrong. Not surprising....
     
  4. ARDY

    ARDY Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2015
    Messages:
    8,386
    Likes Received:
    1,704
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The militia is referring to a time when we could not afford a large standing army.... nor did we particularly WANT to have a large standing army. For better or worse, Clearly we have moved beyond that configuration of national defense.

    When the revolution began, matchlock muskets were the common weapon technology.
    A rather expensive and clumsy weapon of the time

    The threat before the revolutionary was indian attack
    The threat during the war was the british.... which btw we could not have defeated based upon the militia citizen soldier model.

    The reality is that the threat environment, defense strategies, weapons technologies, and budget have changed so dramatically that the thoughts of our founders on this topic are basically irrelevant.

    I think that is not an unfair reading of the founders intent
     
  5. Collateral Damage

    Collateral Damage Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2012
    Messages:
    10,535
    Likes Received:
    8,149
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Inserting words is not respecting the context of the 2nd Amendment. If the Founding Fathers wanted the word 'because' in the Amendment, they would have included it.
     
  6. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,588
    Likes Received:
    16,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yeah sure they were referring to an organization that doesn't even exist for almost another century. Dude the words are not a limiter but an explanation of the reason that the people should not be disarmed. The militia at the time the second was written consisted of everyone between the the ages of 14 and 65. At least according to several different colonial charters that established what a militia was. Mote the term militia dates back to the Middle Ages and quite possible beyond. The term also figures prominently in the various European countries as late as the Napoleonic Wars. In point of fact you can not have a militia and a disarmed citizenry.
     
  7. garyd

    garyd Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2012
    Messages:
    56,588
    Likes Received:
    16,664
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Sorry at the time of the revolution the match lock had been out of date for nearly 150 years. The standard weapon of war was the flintlock musket a far more reliable weapon though only marginally more accurate at any sort of range and far cheaper and easier to produce. Seeing a great deal of service in the revolution as well was the Kentucky long rifle note the term rifle rather than Musket. It was much more accurate at far longer ranges though slower to load. Note the first Breech loader the Ferguson also saw action during the revolutionary war though it appears to have died a long with it's inventor a few years later. I hate to inform you but most of the rest of your post is equally ignorant the realities of the revolutionary war. And the founders thinking.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  8. jay runner

    jay runner Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2017
    Messages:
    16,319
    Likes Received:
    10,027
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The people are in possession OF the right, not the government.
     
    jack4freedom likes this.
  9. Chester_Murphy

    Chester_Murphy Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2017
    Messages:
    7,503
    Likes Received:
    2,227
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    What do the words "A well regulated Militia" in the 2nd amd mean to you?

    Every able bodied citizen between the ages of 18 and 40 or so. And, the rest who are old and well enough to handle a firearm should know how to safely handle a firearm and be able to shoot with some skill in case they are needed. The older folks can at least load magazines or something. There are plenty of things to do when needed. I'm sure.
     
  10. Dispondent

    Dispondent Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 5, 2009
    Messages:
    34,260
    Likes Received:
    8,086
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Not at all. The militia was never intended to be an arm of the federal government. I find it odd that when citizens did form militias you were the very folks that were so against them.

    The use of the militia would clearly be for defense, but if that is the case they couldn't be gimped by having diminished access to the weapons required for defense. The private citizen would need more access to even more powerful weaponry. Militias are intended to arm themselves. This is definitely the wrong path for gun grabbers to take, it would put millions and millions of more guns on the streets…
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
    vman12 likes this.
  11. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    That would be because we know the national guard is a government entity.

    The 2A was written so that the people would not fall victim to democide.

    "Well regulated" means "functioning correctly or appropriately", at the time of the 2A's writing.

    A citizen militia cannot form quickly if each citizen does not have the individual right to keep and bear arms.
     
  12. squidward

    squidward Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2009
    Messages:
    37,112
    Likes Received:
    9,515
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Show me the prerequisite wording
     
  13. vman12

    vman12 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 25, 2015
    Messages:
    66,645
    Likes Received:
    46,476
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Well then, put together an amendment to make the 2A obsolete.

    The technology issue was addressed in the Heller decision.

    That's why you have first amendment rights outside of ink quills.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
    PrincipleInvestment and Reality like this.
  14. struth

    struth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2018
    Messages:
    33,519
    Likes Received:
    17,956
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If gives the state the right to have what we refer to now as the national guard
     
  15. Reality

    Reality Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2014
    Messages:
    21,456
    Likes Received:
    7,605
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Flintlock rifles were the common civilian arm. The common military issue was the smoothbore flintlock musket.

    Indians, and common thieves, and wolves and bears and cougars.

    You don't think guerrilla warfare tactics work? Charlie is laughing at you.

