History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

The argument I have made comes from the following words in the preamble of the US Constitution which I and many legal scholars sets the context for all other rights and rules set out in the Constitution:

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

The term "people" is clearly used in a collective sense not individual sense and the laws these people are envisioned to create are to "insure domestic Tranquility".

Domestic tranquility is the purpose of the Constitution. It is therefore not logical and it removes from the actual very basic purpose of the laws to be created to create laws that would promote domestic violence and not tranquility. People who ignore the words "insure domestic tranquility" remove the Constitution from its very purpose when they pass ANY laws that would enable or promote domestic violence or instability.

Therefore arming people with unlimited powers through guns let alone militias (armed gangs) to do what they want without laws to assure they only engage in "insuring" domestic tranquility would violate the Constitutions' very purpose/

No you to not insure domestic tranquility sending armed people into the streets unregulated with unlimited and unchecked powers to do what they want. It removes this power you give such people from the context in which the Constitution wishes them or government to act and that is in a manner that insures domestic tranquility.


The statements I made above about using the word "people" and "person" or "persons" and stating "people" is a collective term but "person" or "persons" refers to individuals can be found in many studies including:

https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/

Case Western Law Review, Volume 74, Issue 4 (2021)

 

I am sorry I am lengthy but this is a complex topic with no simple answers and I strongly back Golem's interpretations for legal reasons not subjective ones but I respect Bastiats stated opinions as he is doing an excellent job stating a classic position of Libertarians and those who give a strong emphasis to specific opinions that favour individual over collective rights when reading the Constitution. Bastiats did not invent those arguments but he does a great job of restating them. I disagree with them in a legal sense but not with what he says or his right to argue them or the fact his positions have many legal scholars that would defend them with their explanations. Its just such a long and complex topic I can't properly give Bastiats the fulsome debate I would love to give him.

 

I have including how to respond to people like you when they distort and exploit the holocaust for their own political agenda.

A detailed explanation of why your analogy is false can be found at:

Fordham Law Review, Volume 73, Issue 2, Volume 11, On Gun Registration, The NRA,Adolph Hitler, and Nazi Gun Laws: Exploding The Gun Culture Wars ( A Call To Historians), BernardE. Harcourt.

If that is too wordy for you try:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_gun_control_argument

Your argument is offensive. It blames victims of the holocaust. Your words "Had your people been armed and put up even a tolen resistance" is actually quite ignorant and meant to be. Why you chose to deflect and attack me as a Jew and all Jews for not having weapons and offering token resistance to suggest that would have stopped the holocaust really does not do you justice.

Stop and think at how simplistic and idiotic your contention is Its been regurgitated by Neo Nazi white supremacist groups ironically to justify owning weapons and operating as armed thugs.

Using your arguments had Jews created their own SA and Nazi party replete with SS there would be no holocaust.

That has nothing to do with the US and is an ignorant hateful attempt to blame Jews for the holocaust.

The US is not a Nazi regime in need of armed Jews. What a stupid point to try make to justify your arguments. The United States in fact has all the safeguards Nazi Germany did away with so that it will not be taken over by Nazi Thugs like an SA who the Proud Boys and other militias are no different from.

No do not lecture me or any Jew we should have formed an SA and that would have prevented the holocaust and that is why you defend unregulated militias. Its hateful and absurd.

Look I had to live in a situation of being armed to defend people simply because they were Jews and for that matter because they were Palestinian and did not wish to engage in violence. Now that you raise that issue and since you opened that can of dead bodies, I did have family die in the holocaust, fight in the Canadian and American armed forces and in the resistance. Wrong person to discuss afrmed resistance with as if I do not understand why people defend themselves or die.

Its precisely because of that connection when I discuss the holocaust or any genocide, I talk of the failure of people to engage in peaceful tolerant dialogue no I do not argue they should have killed their enemy first and killed more of them,

I commemorate the dead not those who initiated their massacre. You mistake violence with self defence. Militias do not go out on the street to defend against a holocaust. What utter bullshit to equate the US as Nazis in need of stopping by armed resistance.

