Second admendment

[RockyMountainT4R]

"Well regulated".

What did these two words mean at the time of ratification of the constitution?
Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different?

lets examine how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it.

It is also important to note that the Framers' chose to use the indefinite article "a" to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article "the." This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished.

This comparison of the Framers' use of the term "well regulated" in the Second Amendment, and the words "regulate" and "regulation" elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term "militia" had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, "the people," had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, "well regulate" themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics.

This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb "regulate" the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers' use of the indefinite article "a" in the phrase "A well regulated Militia."

This concept of the people's self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress "for calling forth" the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to "provide for" the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The "well regula[tion]" of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, "well regula[tion]" referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words "well regulated" referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government's standing army.

This view is confirmed by Alexander Hamilton's observation, in The Federalist, No. 29, regarding the people's militias ability to be a match for a standing army: " . . . but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights . . . ."

It is an absolute truism that law-abiding, armed citizens pose no threat to other law-abiding citizens. The Framers' writings show they also believed this. As we have seen, the Framers understood that "well regulated" militias, that is, armed citizens, ready to form militias that would be well trained, self-regulated and disciplined, would pose no threat to their fellow citizens, but would, indeed, help to "insure domestic Tranquility" and "provide for the common defence."

Thank you Gunslinger-13 for your reasoned argument. I appreciate your ability to make such an argument without an appeal to the person or reliance upon the use of emotional images.

 

[fourwd1]

And how many people do you know who have had their guns taken away? l.

How about everyone in Australia?

 

[Gunslinger-13]

LOL, and the term, "snowflake," was invented to describe liberals....

I'm not ONLY choosing looks. I'm choosing looks in order to get your attention, and yes, I do find that to be the appearance of many I shoot with. Please be honest about some of the gun owners you may know. Who should not have guns, much less children.

I find your elevation of gun rights over everything else to be insulting. Those kids at Sandy Hook had a right to life which overrides your right to guns. I ****ing dare you to look at the pictures of the victims and reply to this post in a way that makes sense.

But as I was working on my truck yesterday, I put into words what really bothers me. And remember, I own over a half dozen guns myself, been shooting around 35 years. And I used to fantasize about killing people. Which is what you're doing.

When you're fantasizing about killing some intruder who breaks into your home, you're fantasizing about killing someone. This probably is not murder if it is justified. But you're still fantasizing about killing someone.

Same thing with this whole, "I need more guns to prevent government tyranny." You are fantasizing about armed revolution against your own government. You want it to happen. How about putting as much energy into trying to change whats wrong using the rule of law instead of threatening the gun barrel?

And that pretty much sums up the attitude of gun "enthusiasts." You get hard fantasizing about killing people, overcompensating for other inadequacies and frustrations in your life.

And to Shooter: ask the police what they think when they pull over a car with over 50 weapons in it.

So much logical fallacy in what you are positing. I'll break it down.

Firstly- using the blood/death of children to further your agenda and falsely imbue your argument with legitimacy is disgusting.

The atrocitys carried out by a mad man or groups of evil folks absolutely do not trump my rights or anyone's rights. That's quite frankly, absurd.

As if me not being able to have a gun would've stopped an incident like Sandy Hook from happening.

None, literally none of the Anti gun crowds recent attempts at legislating away gun rights would have stopped Sandy Hook from happening.

I NEVER, ever want to harm anyone. The fact that you do or have- well that speaks more about you buddy- stop projecting your feelings onto others.

The last thing I want is an armed revolution in this country. I do not wish for any event to occur to spark one and absolutely we should peruse every avenue to avoid such an event. However- if it is NECESSARY, I know I am prepared as best I can be for it. And thinking governments don't always turn tyrannical goes against all historical knowledge we have about humanity and governments.

I have never once fantasized about revolution or killing anyone. I doubt most Gun enthusiasts have either.

I think perhaps your view of gun owners is more a projection of your self. Since you had fantasies of murdering people you believe others must, perhaps to justify your own emotions about your fantasies and not feel bad about them. There's therapy for that.

"Overcompensating for other inadequacies" ah yes, when you can't logically debate your point just turn to emotion and degrading the people with a counter opinion and view point- that's the ticket!

It doesn't matter who you or anyone else believes should or shouldn't have this or that right or has this or that need. That's the nature of a right- it's for all and people who seek to control others through eliminating them are always elitists who believe they and only they should be able to do stuff because everyone else can't be trusted or isn't intelligent enough. The "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" type.

