They Want to Take Your Guns

as far as 'well regulated' goes... remember that *you* are a part of 'The Militia.' If you prefer to further regulate 'The Militia', such regulations will apply to you. So... what new laws do you think we need to subject you to in order to more well regulate 'The Militia?'

 

also, as to the well regulated thing, it may be inciteful to research the common usage of the word 'regulate' in the late 1700s. It wasnt so much a word meaning 'control via authoritative bureaucracy' as it does now, but was more along the lines of 'adequately supplied, 'cohesive,' 'in proper working order'. They were saying that The Militia (being all the men in the country) ought to be well trained and well supplied. If you think the likes of Thomas Jefferson and George Washington signed a document saying 'the government should get to decide whether you can defend yourself or not' then you are a moron and need to go back to elementary school history class for some perspective.

 

While we appreciate the effort, this thread is nine pages long and we've discussed this in full quite a bit. I made some points on page 9 of this thread (posts # 169 and #170 - the post numbers are next to the "Like" feature at the bottom of each post.) Basically, this is where we stand:

1) You have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to any service in a militia according to the United States Supreme Court

2) The Constitution does NOT grant a Right to keep and bear Arms. Neither is the Right dependent upon that instrument for its existence according to the United States Supreme Court

3) The Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution was ratified according to United States Supreme Court rulings

4) Well established STATE court rulings interpreting the Second Amendment established the precedent that your Right to keep and bear Arms is above the law and no higher courts have ever over-turned the precedents set at the state level. As a matter of fact, all federal Rulings from the United States Supreme Court have ruled consistently with the state holdings

5) While the militia is mentioned in the Constitution, it has one specific goal and that is not to infringe upon the Right to keep and bear Arms so that a citizen militia, not beholden to the federal government can exist

The founding fathers articulated what the end game was relative to the Second Amendment:

“The great object is that every man be armed…. Everyone who is able may have a gun.” Patrick Henry

That objective has been met; therefore, the ideal situation where everyone who is able has a firearm and the militia is now well regulated.

We don't mind opinions, but you should really read this thread. It is more educational than many books on the subject. If you start at page 9 and read five or six pages, it pretty much keeps repeating itself after that (though lots of good references are introduced along the way.)

 

I made a faux pas in the previous post. This thread is now 22 pages long and the best legal arguments can be found from page 9, forward. In any event, it appears that Lesh has tapped out, unable to respond to any of the many links and cited cases that debunk that swill s/he tried to sell... S/he failed to respond to my posts which should says more than I can.

 

apologies. ill try and read through before posting. some of these are sooooo long tho

 

Don't post if you don't like the thread.