You are talking about soldiers who died fighting the Nazis precisely so you could live to peacefully argue things out not shoot guns. Why do you think your soldiers died, so you could create anarchy and a failed state and shoot people because you disagreed with them? You make a mockery of the brave men and women of your country who defeated Hitler and Japan, etc. My God man where is your head at?

source for below:

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-control-regulation-nazi-germany-did-not-hel/

Now that you raised this ugly reference let people understand why it was repeated by Ben Carson and has been repeated by other GOP pro Trumpets:

"On March 13, 2018, gun control activists laid 7,000 pairs of shoes on the lawn outside the Capitol in D.C. to represent the victims of gun violence since the Sandy Hook shooting in 2012. Soon after, gun-supporting social media users created an image meme to compare it to Nazi Germany.

The viral image shows the shoes on the Capitol lawn along with the words, "shoes left by supporters of gun control, 2018." Below that is a photo of a pile of thousands of shoes belonging to concentration camp victims, with a caption beside it that says "shoes left by victims of gun control, Germany 1945."

The article summarizes the legal report I gave you:

"First, strict German gun regulation was in place before Hitler rose to power and he later oversaw gun laws that loosened many firearm restrictions.

According to a 2004 analysis by Bernard Harcourt, a professor at Columbia University, after the Germany’s defeat in World War I, the Weimar Republic, the government that preceded Hitler’s, passed very stringent gun laws that essentially banned all gun ownership in an attempt to both stabilize the country and to comply with the Treaty of Versailles of 1919.

By the time the Nazi Party came around in the early 1930s, a 1928 gun registration law had replaced the total ban and, instead, created a permit system to own and sell firearms and ammunition.

But Dagmar Ellerbrock, an expert on German gun policies at the Dresden Technical University in Germany, told PolitiFact in 2015 that the order was followed "quite rarely, so that largely, only newly bought weapons became registered. At that time, most men, and many women, still owned the weapons they acquired before or during the first World War."

The Nazis used the records to confiscate guns from their enemies, but Ellerbrock also said the files included very few of the firearms in circulation and that many Jewish people and others still managed to stash away weapons into the late 1930s.

In 1938, the Nazis adopted the German Weapons Act, which "deregulated the acquisition and transfer of rifles and shotguns as well as ammunition," Harcourt wrote.

Under this law, gun restrictions applied only to handguns, permits were extended from one year to three years, and the legal age of purchase was lowered from 20 to 18."

 

Um... I'm not sure where you are going with this long comment on my post or that it has anything to do with the question posed in the OP.

 

Really or do you understand what I am arguing but disagree with it because you ignore the words "well regulated" and do not wish to discuss the meaning and implication of the qualification "well regilated" placed before the word militia?

The op asks WHICH people would form part of the "well regulated: militia.

I and others argue it is WELL REGULATED people not just anyone who gets together with others but people who have been properly trained and will be properly controlled (regulated) in what they do.

 

I am still waiting for you to explain what "well regulated" means in your opinion. You have not. You simply argue it has no meaning.

How does "well regulated" not mean something that is controlled/supervised/held accountable/competent/professional/ethical? Please tell me. Tell me how one who is well regulated is not held accountable for their behaviour by someone other than themselves?

Using your continuing arguments a person who drives a car is regulated but a militia would not be?

The point I made is the Constitution would not have created an unregulated militia. That would be a recipe for anarchy and a failed state and would be completely out of context to the stated purpose of the Constitiution which was to create a system of elaborate regulations to control behaviour to assure a peaceful society not a violent one..

You have yet to repudiate a thing I have said. Can you? Please-provide your definition of well regulated and explain how it would not include training and holding the group or individual reponsible for their use of power including guns.

The point Golem made rerpeatedly is your right to own a gun and form a group is qualified not unlimited. That is the point.