I beg you to quit with the emotional BS and simply debate these points with logic. It would be much more productive and perhaps you may have greater merit in your position if you went about it that way.

Number of guns is all relative. I shoot and train with LEO's and Military on a daily basis. Some of them are gun guys and some are not but merely train with the tools of the career they chose.

Some would think 50 guns is a lot, others would say that's just one safe full of guns, that's not much.

It's a moot point anyways because the quantity of firearms one owns has nothing to do with crime. Most criminals that use guns in committing crimes own very few guns.

Most firearm enthusiasts that have never committed a crime own many Guns.

Your point makes no sense.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

How about everyone in Australia?

Don't forget 300+ Lakota at wounded knee just before their government (the US government) slaughtered them.

 

[fourwd1]

It's sad people can't just discuss things as adults without name calling and fighting/arguing breaking out and then reporting and moderators having to get involved.

People need to learn to log out and walk away from the computer if they are feeling actual anger or don't like something. Take a break from it all.

Too many whiners in life. People need to nut up and get over the petty shit.

Not likely to happen, people are being indoctrinated from 1st grade on up to complain about everything until they get what they want, regardless of how petty or stupid it is .

Participation trophies for waking up in the morning.

A nation of mindless sheeple doing whatever they're told in exchange for a hand out.

 

[Bodie the Dog]

Amendments?

So much logical fallacy in what you are positing. I'll break it down.

Firstly- using the blood/death of children to further your agenda and falsely imbue your argument with legitimacy is disgusting.

The atrocitys carried out by a mad man or groups of evil folks absolutely do not trump my rights or anyone's rights. That's quite frankly, absurd.

As if me not being able to have a gun would've stopped an incident like Sandy Hook from happening.

None, literally none of the Anti gun crowds recent attempts at legislating away gun rights would have stopped Sandy Hook from happening.

I NEVER, ever want to harm anyone. The fact that you do or have- well that speaks more about you buddy- stop projecting your feelings onto others.

The last thing I want is an armed revolution in this country. I do not wish for any event to occur to spark one and absolutely we should peruse every avenue to avoid such an event. However- if it is NECESSARY, I know I am prepared as best I can be for it. And thinking governments don't always turn tyrannical goes against all historical knowledge we have about humanity and governments.

I have never once fantasized about revolution or killing anyone. I doubt most Gun enthusiasts have either.

I think perhaps your view of gun owners is more a projection of your self. Since you had fantasies of murdering people you believe others must, perhaps to justify your own emotions about your fantasies and not feel bad about them. There's therapy for that.

"Overcompensating for other inadequacies" ah yes, when you can't logically debate your point just turn to emotion and degrading the people with a counter opinion and view point- that's the ticket!

It doesn't matter who you or anyone else believes should or shouldn't have this or that right or has this or that need. That's the nature of a right- it's for all and people who seek to control others through eliminating them are always elitists who believe they and only they should be able to do stuff because everyone else can't be trusted or isn't intelligent enough. The "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others" type.

I beg you to quit with the emotional BS and simply debate these points with logic. It would be much more productive and perhaps you may have greater merit in your position if you went about it that way.

Number of guns is all relative. I shoot and train with LEO's and Military on a daily basis. Some of them are gun guys and some are not but merely train with the tools of the career they chose.

Some would think 50 guns is a lot, others would say that's just one safe full of guns, that's not much.

It's a moot point anyways because the quantity of firearms one owns has nothing to do with crime. Most criminals that use guns in committing crimes own very few guns.

Most firearm enthusiasts that have never committed a crime own many Guns.

Your point makes no sense.

And I think it's disgusting to worship guns to the point where you are willing to sell your own soul and sacrifice your own integrity in order to defend them.

*** The constitution IS a living document, subject to change. Ever hear of Amendments? Or do you not recognize the validity of things like a woman's right to vote? ***

It is very unfortunate that people like me have to use Sandy Hook as an example of why guns are bad. And it still doesn't have any effect?! It is even worse that otherwise good people like you can ignore the event because people like me are "just politicizing it." WTF? Dead kids don't have any affect upon you?

Now let's talk about hoarding guns and books:
Books don't kill people.
You can put 50 books on a small bookshelf; 50 guns require a large room and multiple gun safes.
You can buy 50 books for a very small sum. 50 guns require a significant investment, to the point where if you're not rich, you are taking money away from your kids, from your future. And how often do you get to shoot those weapons, if you have so many?
Cops do disagree about what a large number of guns mean. Just ask this guy: Tennessee Cops Discover Machine Guns During Traffic Stop
A toddler has never pulled a book out of the hidden pocket of his mom's purse and used it to kill his mom.
A toddler has never picked up a book off the rear floor of his mom's car and used it to kill her.

