IT'S IN THE FIRST SENTANCE!!!! "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" WELL REGULATED.... IT'S LIKE THE 3RD WORD!!!




Both of these posts deserve this in ultra high definition:

 

 

 

Militia...regulated militia. Because we need a militia. Its not that complicated. Regulating the militia =/= regulating the people.

 

And "regulated" in the writing means "organized, trained, and prepared" not "laws written to control" that it has come to mean.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Militia...regulated militia. Because we need a militia. Its not that complicated. Regulating the militia =/= regulating the people.


And "regulated" in the writing means "organized, trained, and prepared" not "laws written to control" that it has come to mean.

Did you come up with that during your conversation with Hamilton and Jefferson

---

Did you come up with that during your conversation with Hamilton and Jefferson

 

Yes.

 

But it was Madison who put it to the People in #46:

 

<i>Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.</i>

 

Are you so foolish as to believe that the men who were adamant that the People should be armed SPECIFICALLY to combat the government, would in turn give the same government to right to deprive the People of that right? Balderdash.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

That's still not an answer. I know the concept of natural rights isn't taught among our ilk but that's not my fault!

---

Yes.

 

But it was Madison who put it to the People in #46:

 

<i>Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.</i>

 

Are you so foolish as to believe that the men who were adamant that the People should be armed SPECIFICALLY to combat the government, would in turn give the same government to right to deprive the People of that right? Balderdash.

 

You're a member of your state's militia?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

You're a member of your state's militia?

 

Yes, as you are in yours.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Yes, as you are in yours.

 

In what way is your militia regulated, and regulated well?  Who are the appointed officers?

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

In what way is your militia regulated, and regulated well?  Who are the appointed officers?

 

Should the militia be required it will be raised from the population and then officers will be appointed from the people. A well regulated militia is not a permanently standing force, it is the intended outcome of an armed populace coming together as needed to protect the people from enemies foreign and domestic.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

Should the militia be required it will be raised from the population and then officers will be appointed from the people. A well regulated militia is not a permanently standing force, it is the intended outcome of an armed populace coming together as needed to protect the people from enemies foreign and domestic.

 

So, a posse?

 

You said I'm in the militia, but now you're saying there's no militia until a need arises. I guess we're all reserves ready to be called up.

 

I'm still wondering about how exactly "well regulated" fits in with this. Without some sort of central control, what's to prevent mayhem when different regions have different views about an actual threat, be it foreign or domestic.

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley


 

I would have to agree with flsprtsgod in that the militia is not a standing force, but one that would be made up of free people to counter the government.

 

Well-Regulated means: Subject to superior authority. (civilian control of a military) There is no widespread central control over a states militia because each state is an independent force/entity.  

 

If the 2nd amendment were written today, it would be more along the lines of, "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged."

---

I guess that is the problem with following old documents. 

---

So, a posse?

 

You said I'm in the militia, but now you're saying there's no militia until a need arises. I guess we're all reserves ready to be called up.

 

I'm still wondering about how exactly "well regulated" fits in with this. Without some sort of central control, what's to prevent mayhem when different regions have different views about an actual threat, be it foreign or domestic.

 

"What is the militia? The whole of the People." - George Mason

 

You have it exactly right, the militia is every single person able to bear arms at a given time, to called into service as needed to preserve the freedom of the people. Yes, there are issues about control, but we've rarely needed it so exactly how that would play out today no one really knows. It's designed to be the ultimate deterrent and last resort should the tyranny of our central government become to great. More important (I believe) is that the founders near unanimously opposed a permanent standing army because it posed such a threat to the nation and people, but the right wholeheartedly embrace that concept almost to the point of worship. On the one hand we have the left who think we don't need our guns and the right who thinks we should have a permanent federal military force. Both fly in the face of our founding.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

I guess that is the problem with following old documents. 

 

Meh, it's still superior to every other one that's ever been tried.

---

“An empty vessel makes the loudest sound, so they that have the least wit are the greatest babblers.”. - Plato

So is this move by trump a deal breaker for any libertarian or conservative? I'm honestly curious

Im an Ancap who leans libertarian... And Trump has been a deal breaker since he announced his running, as much as the other duopoly candidates. McAfee was a pretty good one for the libertarians this time around, but getting a true 3rd party candidate in the debates will never happen under current rules, and nothing of real importance will ever be discussed or critiqued with reason and evidence. Donald Trump gets on stage and just rips off rhetoric and did bring up some immigration issues, but everything else from him is just hot air nonsense. Outside of peaceful parenting he really is not an advocate of the NAP from what I hear from him. He still gets a lot of support from grass root movements for some reason. 

 

edited because half my novel got cut off for some reason, work computers. lol. 

---

Look I'm no Constitutional lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that the 2nd ammendment, while can be discussed as to whether or not is relevant anymore does not stop the curtailing of the types of arms and the amount of ammo an individual can buy.  

 

And if I remember correctly, even the SCOTUS ruled that you cannot ban all guns, but you can regulate the types of guns/ammo that can be purchased legally.

 

Sorry, flsprts...  But you're just flat out wrong on this one.   And it's quite sad that you're trying to defend it.  There's nothing that does not allow the Legislatve branch from passing laws that make it illegal to manufacture and purchase large capacity ammo clips or ASSUAULT/MILITARY (hi jib) weapons...