In your definition it is not because you have no third party training and commanding militias.

If you concede the federal laws and state laws in fact do regulate militias which I would argue they do, then you would concede gun rights and the right of militias is subject to other provisions of the constitiution and the rule of law and is not some abstract and dettached notion that enables anyone to take the law into their own hands.

That is the issue because supporters of Donald Trump have done just that. They have used a definition of militia and the right to bare and use arms in a context to mean if they don't like existing laws, they can go into the streets and break the laws-but if anyone else does exactly what they do but has a different political opinion, its wrong and they should be shot and if need be killed.

My argument is that there is one standard for all not one for right wing militias who support Trump and another for everyone else.

 

I've explained it several times. Well Regulated according to a turn of the century Oxford dictionary defined it as "Rendered operable, In working condition." The example sentence give was as follows "A well regulated Pocket watch is a gentlemen's best friend." We associate Well regulated with Control or Limitations. In 1800, That is not the case. Well regulated if we parlance that into our language in 2020 would be "Well equipped" or "Working well"

Other examples from the Oxford Dictionary

1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.”

1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.”

1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.”

1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.”

1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.”

1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.”

So "well Regulated Milita" means "well Equiped Militia" Which is the exact opposite of state control of firearms.

 

Why are you using a dictionary to select only definitions you want?

You went to this article: https://constitution.org/1-Constitution/cons/wellregu.htm

You went to an opinion article that removed specific definitions to then be used out of their actual context to apply to the person's subjective opinion that he does not disagree with what "well regulated" means but argues it didn't mean the government should be the ones doing the regulation.

On that point if you are going to use a dictionary for your definition why do you only use the above dictionary definitions which are unrelated to the issue and not this one?

"well-regulated
See synonyms for well-regulated on Thesaurus.com
adjective (well regulated when post positive)
(of a business, military outfit, routine, etc) controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations, tradition, etc. well-regulated militia)

source:https://www.dictionary.com/browse/well-regulated, https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/well-regulated

You went to an opinion piece and to understand the legal meaning of words placed in a constitution of any kind you must start by reading the preamble which you did not do. Any meanings that subsequently appear in the constitution can not be removed from the stated purpose of the constitution which you have done. You isolate the words and give them a political meaning that suits your political agenda that government should not regulate militias.

Interestingly when I went to the Oxford Dictionary (https://www.lexico.com/definition/well-regulated) I found this but its interesting you didn't find it:

"well-regulated
Pronunciation /ˌwɛlˈrɛɡjʊleɪtɪd/
adjective
Properly governed or directed; (now) especially strictly controlled by rules or regulations."

Nothing in what you said challenges the Miller case which clearly stated "well regulated" before the word militia referred to the militia being
"imposition of proper discipline and training".

You keep skirting around what well regulated means to deflect from that meaning to argue government should not assure the imposition of that proper discipline and training. You make the issue who should do the regulating because you can't get around the requirement that militias were intended to be regulated.

The entire pith and substance of your argument comes from Justice Antonin Scalia stating that the amendment protects a right to possess a firearm unconnected to military service and that individuals are free to use such weapons for “traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.” Nothing in that comment says the use of those weapons is to be unregulated. It in fact even states this regulation or limitation when using the weapon and that is its purpose must be for: traditionally lawful purposes". Nowhere did he say you can use weapons and form militias for unlawful purposes.

So the question necessarily becomes who determines what an unlawful purpose is, the militia? Does that make sense? Of course not. Governments pass laws as to what is lawful. then Judges then are asked to use legal reasoning to determine what lawful purpose means in context to a particular fact situation.

The law that sets the stage for the definition of lawful purpose to then be defined by a Judge has to first be passed. Judges to not interpret things in a vacuum. They determine things in response to parties seeking a ruling or clarification as to how to apply a law to a particular situation.

