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

Correction: they HAVE an interpretation. I don't have an interpretation. I just read it as written. Without removing anything... without including anything that is not there.

 

who is they the keebler elves the Illuminati?

So second amendment establishes what is clearly an individual right for each person.

If you're going by what is written then that's the conclusion you would have to come to. That's the conclusion people way more educated than you have come to.

 

The same "they" YOU mentioned. You're not reading even your own posts? No wonder you are not reading mine.

This is why it's a waste of time debating posters who are not interested in a serious debate.

 

Whatever "right" you think the 2nd A "establishes", I have proven that it's NOT a "right" to own a firearm. I couldn't care less if it establishes any other "individual" or "collective" or... whatever type of "right" you want.

 

Well, no.
It protects the individual's right from infringement.

 

You keep repeating the same word, infringement to mean it does not allow ANY regulation. That is your subjective opinion of regulations.

The primary legal definition of the term infringement means in fact the breaking of a law. You are using it in a subjective context as per its secondary meaning which refers to the action of limiting or undermining something.

In your argument you subjectively assume any regulation since it limits or undermines something can not exist and the words "well regulated" before the word militia have no meaning and further using your logic all laws let alone regulations infringe and therefore are not enforceable against "the people" because you feel they limit their actions.

Of course they do-they limit their actions to prevent those actions from becoming illegal, unlawful or unsafe. In your world since you don't feel militias should not be regulated you claim the regulations infringe.

The law is clear in the US. It can limit unlawful behaviour of people who own weapons. Limiting how they use the weapon does not infringe on their right to own the weapon but it will define how the weapon should be used. That is not an infringement. You assume the limit undermines. That is illogical. By assuring the weapon is used by a well regulated militia or properly regulated individual, it does the opposite of undermine owning a weapon, it assures the ownership of the weapon is lawful and safe and prevents unlawful and dangerous use of weapons. Not regulating weapons to assure they are properly used would in fact undermine their use by not safeguarding against dangerous and unlawful use of the weapon.

You do not want to engage in logic. You want to engage in selective subjective partisan argument to argue a militia or you for that matter can not be told what to do with a gun or be told you must be regulated and properly trained. No more no less.

Your argument you can't be regulated because it infringes on you would mean when your forefathers created the US and created a complex check and balances of powers to make sure no one person or group had absolute power, they decided oh hell, when it comes to "the people" it will just say they can get together in private armies and do whatever they want". Does that really make sense to you?

Your entire argument places the militia in a vacuum of doing whatever it wants because if its told anything that would infringe on it which you do not think is allowed. So using that reasoning when that a militia that is NOT properly trained and supervised when using weapons in times of crisis makes sense.

That makes zero sense. You are claiming the US is Somalia, i.e., its a nation of warlords and cells each doing whatever the phack they feel like.


Is that it. Is that your vision of a democracy? Is that the peaceful society prefaced as the vision for all your laws in the US Constitution? Is that it? You just ignore the very preface and stated purpose of your constitution, remove words from their overall context of assuring peaceful conduct and use these words in isolation to justify you having armed gangs roam the streets taking the law into their hands?

Stop playing man.

You give no implication when you throw out the word infringe.

You just spit it out to mean you do not think you can be told you must be regulated if you have a weapon, period.

Guess what you can. Its called the law. It exists. The fact you do not want it to does not make it go away.

 

It does not allow regulations that infringe on the right.
What regulations infringe on a right?
Those that are arbitrary, unnecessary and/or ineffective - for what should be obvious reasons.

Because that's -obviously - the context that it is used in the amendment.

I do? Where? Cite the post and copy/paste the text.

In terms of who holds the right to keep and bear arms.
"Well regulated" modifies "militia", not "the people"; "the people" hold the right to keep and bear arms as protected by the 2nd.
Thus, in those terms, it does not matter how well-regulated the militia is.

I don't? Where? Cite the post and copy/paste the text.

I do? Where? Cite the post and copy/paste the text.

That might be true, if your assumptions regarding my positions were true.
So far, you're batting 0.000

 

so you have no idea you just typing posts to exercise your fingers?

such an incredible waste of time you can't resist made another response to me right after this one.

This is like you whining about me being off topic well continuing to post on the topic I'm talking about.

 

no you haven't. Because the right to keep and bear arms as in own them which includes firearms is exactly what it says.

You are creating an artificial fiction that nobody believes but you any other people so roasted in your same broken philosophy.

Firearms were specifically what it was talking about so you are incorrect.

 

He's fishing from a slow-moving boat.

 

Without any bait or a hook or fishing line.

 

Americans have the right to bear arms. Its in the Bill of Rights. Debating it is silly...much akin to debating the right to vote. Deal with it.

 

Tog stop deflecting. Its pointless. The argument you deflect from because you have no argument is that while you have the right to own a gun(no one said you did not) its not an unlimited right.

You are arguing your right to own a gun has no limits such as assuring you the gun owner must have a license and if you join a militia be well regulated. You want to walk the streets carrying a gun clearly. No one is arguing that. Own your gun and carry it. However if you point it at someone or shoot it off, you might have a problem yes. Likewise join a group all walking the streets with guns what do you think that does? You clearly think it makes people safer. Guess what you are not the only armed group. There are others and not all of them are as holy and righteous as you. Speaking of holy and righteous, how does anyone know you as an individual or part of a group is holy and righteous with your gun unless you are well regulated.

What is the way to assure you aren't just a violent fascist? Tell me...please. You have avoided answering the question over and over. How does one know what your intentions are unless they regulate you?