    Except they're not because the ideas aren't tied to technology nor were the founders unaware of tech advancements. The girandoni air rifle was a favorite of jeffersons and it could stop a man, had a 20 round magazine, didn't puff smoke fire and noise when firing, could fire wet, etc.
    The same way the 1a extends to the internet (something they actually couldn't have conceived of) the 2a extends to arms they probably had imagined could be worked out (semi autos start in 1885 ffs and revolving weapons were in existence for some time before the founding).

    See US v Cruikshank it very much is the law.
     
  16. Turin

    Turin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2012
    Messages:
    5,685
    Likes Received:
    1,853
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male

    Then I should be allowed to own Nukes and Aamraam missles on my F-35.

    Right?
     
  17. APACHERAT

    APACHERAT Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2013
    Messages:
    38,026
    Likes Received:
    16,042
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If you can afford them.

    When the Second Amendment was wriiten, the definition of :arms" was the weapons of war.

    During the American Revolutionary War both the British soldiers and Washington's Continental Army soldiers were armed with muskets.

    The civilian and the civilian militiamen were armed with their own weapons and many were armed with rifles like the Kentucky Rifle which was deadlier and more accurate and having a longer range that the muskets the Red Coats or Washington's soldiers were armed with.

    Even during the 1800's keel boats operating on America's rivers had small cannons and trading post in the western wilderness had cannons.

    Even today American hunters and sportsmen own and possess rifles that aren't black and scary looking that are more deadlier in the hands of a marksman than any M-16A2, M-16A-4 or M-4.

    But is it legal to own a main battle tank with a real 120mm gun ? And can anybody just up and buy something with the insane firepower of a tank or grenade launcher? According to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms, yes, totally legal.

    Back when America was great, we kids sometimes found really cool stuff under the Christmas tree, a Red Ryder BB gun, our first .22 rifle and even a...
    [​IMG]




    And the day I blew up my fathers garage with one of these...

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  18. expatpanama

    expatpanama Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    43
    First, if there'd been an amendment that said:

    "A well educated electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to read and write, shall not be infringed."

    imho the wording does not guarantee the right to read and write only to voters, and the amendment should prevent forbidding non-voters from being allowed to read and write.

    Secondly, the word "militia" means more than "National Guard"; from here:

    mi·li·tia
    /məˈliSHə/

    Learn to pronounce

    noun
    noun: militia; plural noun: militias

    1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
      "creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
    2. a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
    3. all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.
     
  19. expatpanama

    expatpanama Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2017
    Messages:
    710
    Likes Received:
    229
    Trophy Points:
    43
    --and if we have freedom of religion and assembly then are you saying it's ok to have human sacrifice and form lynch mob.

    Right?

    Of course you're not saying that. We all know that all rights have limits. What we got is that limits on arms have to be placed as carefully as say, those for freedom of the press.
     
  20. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,217
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pretending that the Second Amendment would mean exactly the same thing without the Founding Father's prominent, provisional phrase regarding the necessity of a "well regulated militia" as it does with it is obviously silly.

    Those erudite, concise worthies chose their words carefully, and did not indulge in meaningless verbiage, especially when they emphasized their contextual significance by syntactical prominence.

    But, of course, some people with an agenda can be very silly.

    [​IMG]
    "WHAAA!
    Only the part I like means anything!"
     
  21. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,001
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I have used the same argument that they only mentioned a "well regulated militia". They could have mentioned a multitude of reasons such as defense against Indians and wild animals, but those chose to mention only one. Certainly at the time the Second Amendment was adopted, arms were a necessity.

    It still comes down to one single phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.". The Second Amendment makes absolutely no exceptions to this one phrase. It does not say that a well regulated militia is a necessary condition to the right to own and bear arms.
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  22. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,217
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Words have meaning, and the Founding Fathers chose their judiciously. Dismissing any as if they were frivolous is not an option.
     
  23. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,001
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then why are you dismissing "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."? They make absolutely no exceptions to that phrase nor do they state any requirement. As written, it stands alone.

    They could have decided that "a well regulated militia" was important enough to be included in addition to the other valid reasons which were not included. Remember, at that time they were very sensitive to the fact that their newly formed government could be over thrown much easier than today. You have to think about it in the perspective of the times.
     
  24. Natty Bumpo

    Natty Bumpo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2012
    Messages:
    41,217
    Likes Received:
    14,707
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Founding Fathers did not say:​
    The right of individuals to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
    Nor did they say:​
    As defense against Indians and wild animals,
    the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

    The Founding Fathers did say precisely what they said, and precisely what they meant, no more, no less, every word essential:​

    “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."
     
    Last edited: Sep 11, 2019
  25. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    27,001
    Likes Received:
    11,049
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    However, it does not state a well regulated militia as a condition. It was a reason among many reasons for owning and bearing arms. They knew that the people would need to own and bear arms because of the conditions in this new world. They likely also feared that the government might try to take away those arms as a means to control the population and they found that to be unacceptable, not just because of takeover of the government, but because of the other dangers of the time.
     

Share This Page