It is inescapable. Someone or something has to determine when a militia is properly regulated so as to assure it acts "lawfully". So just who does it and why. Its easy to argue it should not be government. If not government than who?

Does it make any sense someone can define for themselves what is lawful because that is precisely your argument and the argument of those individuals who think militias are NOT accountable to government but can operate in a dettached vacuum from government authority. If dettached from government authority, which agency or element assures the regulation of militia.

Stop telling me its not the government and tell me why it makes logical or any sense to believe militia can regulate itself. Please. I am still waiting. You keep saying oh its not the government...finish it...who then and why?

 

Why am I using a Turn of the century oxford dictionary to understand Turn of the century written works? I would think that should be self evident. What well regulated today is irrelevant to the meaning of it when it was put to paper in 1789. What matters is how it was MEANT To be understood by the founders. To do that We have to UNDERSTAND how they used words. Not how we use words today. It is quite clear by the evidence provided that 'Well regulated' was used differently back than then it is today.

 

I read the same Miller case others did who believe "militia" should not be regulated by government but won't explain then who will assure the militias will be "well regulated".

Pro Trump supporters call themselves militias. Interesting though because they ignre Article I, Section 8, Clause 15 of the Constitution which states the purpose of militias was/is to “execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions.”

The Trump militias do not execute laws of the union, they call for them to be ignored. They did not go to Capital Jill to suppress any insurrection. They in fact went to violently demonstrate against the existing laws of the state and to denounce the existing electoral system and election results. They called for violence, ridiculed the legal system and called for the killing of the Vice President for not subverting the results of the election. These individuals claimed laws were broken and conspiracies were committed and yet to date and despite countless appearances in court to argue this point, not a shred of evidence for a Judge to consider.Not only that the election officials who also investigated the claims of election fraud were most often REPUBLICAN as were the Judges who found no evidence in court.

No the people who voted for Biden were not invaders, insurrectionists, nor did they break laws and yet that is what Trump claimed and these protesters claimed posing as "patriots" or "the peoples'" militias.

Again Judge Benitez adhered to Judge Scalia's description that while US Citizensd are entitled to own firearms unconnected to military service and that individuals are free to use such weapons, the use must be for “traditionally lawful purposes".

Yes I read the decision and yes Benitez accepted this individual's right, including to own assault weapons. I also read he defined "citizens militias" as and I quote an “informal assembly of able-bodied, ordinary citizens acting in concert for the security of our nation.”

Yes he did also distinguish a "citizen militia" from a "state organized militia".

However if you read his words the definition of "citizen militia" is open to ambiguity and uncertainty. Interestingly the examples Benitez gave were the armed followers of Fidel Castro who took power from the existing government and the Viet Cong nd the Taliban and Iraq.

That is quite the company to place citizens militias in the US with, the Taliban. I am also sure right wing extremist militias of theUS woudl love to be depicted as Cuban Marxist rebels or Viet Cong. The point is he gave examples of different groups with different purposes. The Taliban are a terrorist group that follows no government laws only its own internal set of rules based on its various cell leaders individual interpretations of the Koran. The Viet Cong were a civilian army of the North Vietnamese and joined by South Vietnamese not to support the laws of South Vietnam but to impose the North Vietnam government on South Vietnam and do away with South Vietnam as a state. They were in fact either invaders from North Vietnam or technically traitors fighting on behalf of an enemy state to end their own state. I say that without commenting on the propriety of their political intent.

The militias in the US were they set up to do what the Taliban or Viet Cong did? Would it be acceptable for them to engage in the same terrorist tactics those two groups did and Taliban still does? Is that what the US envisioned a constant war between armed cells?

Really? That's the formula to build and maintain a state-feuding cells of armed civilians who can at will when they do not like the law rebel in the streets? The United States of Somalia?

Can we get real. How can any state survive or manage if it operated in a vacuum of armed cells running rampant? That makes no sense. None. Zero. Somehow that militia must be regulated or it turns on its own citizens and causes chaos and anarchy.