If Cobra Gunships were legal, only the wealthiest people would have them. Do you really want a world where the richest people own all the best weapons? Rule of law, or rule of the gun?

I think one of the basic problems here is that so many gun "enthusiasts" have bought into the NRA selling point that liberals want to take away all your guns. There are extremists on both sides, of course, but as someone pointed out, most (Many) gun owners are not so black and white. Most of us don't favor confiscation of all guns. We favor reasonable background checks, reasonable limits on available killing technologies (no tanks or gunships, lol), and stopping such nonsense as laws sponsored by the NRA to prohibit researching gun violence. Reasonable gun ownership. Not prepping for insurrection.

 

[2flyfishin]

[MENTION=146753]Bodie the Dog[/MENTION]. PLEASE GET SOME PROFESSIONAL HELP! If you have had these fantasies, you need it more than you could ever know!

 

[2flyfishin]

On another note, don't you like how people arguing against the second amendment bring up despicable acts and act like nothing would have happened if guns were banned? You can't stop crazy! Crazy will always find a way. Each one of these acts might, might not have been much worse if the person committing these acts used other means. And books. More people have died because of the misuse of books than probably any other tool.

 

[83Mule]

I always considered the ''well Regulated'' phrase to pertain to ''Regulars''....Fighting Men. Having enough fighting capable men available to stop Tyranny was the reason THE PEOPLE needed a well REGULATED (population of Regulars) Militia (Citizens ready to fight). Regardless, the wording didn't say a Militia's Right to bear Arms.......it specifically said "The People'' Meaning everyday Citizens. I own a S***load of guns...but I don't wear Camo, and I only shoot ONE at a time so number is irrelevant.:loco:

 

[CXS]

More people have died because of the misuse of books than probably any other tool.

This needs some explanation! LOL

 

[2flyfishin]

This needs some explanation! LOL

The misuse of the Bible has been the justification for wars and just plain senseless killing since before guns were even invented. Same goes for the Koran. Idiots use Mien Kampf as well. There are plenty of others that could join the list. Books a lot of the time are the tool behind the tool.

P.S. for those wondering because of some of the books mentioned, I am not anti religion but it's the truth.

 

[CXS]

The misuse of the Bible has been the justification for wars and just plain senseless killing since before guns were even invented. Same goes for the Koran. Idiots use Mien Kampf as well. There are plenty of others that could join the list. Books a lot of the time are the tool behind the tool.

P.S. for those wondering because of some of the books mentioned, I am not anti religion but it's the truth.

I suspected that was what you were leaning towards though “misuse of books” is an odd way to put it. The books are a tool of the writer/s and I agree that the texts you mention spread the thoughts of violence.

Not anti-religious? The world would be a better place without all of them.

 

[SwayzeExpress]

LOL, and the term, "snowflake," was invented to describe liberals....

I'm not ONLY choosing looks. I'm choosing looks in order to get your attention, and yes, I do find that to be the appearance of many I shoot with. Please be honest about some of the gun owners you may know. Who should not have guns, much less children.

I find your elevation of gun rights over everything else to be insulting. Those kids at Sandy Hook had a right to life which overrides your right to guns. I ****ing dare you to look at the pictures of the victims and reply to this post in a way that makes sense.

But as I was working on my truck yesterday, I put into words what really bothers me. And remember, I own over a half dozen guns myself, been shooting around 35 years. And I used to fantasize about killing people. Which is what you're doing.

When you're fantasizing about killing some intruder who breaks into your home, you're fantasizing about killing someone. This probably is not murder if it is justified. But you're still fantasizing about killing someone.

Same thing with this whole, "I need more guns to prevent government tyranny." You are fantasizing about armed revolution against your own government. You want it to happen. How about putting as much energy into trying to change whats wrong using the rule of law instead of threatening the gun barrel?

And that pretty much sums up the attitude of gun "enthusiasts." You get hard fantasizing about killing people, overcompensating for other inadequacies and frustrations in your life.

And to Shooter: ask the police what they think when they pull over a car with over 50 weapons in it.

If you are being 100% honest with yourself in this post, this is what makes the rest of us nervous

 

[SwayzeExpress]

I suspected that was what you were leaning towards though “misuse of books” is an odd way to put it. The books are a tool of the writer/s and I agree that the texts you mention spread the thoughts of violence.

