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

We never pulled the plug and used our power in Vietnam because that was really about China and Russia. We could have taken out Nam in a week. And have you looked at Afghanistan lately? Name a place with lots and lots of guns that isn't a shthole... besides Switzerland.

 

Militia is a group of citizens with some military training who are called into service only in emergencies.

You do know the communists overthrew the Afghan monarchy in 1974. The Soviets joined then in 1979.

 

Let me post the 2nd Amendment as it is clear by your post you have not actually read it

"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."

Now, do you have any other intelligent points you would like to make.....

 

Keep, They can keep government issued guns. Is that too complicated for you?

And how many? I say the number is one gun per person. "The people" and arms are both plural. If they meant each person to keep and bear arms, meaning more than one weapon per person, they would have said so.

 

Your consistency in being absolutely wrong is completely amazing. The militia, is the American public. Everyone capable of in some capacity fighting a common enemy. Perhaps you would do somewhat better debating a subject you actually know something about.... Just sayin.

 

Hey if you want to pay taxes in order for the government to buy me guns and ammo, I have no problem with that...... Or you could just send me a check direct if you want... LOL

 

I can see, you know absolutely nothing about this subject. The most difficult type of war to fight is a guerilla war. Conventional warfare is as ineffective as one of your posts. So far as pulling the plug, we dropped more bombs on Viet Nam that all the armaments that were used in all of WW2 by all sides.
So far as a place with lots of guns which is not a s**thole, you might start with the USA.
In fact if you are looking for s*tholes, you might start with every city in the US which has banned guns.

 

shall not be infringed..........that is all I need.

 

US Code defines the militia as all able bodied male citizens (or intent to become citizens) aged 18-45 who aren't regular military. However, the militia can be logically extended to include women, the disabled and the elderly simply because no politician is ever going to try to enforce exclusion of those groups. The only people who can effectively be excluded are children and felons. Thus, the militia effectively includes all law-abiding adults in America.

Regulation, according to the English-Oxford Dictionary of the time period the Constitution was written, meant 'to ensure adequate operation, supply and cohesive function' more than 'to limit via bureaucratic authority's as it is used today.

But words have objective meanings in law. The common definition today applies, and thus the militia is subject to limitation via bureaucratic authority until we alter or clarify the laws.

Given that regulations are laws, and given that the militia is all law-abiding adults, the militia is therefore well-enough regulated when We The People reach a consensus on what laws we are subject to and what laws we are not. The terminology 'a well regulated militia' is not legally distinct from the term 'a well regulated citizenry.'

As much as I would personally like to see the militia attend regular training and be 'regulated' into an effective defense force (defense from enemies, yes, but also from disasters and emergencies), enforcing that sort of regulation on the general populous would be massively unpopular in today's society.

A viable alternative would be a re-establishment of JFKs Civil Defense program, where volunteers would have access to basic military and emergency response training and surplus govt equipment to fortify the civilian readiness against all types of emergencies.

This would, of course, require the abandonment of the perception that the govt is capable of protecting us from everything...

 

The US. People are just clamoring over each other and various laws to get here and stay here.

 

The Supreme Court decided the meaning of that phrase in 2008 when it decided District of Columbia v Heller:

In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

 

All of which might be interesting, had you not argued that 2A allows private ownership thereof.

Wow. You really think we're stupid.

 

Just a point of order here. A "militia" is comprised of civilians who take up arms together. The National Guard is comprised of part time professional soldiers who are trained by the U.S. Army primarily. The National Guard is a government entity that falls under the command of a state's governor. And, it may be activated by the President to perform service in our national armed service.

Because our military is so strong, we never think of invasion by some foreign country. We simply have no worries about that. But, in the extremely unlikely event that that should ever happen, or, in the event of a major catastrophe where the government and national guard could not keep order or reestablish order, the Constitution allows civilians to form a militia to protect our people and keep order.

 

The Supremes have already ruled otherwise. This whole conversation is pointless.

 

What case did it the Court state the states can’t have.a national guard?

 

They didn't. They ruled that the 2A has nothing to do with the allowability of state National Guards, and that participation in a Guard (or lack thereof) has nothing to do with whether or not an individual was allowed to keep and bear arms. It is an individual right.

 

Oh yes I agreed

 

A well regulated school, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear books, shall not be infringed.

The right is clearly conferred to the people, not the organization of the people. If the amendment read as above, would we have the right to ban books based on the premise that only those attending school have the right to keep and bear them? It's not the school that has the right to bear books. It's the people. In order for them to organize the school, they require books. That's why the right cannot be infringed.

 

I think he's on to something good. The government I suppose the state government should issue military service rifles to all males of militia age.

I think they do that in Switzerland.

↑