Its ironic because the US rebelled against King George but now has people wanting to create a new King with the identical powers King George had and to call anyone who does not agree with the king the enemy that needs to be forcefully dealt with. How is that what the US envisioned when it created a free state. How is a state free from tyranny if its own people tyrannize each other?

Benitez of course could not and did not dare define militias in other than confusing terms because he can't possibly come up with a definition of militias when each one at this time claims it can define itself and there is no uniform definition of militia other than its not part of government.

Those who argue militias are not to be regulated by government have to know that in the context of history "well regulated" was inserted to assure those militias were not out of control angry mobs.

Back we go to Scalia's decision where he stated the right to own a gun is “not unlimited,” . and so the Supreme Court held that state and federal authorities can bar firearms from schools and public buildings.

The same laws used to justify owning guns do not say that right is unlimited. Militias must engage in "lawful purposes". Both have limits.

The question remains and is not being answered is what should be regulated and by who and no it never meant you take to the streets when you do not like the laws or the opinions of others and point guns at them and/or shoot them or vandalize property whether its Capital Hill or anywhere else.

 

Nice try but you have not done that. You have deliberately ignored the context of why they placed the words "well regulated" which you are or should be very well aware was inserted because of a fear of mob rule. You conveniently ignore parts of US history that don't conform to your agenda.

Here this comes from someone who supports your arguments that militia should not be regulated by government:


"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.

“This was written at a time when there was relatively little in the way of formal training in marksmanship on the part of armies and usually less on the part of militias,” Cottrol said. “The idea was that familiarity gained with weapons in private pursuits would translate into a militia that could be mobilized when needed.”

Please explain. You keep avoiding it. Who was supposed to assure the proper training and how? Does it make sense to take that meaning and today claim it means anyone can call themselves regulated if they claim they trained themselves and so no government needs to regulate them? If not the government who? How are you nothing more than an armed vigilante if there is no publically accountable body that has trained you? Next how and who assures you act in a LAWFUL manner?

Two questions, just answer them.

 

Whatever it means, it is irrelevant in terms of who holds he right to keep and bear arms, under the protection of the 2nd.

 

The supreme court can read the constitution, if they want. I'm showing you what it says. This thread is not about the gun legislation the supreme court decided to pass. But your argument from authority fallacy (Argumentum ad Verecundiam) clearly shows you have nothing to contribute.

So... thanks for playing...

Correct!

I posted this and all threads about the 2nd A in the Political Opinions forum. Mods moved them here.

 

I have ignored nothing. Not only does Well regulated in the context have of the second amendment have absolutely nothing to do with government control of firearms, not a single other amendment in the bill of rights a collective right of the government. The Present participle that its attached to is not the subject of the second amendment. "People" Are the subject of the second amendment. The second amendment says paraphrased "in order to have Well equipped Militia members, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed." It is a simple statement that lines up with Historical accuracy when you couple it with other statements made by framers and the history of the time. Not only that, it lines up with the rest of the Bill of rights which are all universally considered individual rights. In order for your and golems terrible illogical conclusion to be true, the bill of rights would have to be 9 rights enshrined as individual rights and 1 collective right for the federal government? Absolute nonsense.

You are never going to get anyone to agree with you because:
-You don't understand basic grammar.
-You Completely ignore the historical context of the second amendment
-You completely ignore the legal context of the second amendment
-Your completely ignore basic logic regarding the purpose of the Bill of rights.
- Golem and yourself Entire argument is built on a Sand castle know as Collective rights which does not stand up to any sort of scrutiny which is why the law has ruled the way it did in Heller and Macdonald. And guess what? Its going to strike down semi automatic rifle bans shortly as well.