Not anti-religious? The world would be a better place without all of them.

I think persuasive writings and calls to action are much much different than religious beliefs. What you are referencing may have been about the unmatched loss of life to religous battles but the difference is religion is based on analyzing historical documents and their validity vs a manifesto/call to arms.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

And I think it's disgusting to worship guns to the point where you are willing to sell your own soul and sacrifice your own integrity in order to defend them.

*** The constitution IS a living document, subject to change. Ever hear of Amendments? Or do you not recognize the validity of things like a woman's right to vote? ***

It is very unfortunate that people like me have to use Sandy Hook as an example of why guns are bad. And it still doesn't have any effect?! It is even worse that otherwise good people like you can ignore the event because people like me are "just politicizing it." WTF? Dead kids don't have any affect upon you?

Now let's talk about hoarding guns and books:
Books don't kill people.
You can put 50 books on a small bookshelf; 50 guns require a large room and multiple gun safes.
You can buy 50 books for a very small sum. 50 guns require a significant investment, to the point where if you're not rich, you are taking money away from your kids, from your future. And how often do you get to shoot those weapons, if you have so many?
Cops do disagree about what a large number of guns mean. Just ask this guy: Tennessee Cops Discover Machine Guns During Traffic Stop
A toddler has never pulled a book out of the hidden pocket of his mom's purse and used it to kill his mom.
A toddler has never picked up a book off the rear floor of his mom's car and used it to kill her.

If Cobra Gunships were legal, only the wealthiest people would have them. Do you really want a world where the richest people own all the best weapons? Rule of law, or rule of the gun?

I think one of the basic problems here is that so many gun "enthusiasts" have bought into the NRA selling point that liberals want to take away all your guns. There are extremists on both sides, of course, but as someone pointed out, most (Many) gun owners are not so black and white. Most of us don't favor confiscation of all guns. We favor reasonable background checks, reasonable limits on available killing technologies (no tanks or gunships, lol), and stopping such nonsense as laws sponsored by the NRA to prohibit researching gun violence. Reasonable gun ownership. Not prepping for insurrection.

Not sure who you're speaking about that worships Guns? I certainly don't. Perhaps that's another feeling you've had and are projecting on others again?

Selling souls? Sacrificing integrity? I merely cherish my rights and my life. My soul and integrity are very much intact.

Here you go with the emotions again. Of course dead children affect me. It's horendous and incredibly saddening. What evil people do to others is awful. What does that have to do with my rights and taking them away? How would/can taking my rights away stop evil people from committing evil acts?

Are you aware of how many people are able to defend their lives and not be raped or murdered because they utilized a firearm as a force multiplier/tool to stop an evil person from victimizing them?

Way more people use firearms as tools for good than for bad. By a LARGE margin.

The Constitution is most certainly not a living document. It is a legal document with the amendment process written in to it on how to legally change it via the legislature (the people).

I think you might not understand what a "living document" means.

What's unfortunate is that you don't understand that a firearm is an inanimate object incapable of being either "bad" or "good". It is simply a tool that can be used for bad or good by malevolent or benevolent human beings.

The countries with the greatest amount of gun control and restrictions still have mass shootings and murders.

If your logic was sound then things like Nice, France wouldn't happen- but they do- regardless of the strictest gun control and the law abiding being disarmed, evil men still obtain firearms, or use bombs or whichever tool they choose to kill people.

If someone had the money and motivation to buy a gunship or a nuke- do you think laws would stop them?

If you have enough money and the will to do so- you can literally buy just about anything you want, including a nuclear device or a gunship.

 

[Gunslinger-13]

I suspected that was what you were leaning towards though “misuse of books” is an odd way to put it. The books are a tool of the writer/s and I agree that the texts you mention spread the thoughts of violence.

Not anti-religious? The world would be a better place without all of them.

Do you actually believe that if religion was never invented- people would just be peaceful and all "hey guys let's hold hands and be friends forever- there's no reason to fight over anything"?

It's human nature to fight. Over money, people, drugs, politics, skin pigment, resources, anything and everything.

If religion disappeared tomorrow, it wouldn't change a thing. People would still be good and evil and the same events would play out over and over again, as they have for millennia.

It is part of our nature as a species.

 

[CXS]

Do you actually believe that if religion was never invented- people would just be peaceful and all "hey guys let's hold hands and be friends forever- there's no reason to fight over anything".