---

No it isn't. Your first part saying that an AR-15 or a Sig Sauer MCX are "military weapons" is just false, so stop. While yes, someone in the military, specifically Special Forces might choose to use one of those weapons as their "weapon of choice", neither one is "issued" to any military member routinely. If that military member chooses that weapon, it's usually customized to fit the need including enabling automatic firing.


Ponder this for a bit. How many AR-15's are legally owned and used by law abiding citizens (including myself) right now? Of those, how many are used for malicious reasons?


To give an analogy, how many people own some kind of computer? A computer is routinely used for malicious deeds including identity theft, defacing websites or just plain stealing among other things. Should we ban certain computers because they are more powerful or have larger capacity for storing data?


Regarding your second point, a few things come to mind off the top of my head.


First of all, firearms can be dangerous to the user if not maintained properly. I would not use a "public" weapon on a shooting range because I have no idea how previous users treated it, and I don't know how the weapon is maintained.


Second of all, people don't own firearms strictly for hunting. Some shoot for sport, others have them for protection, some collect them, etc. I don't need the government telling me that if I want to own a certain model or style of firearm it must be for an "approved" reason.


Finally, not all shooting, including sport shooting takes place at a gun range. Here's a little secret that I'll let you in on. The last few times I've done some shooting it's been at a friend's place which is located in a very rural area on 40+ acres of property. He happens to be a Law Enforcement Officer. Some people enjoy shooting their multi-round, pistol-gripped rifles at places other than public shooting ranges.

Thank you for revealing so many little secrets!! Are you sure j you wont be reprimanded? I'll let you in on a little secret, loose lips sink ships... :-)


Whether you want to believe it or not, I'm NOT in favor of getting rid of all guns, but your argument while compelling, is not an argument in which the constitutionality of the law would come into play.


Yes, I hear you, and I can understand your preference to having the ability-dare I say freedom?- own, collect, shoot whatever dog on gun you want to.


It's my opinion that times demand a reevaluation of our laissez faire attitude towards the right to bear arms. We already oppress the freedom owning machine guns, grenades, rpg's, so I think the precident is there to have the discussion.

---

It's really become your thing to suggest people start other threads. What I said is fact, the Constitution was written to provide for what the government may and may not do. Regulating firearms clearly falls into the "may not" category, though the government has been trying to do so ever since.

Show me where regulating arms is restricted by the constitution. The right to bear arms is protected. But the constitution allows for the ability to regulate they type of arms one can produce and buy and sell... the supreme court under that liberal bleeding heart panty waist, Scalia even agreed on that point. Scalia went so far as to point out that the second amendment is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever, including dangerous and unusual weapons...


Bro, you're talking right out of your hind quarters.

---

Quote me where it says its not. Quote me where it says government can regulate firearms period. It doesn't.

"To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof." This is from Article I of the US Constitution, that thing that you so cherish.


Now, if you want to consider the fact that because the 2nd amendment says the right bear arms does not describe any specific arms, the ability of Congress to make laws that would determine what type of arms can and cannot be held or manufactured is a pretty easy thing to understand. And as I have stated in a previous post on this very page, even Scalia agrees with those of us that may "not be so bright" in your mind...

---

Thank you for revealing so many little secrets!! Are you sure j you wont be reprimanded? I'll let you in on a little secret, loose lips sink ships... :-)


Whether you want to believe it or not, I'm in favor of getting rid of all guns, but your argument while compelling, is not an argument in which the constitutionality of the law would come into play.


Yes, I hear you, and I can understand your preference to having the ability-dare I say freedom?- own, collect, shoot whatever dog on gun you want to.


It's my opinion that times demand a reevaluation of our laissez faire attitude towards the right to bear arms. We already oppress the freedom owning machine guns, grenades, rpg's, so I think the precident is there to have the discussion.

Yes there is precedent to regulate the sale and movement of firearms just like there is precedent to regulate the use of free speech. Here's the kicker the spirit or the purpose of the constitutional right isn't to be altered while regulating the use of a constitutional right.


For example there is precedent to regulate speech in the manor of protecting others from harm through the use of speech by another party. I can't slander you and claim free speech because the purpose of the 1st amendment is to protect a free press and dissenting views among other things but it's not for protecting speech used in a manor to damage other parties directly or insight violence. The Klan can hold rally's and use free speech as a dissenting view on many different topics but they can't hold rallies and call for violence or make threats because the purpose of the amendment does not allow it.


Now what is the purpose of the 2nd amendment? It has nothing to do with collectors hobby shooting hunting and so on, it is specifically written to empower an armed populace to counter an armed government. Therefore the purpose of the amendment can not be altered by regulation to obstruct the balance of power between the populace and government.


Now we can argue if that has already been done. If that should be changed, or Is the concept outdated and so on. But limiting ammo, the type of firearms, the capacity of firearms or worse banning many of the above completely violates the purpose of the amendment.


I'm open to regulations that do not violate the purpose of the amendment. Regulations like the current ffl3 license required to own specific firearms are acceptable albeit some of the conditions are unreasonable but compromises right?

---

Because silly memes are fun...

 

---

If something can corrupt you, you're corrupted already.
- Bob Marley