 

No that is your illogical assumption. It assumes lawmakers would not want anyone with a deadly weapon let alone someone forming a militia with deadly weapons would not be regulated. Your argument would have people believe its irrelevant to assure people with guns are properly trained and only use them for lawful purposes. How do you come up with such a ridiculously absurd assumption. What next people who drive cars or fly planes need not be regulated? People who operate on do not need to be regulated?

 

1-You clearly do not because you refuse to acknowledge the words "well regulated" as meaning just that.
2-You completely ignore the historical context of the use of the words "well regulated" that was inserted to assure the militia would be properly trained and only engage in lawful actions.
3-You ignore the preface of the Constitution which includes the second amendment and was created to guarantee lawful behaviour through regulated, accountable agents, representatives and bodies.
4-You ignore the Bill of Rights and everything I raised with not one response and no where does the Bill of Rights state it is your right to tke to the streets and engage in any action you want let alone not be properly trained to use a weapon, nowhere.
5-Regulation is not a collective or individual right. Regulation is the exercise of assuring either and individual or more than one person (person, persons) is properly trained and qualified to engage in lawful actions.

Again you avoided each and every point I made and avoided them

You refuse to answer who regulates the "well regulated" militia. Go on then if you do not think "well regulated" means they should be regulated spit it out man.

 

1. False-You just don't understand grammar at all.
2.False-The historical context shows citizens owned private firearms for military use
3. The bill of rights specifically enumerates 10 amendments which specifically spells out things the federal government is prohibited from doing. More precisely the rights are assumed and the 10 amendments ensure that the federal government may not violated them. Its the same for every single one of the first 10 amendments.
4. We absolutely have stand your ground laws in this country and we have had so since the inception of the united states. Defensive gun uses far out number illegal gun uses by a large magnitude. Obama's CDC even stated as such.
5. In the context of the second amendment your entire argument is built on the silly notion that the second amendment is built on some sort of collective right of the government to control firearms.

You have been thoroughly owned repeatedly by myself and others. As has golem. I will contribute no more time to your delusions. You are dead wrong and you will always be wrong.

 

No. It's fact.
The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
Thus, "well-regulated" does not play into it, because "well-regulated" modifies "militia" not "the people" or "the right to keep and bear arms"

 

You realiz4 just conceded my argument and that is that "well regulated: modifies the definition of militia.

In regards to your reference to people, the fact people have the right to keep and bear arms does not mean they CANNOT be regulated nor does it mean the militia should not be regulated which is precisely your position and makes no sense.

Nowhere does any law in the US or its Constitution say people can not be regulated let alone people with guns or in a militia can not be regulated. Of course they can.

Can you at least try grasp the issue? Are you now arguing no one with a gun should be regulated ever or no one in an armed militia can be regulated ever, or are you muddled as to your references and are arguing you actually believe militias can't be regulated by government.

If you believe militias can be regulated just not by government than who regulates them? If you want to ditch the words "well regulated" before militia to mean it doesn't mean well regulated just ignore it please provide the legal case or law that says ignore the words "well regulated" they were written down but mean nothing.

You don't seem to be establishing any basis for your conclusions and assumptions. You present subjective selective opinions as to which words in the Constitution you will acknowledge and which ones you will ignore.

Get real please. Read the words and stop trying to ignore them. WELL REGULATED has a modifying meaning or it would not have been put in. It means a militia held accountable for its behaviour to assure what it does is lawful. How could you know a militia is acting lawfully without someone assessing whether they are acting lawfully, i.e., being well regulated. Please explain. Why would a constitution that has a check and balances system to prevent any one body having arbitrary unquestioned power give so to unregulated citizens? Does that make sense to you?

This is why you live in a country where some people don't think twice of a driver's license and what you need to get one but piss their pants if someone asks them to pass a test before they can use a gun let alone roam the streets posing as the law because they feel they can do what they want. Lawful does not mean people roam the streets doing anything they want with guns in a group. It never did. If that was the case there is no need for laws or government of any kind. Just use some common sense man.