No, what I said was the world would be better w/o religion, I didn’t say it would end violence.

 

[tb-av]

If you are being 100% honest with yourself in this post, this is what makes the rest of us nervous

Don't fool yourself into thinking he's a one off sort of anti-gun Liberal. I heard the same thing a week ago from someone else.

Summary.
1. Hate the NRA
2. Sandy Hook
3. NO ONE wants your guns
4. Common Sense
5. They decide what is and isn't necessary

Don't read 'em and weep.

VOTE!!!!!!!!

BTW.. to all anti-gun people that want to say no one wants all your guns....

One can start back in 1976 when Pete Shields, the founder of Handgun Control, Inc. — now known as the Brady Campaign — said:
Our ultimate goal — total control of handguns in the United States — is going to take time.…
The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns … in this country.
The second problem is to get handguns registered.
The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition … totally illegal.

So the names change, time rolls on, the game plan is still the same. LIMIT, REGISTER, ELIMINATE.

All are infringements protected by The Constitution. Recently Nancy Pelosi said she and other representatives took an oath to protect the people, thus we need registration. What she apparently does not realize is that she took an oath to protect The Constitution and that by demanding a registration she is doing exactly the opposite of what she swore and oath to do.

The people will take care of themselves and The Constitution will protect the people from the government. Unfortunately there are a lot of representatives that don't understand that concept nor where rights come from.

But anyway, people can say what they want but gun grabbers claiming no one wants your guns is just absolute nonsense. It's the lie they have learned to say to the media now because they failed to completely fool us from the '30s, '60s, '70s, etc.. It's the same story with a different name and the disguise is better now.

The latest being "Everytown for Gun Safety". Same players, same message, different name.

Dubbed #RejectTheNRA, the Bloomberg orchestrated campaign urges the public to contact their elected representatives to oppose H.R. 3668, the Sportsman’s Heritage and Recreational Enhancement Act (SHARE Act) and H.R. 38, the Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act. Specifically, an Everytown YouTube video featuring the aforementioned celebrities asks viewers to text REJECT to 64433 in order to receive an automated phone call from the gun control group which will then connect the sender to their congressman after a recorded script tells them to oppose pro-gun legislation in the Congress. Of course, it’s entirely up to the caller what to tell their congressman once connected.

If you want to protect your 2A rights.

https://www.cqrcengage.com/gunowners/app/write-a-letter?0&engagementId=404353

https://gunowners.org/alert100417.htm

https://cqrcengage.com/gunowners/ap...TArkoo8qKEKM_RT4tJDCxPy3BHDUbVRy4VwlQpk4&lp=0

https://www.nraila.org/contact-nra-ila/

https://petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/do-not-pass-hr3999

Take note of the bills the Dems are introducing... be sure your reps vote against them.

House Dems propose bills to stop online ammo sales, ban mags


So go out and regulate yourselves gents. It's not all about the fun range time or the trophy hunt.

 

[LandCruiser]

If I had a Cobra gunship, I'd fly that bastard to work every day and chase that weenie air ambulance from the helipad like a boss.

 

[2flyfishin]

I suspected that was what you were leaning towards though “misuse of books” is an odd way to put it. The books are a tool of the writer/s and I agree that the texts you mention spread the thoughts of violence.

Not anti-religious? The world would be a better place without all of them.

No, I am not anti religion. I am agnostic. The books mentioned are just some of the books as I said. There are many non religious books that people use statements from to do harm and just because some may pick and choose certain lines from something like the Bible and use it to spread hate doesn't make it or any other book bad. Books , religion, guns, and many other things can all be used for good or bad. From someone who isn't religious you might be surprised to hear I think more people should find religion. I don't think we have a gun problem, I think we have a huge people problem and for the most part, religion teaches people to be kind to one another and respect one another which is something that is being lost. Everywhere I go, people have no manners, are rude, and only care for themselves. Many people talk crap about "rednecks" but look who was going out of their way to rescue people down in Texas after the hurricane. The Bible clinching, gun toting "rednecks" in their bass boats and jacked up 4x4's. I don't think the world would be a better place without religion either. Without religion we "might" not have had the Mother Teresa's/ Gandhi's of the world who have done so much good in the name of religion. We don't have a gun problem in this country, we have a problem with people who have a lack of morals and a lack of responsibility for one's own actions problem and from the non religious person, I think religion could really help. After all, doesn't the Bible say "Thall shall not kill"? Pretty plain and simple.