What I walk up to you on the street and say hi Tog-wuzzup what do you believe in? Can you please get real and stop running from the topic and that is your right to own a gun either as an individual or in a militia is regulated.

The words well regulated were put before militia precisely because the forefathers wanted to make sure those militias were upholding the law not breaking it. At the time militias were forming they did not want them to be exactly what you argue they should be, unregulated. They wanted them regulated because otherwise they would have been just unruly mobs which broke out and did not help the cause of the Revolution of 1776 and in fact undermined it.

One of the reasons Castro's so called revolutionary force was able to seize power was that it did NOT attack its own civilians as Trump militias are doing. The Viet Cong did torture and kill its own civilians and it did not win people over. The Taliban never created a groundswell of support doing what it has done. Neither has any extremist group using such tactics.

Inevitably armed mobs that do not follow laws and use coercion implode. Please read the history of what has happened to mobs and vigilante groups in the US. Better still go find out what happened to the German Nazi SA the prime example of a non government militia.

Vigilantism in the US has been responsible for unlawful death, murder and violence and infringing on the ability of the US to offer its people peace and stability. You want a country of vigilantes I get it. Its part of the American myth of shooting your way across the country to impose yourself on the native people. Its a nice macho story of Cowboy movies, John Wayne, etc., but its a myth you need to get real about.

The real laws only came about when people learned to stop shooting and lynching.

Mob rule never created a society that has lasted. Ever. Show me a mob gun rule country where the leader is not violently overthrown and there is not failed state conditions or civil war. Please. Show me.

Right now all you are championing is a state like Somalia for the US. You clearly have never lived in a country where there is no law and people use a gun to protect themselves. You take for granted your democratic institutions, police, military. Most people in the world can't call 911 let alone voluntarily join the militia. They can't vote. They can't get a Judge who does not act as a parrot of the dictator running the government.

Tell me Tog if you had your way how is Donald Trump any different than any tin pot dictator and how is the armed militias you determine are the good ones any different than the SA or say Robert Mugabe's militia was in Zimbabwe?

You champion failed state civil warlord status for your fellow citizens. Why? What is it that makes you believe without a gun you don't have the ability to work with people let alone peacefully?

What future is their for your country when you fear your own citizens you disagree with let alone your own government?

What bullshit have you bought into man with this Trump cult where you can't see the very strength of your country is that it had people die so you would not have to carry a gun and could vote?

 

No right is unlimited. Free Speech is limited. Free Exercise of Religion is limited. Freedom of the Press is limited. The Right to Assemble is limited. It's how and by whom the limiting is done that becomes a problem.

Again, all rights have limits. Not included in those limits... many states do not require a firearms owner to be licensed. A person is free to join a militia that is not well regulated.

 

Your subjective opinion condoning idiots in militias doing what they want speaks for itself.

 

I think you quoted the wrong person. I believe in the second amendment.

 

Its almost like people can freely express themselves however they want. Which includes forming Militias.

 

Your name calling because you can't respond to his points speaks for itself. How about you come on and state as well that you believe militias should not be regulated. Please share in the brilliant analysis. Assist Richard condone mob rule as long as the militia is approved by you. Lol knock yourself out.

You Trumpets try engage in an absurd double standard to try define which "militias" you condone for breaking the law. That is apparent and it is painfully stupid in content.

 

I have no idea what you now think you intended with your response. You came on this thread to condone unregulated militias. Please play that response to someone else. It means nothing to me.

 

Yes I am aware you think you need control over people. Its a good thing nobody is putting you in charge.

 

Get back to me when you can provide something coherent. The second comment is not a sentence and is an incomplete thought if I should go so far as to call it thought. The first sentence refers to something with "Its" which should be "it's" but what it's is, is anyone's guess.

Here sit for this one. It may be difficult for you to accept. No you can not freely express yourself with a gun. If you can not understand why go to a local police station and ask the person at the desk why you can not freely express yourself with a gun and what will happen.

Are you really coming on this thread to argue you can "freely express" yourself with a gun? That is what you have reduced your position to?

Wow.

The issue is militias need to be well regulated not your feelings of self entitlement to express yourself freely with a gun.

Well at least you put it all out there to see the essence of your argument-you don't just want to own a gun but be accountable when you own one. Who you obey a regulation about guns. Hell no it" infringes on your need to "freely express" yourself with a gun. What next. Do you have other ways you want to freely express yourself in public because I tell you what-Pee Wee Herman found out there are regulations and laws concerning such things. Call him. Get some advice.

 

And yet people freely express themselves with firearms at protest all over the united states all the time and surprisingly few people are harmed as a result of it. Its almost like we don't need a federal government to do our thinking for us.

 

The 'militia' does refer to the everyday Joe's while 'well regulated' refers to people who are well disciplined and:

- Are trained, - can prove they are able to operate firearms in effective and safe manner
- Are not habitual drunkards
- Are not junkies,
- Are not criminals / wife beaters
- Are not children
- Are not mentally ill
- Are not physically restricted

I think most of the above is already covered in existing laws. IMO we could have a basic class for firearm owners who can obtain a federally accepted carry license after passing the class and the above qualifications.

 

Firearm training and safety should be taught starting in high school. Should be mandatory. But the left would absolutely freak out over that so here we are.

 

High school? I doubt you'd find much support for that from either side.

Mandatory military service at age of 19 is common in many countries around the world, and it is considered beneficial in more ways than one.