Power without regulation necessarily is tyranny the very thing your county was created to break free from and you are trying to recreate the very system your ancestors were fighting to break free from. Most of the King's armies in Britain were the same citizens you want roaming the streets taking the law into their hands.

Its called mob rule, peasants by pitchfork demanding people have their their heads chopped off.

What a recipe for freedom and tolerance roaming gun gangs unaccountable to anyone because in your world "people" are not regulated only governments.


That is the fact. Your confusion is not a fact its a subjective opinion that you believe no one with a gun or in a people's militia can be regulated.

No law has said that and even you admit militias must be well regulated.

 

they seem to disagree with your interpretation.

no I knew what it said long before you ever posted here.

You're trying to falsely interpret it. You are attempting to gaslight.

If any of this was true then you wouldn't have made the first two points you are addressing my points because they are relevant to the subject.

You are lying to yourself to try and convince yourself that it isn't.

If you really believed it wasn't you wouldn't have made the first section of this post that I responded to.

 

Which has nothing to do with the fact that whatever "well-regulated" means, it is irrelevant in terms of who holds he right to keep and bear arms, under the protection of the 2nd.

So long as said regulations do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms - sure.

I took no such position. Pay more attention.

Just a well-established holding of the USSC - that's all.

Rulings from the USSC are not opinion - they're the law of the land, and they trump opinions to the contrary.

Whatever "well-regulated" means, it is irrelevant in terms of who holds he right to keep and bear arms, under the protection of the 2nd.

 

There's a word I understand.

Never in my four years in the Political Forum have I observed someone who could write so much and say so little.

Thanks,
Rich

 

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority."
-Alexander Hamilton

Clearly, the federal government is granted the power to regulate the militia by the Constitution. Gun control which is rationally related to regulating the militia is constitutional. Congress, for example, could mandate gun registration in order to analyze the preparedness of the militia. Background checks could be required to evaluate someone's fitness to serve. If members of the militia in one state had a surplus of guns then their guns could be taken and given to members of the militia in another state who had a shortage of guns.

 

Trying to insult me because you do not have the ability to respond is self evident. Thank you.

 

Gun regulations do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms -they regulate the right to right to store and use weapons. Try keep up.

You claim you " took no such position" when referring to militias needing to be well regulatd. You most certainly did. You indicated the words "well regulated" modified the word militia. How about you pay more attention to what you write.

You stated: "Just a well-established holding of the USSC - that's all."

You have provided no legal decision that states the government can not regulate individuals or militia when it comes to their storing and using of weapons.

The storing and use of weapons or supervision of how to safely use such weapons is part of assuring they are well regulated, which is wording you admitted modifies the word militia. You also have admitted militias must act lawfully which is another modifying regulatory word as to the use of weapons.

You also ignore the preamble to the Consitution that requires all its provisions assure peaceful engagement not violent unlawful engagement.

In fact you ignore all regulation and pretend it can not exist if someone is armed or in an armed group because you assume any regulation of the use of arms would be an infringement.

In fact your argument assmes regulation of fire arms and militia necessarily infringes on the right to bare arms or be in a militia.That is illogical. Regulations do not automatically infringe. That is your personal opinion as to what they mjst do because you won't acknowledge regulations do not prevent you from owning weapons or joining a militia but they can assure your activities with both are properly trained and monitored so you do NOT act unlawfully. No where in the constitution does it say you can act unlawfully in a militia or act unlawfully with a gun. Of course it doesn't as you are well aware.

The regulations we speak of do not stop you from owning a gun or joining a militia but they can assure you behave in a well managed and lawful manner.

You stated:

"Rulings from the USSC are not opinion - they're the law of the land, and they trump opinions to the contrary."

Nonsense. Rulings are most certainly expressed as legal opinions and they are the law of the land unless the elected members of the appropriate law making assembly delete, amend and/or replace them or they are appealed by a higher court's decision.

You in fact keep stating an opinion that militias and people who are regulated when they are using guns in militias or otherwise have their rights infringed on. That is in fact a baseless opinion and not based on any written law.

No written law has eveer been stated and interpreted to state regulation of guns is NOT allowed and automatically infringe on the right to bare arms-you assume it does and then you go a step further and again with no legal basis just subjective assumption assume a government can't regulate people and/or militias if its about guns.

That brings us again to another subject you keep and that is, "well-regulated" is irrelevant in terms of who holds he right to keep and bear arms, under the protection of the 2nd. That makes no logical sense.

If it was not relevant in terms of who has the right to keep and bare NOT bear arms, they would not have qualified the word militia with the modifiers "well regulated".

Drafters don't qualify words with modifiers when they do not intend to. That makes no sense. They put the words in precisely because it was relevant because they wanted those who hold the right to keep and bare arms to be well regulated, i.e., well trained and well monitored and supervised so they act in a lawful manner and did not become angry armed mobs acting in an absence of peaceful and rational means.

You and your cult Trump followers can keep ignoring the purpose of law and regulation and pretend your forefathers intended to institutionalize roaming armed gangs not accountable to anyone but themselves.

That would be tatamount to anarchy and failed state mechanics and would completely ignore the fact that militias must act lawfully and their lawful actions also must be guaranteed.

Each and every power granted government and you the people are subject to regulation. Each and every power was defined with another power to check and balance it so that no one power would have a monopoly so as to prevent tyranny.

In your strange and selective world you believe a state is created by creating armed groups with people unaccountable for their behaviour who can when they feel like it break the law provided they support Trump. If its convenient to your political interests you call such people patriot militias. If its not convenient to your political interests you call such people terrorists and criminals.

Its a bullshit selective take on US history, your laws and shows a complete and utter ignorance to the basic concept of rule of law which your forefathers most certainly intended. No they did not draft a Constitution so you end up like Somalia or Syria which is precisely the recipe for the country you want. Your cult leader Trump told people to break the law not uphold it. He didn't say, there is a legal system in place to change laws and that is based on electing law makers-he made up a claim that ONLY the elected law makers he disagreed with were voted in by fraud. He claimed fraud and not one shred of evidence was provided.

You still parrot him like a cult follower. You give no thought to his telling Americans to break the law based on his unproven claim they did not have to follow the law because others didn't. You bit into his two rights or wrong stupidity and still do arguing people are not accountable for their behaviour with weapons since they have a right to own guns.

Guess what. You are and will be. Take to the streets with a gun to try break the law and you will be arrested. Try break the law with a gun and you will be arrested. Sure in some states when you shoot people dead because you are an idiot who does not know how to handle a weapon and panics in public carrying an assault rifle you can get away with it. You bet. You can then have dinner with Proud Boys and give out racist salutes and giggle and carry Confederate flags but guess what-one of these days soon, you won't get a jury or a judge that finds the negligent behaviour an excuse for murder.

In the case of Rittenhouse it could be argued he was an idiot. One day the shooter will not be considered an idiot, just a murderer. Careful for what you wish. What goes around comes around. The armed mobs you want to cloak with an air of credibility by calling militias fool no one not even you. They are armed mobs. No they will not operate in an unaccountable and unregulated manner. Maybe as a child no one told you not to have a tantrum when things do not go your way but now you are an adult with a gun people will and if need be you will get shot dead if you don't stop your tantrum.



So long as said regulations do not infringe on the right to keep and bear arms - sure.

I took no such position. Pay more attention.

Just a well-established holding of the USSC - that's all.


Rulings from the USSC are not opinion - they're the law of the land, and they trump opinions to the contrary.

Whatever "well-regulated" means, it is irrelevant in terms of who holds he right to keep and bear arms, under the protection of the 2nd.[/QUOTE]


Whatever "well-regulated" means, it is irrelevant in terms of who holds he right to keep and bear arms, under the protection of the 2nd.[/QUOTE]