The Heart of the 2nd Amendment

The unorganized militia you speak of is actually legislated in the Dick Act that formed the National Guard.

It pertains to males under 45...only

 

Let's explore this fantasy a little further just for fun.

How many troops would NK need to land in order to overrun and conquer the entire land mass of the continental USA?

How many would be needed just to make a beachhead in order to bring the rest of the troops ashore?

What kind of ships would be needed to transport these troops across the Pacific?

How would an armada of this size make it across the Pacific undetected?

How would NK establish air superiority over the beachhead area?

 

The Bill of Rights grants PROTECTIONS for certain "rights" in certain circumstances.

In the 2A the circumstance is the militia

 

I love how you so unashamedly ignore the truth.

 

The poster's point was not a tactical analysis of impending invasion, but an example of why armed citizen militias are necessary, and constitutional.

This is merely a fallacy, to deflect from the point.

 

Hey, it's my fantasy. I can have it if I want to! Logic has nothing to do with it.

 

natural rights are in State Constitutions.

The organized militia is Necessary.

 

I am fully aware of what is declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

 

No, that is not at all what the Bill of Rights does. The Bill of Right was written to elaborate some rights the Founders thought worthy of further mention, it does not grant rights, or limit rights.

Many who opposed the Bill of Rights thought it would restrict individual rights, that over time people would assume that a list of specific rights would imply that rights were granted by the government and that rights not listed were not allowed to the people. They believed a common law policy of expressio unius est exclusio alterius: listing one thing means others not listed are excluded.

And they were right, as you have just demonstrated.

 

The 9th Amendment covers all unlisted rights.

 

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.

 

Gun nuts cling to the 2nd Amendment like a child to its mothers chest when in fact statements made in the 18th century have no bearing in the 21st century, nor would anyone in their right minds would want to live under the laws of two hundred plus years ago.

Lets get to the part of the 2nd amendment that gun nuts seize on to somehow justify their right to bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment (2A) was written to protect our inherent right to abolish our government through armed revolution if necessary.

Really?!! so after 8 long years of revolutionary war that destitute’s the country they
almost immediately set up a right to remove themselves by another revolutionary war. I don’t think that any American president since would have embraced any suchlike plan for removing him and his government from power. The truth of their fear of an attempt to replace their government came from the loyalist forces that had fought against them.


So lets get to the part that had any significance in the 1700s the Armed Militias. Not a new idea they were used before in the Seven Year war prior to the revolution.
Why they were used is because after the treaty of Paris the revolutionary government disbanded the continental army as there was no funds left for to afford a national army.
In affect the militias were there to protect the boarders of the colonies and invasion, from the French, Spanish and the native Americans.

The War of Independence remains a challenge for any serous historian to get anywhere to the truth because so much patriotic crap has been spread over the subject over the intervening two hundred years.
Sorry America, there never was a Molly Pitcher. Despite what 80 percent of U.S. history textbooks will tell you, that person never existed -- at least, not as the warrior heroine we know. It appears her cannon antics are pure legend, written into existence by patriotic historians When scholars pointed out various contradictions and issues within the stories, they were shouted down for being unpatriotic.

Its also very likely that disease accounted for more fatalities than any side lost in battle the whole 8 years of war. The American colonies in the 1700s hundreds were extremely an unhealthy places to live. Diseases such as Malaria, Typhoid, Smallpox and Yellow Fever and others ran unchecked.

 

All well regulated militia should be entrenchment qualified.

 

Repeal it.
Until you do, it's there, it means something you don't like, and you don't get to ignore it.

 

"well-regulated" does not mean "government regulated" or "government controlled"

It means "well-functioning" or working in proper order.

When the 2nd Amendment was written and ratified, "well regulated" was commonly used in everyday context.

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

• 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."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

 

The only wrinkle in your rant is that the 2nd Amendment currently exists today and as a result affords people the right to own a gun. Until this changes, your rant above will remain just that.

 

You can scream ‘Freedom and Liberty till the cows come home’ but we all know the amount of ‘Freedom and Liberty anyone has relates directly to the amount of $ bills in their bank balance.

 

No, it doesn't. Only right wingers spam with this appeal to ignorance.

Wellness of Regulation Must be Prescribed by our federal Congress for the Militia of the United States.

 

Any luck on that repeal?
No?
Shucks, eh?

 

The only reason for your love of the 2nd amendment is the mistaken belief that it gives all civilians and you the right to parade around with guns despite the frequent massacre of school children and other innocents directly caused by the arming of civilians.

Forget cherry picking support from 200 years ago and move into the 21st century like other advanced nations have then America will be hopefully a better place for Americans to raise their children without fear on some gun nut will go seeking notoriety by killing their loved ones.

 

Until you repeal the 2nd, it's there, it means something you don't like, and you don't get to ignore it.
Get busy.

 

Are you saying that the usage "well-functioning" in the Oxford Dictionary of the time that the 2nd Amendment was ratified is wrong and you're right?

LMFAO!

<Mod Edit- Rule 4 taunting>

 

Your argument is interesting and well made, but it has always been my belief that the 2A was written to protect our natural, inalienable right to self-defense (this position was upheld by the SCOTUS in its District of Columbia v. Heller decision), so I have to question the premise of your argument. You contend that we have an "inherent right to abolish our government through armed revolution if necessary", but the Constitution is conspicuously silent on that.

Why is that?

Could it be the open-ended question concerning the legitimacy of any given armed revolution?

Our nation is a republic, is it not? Where does an armed insurrection or coup d'etat that abolishes a democratically elected government fit into this "inherent right to abolish our government through armed revolution if necessary"?

Furthermore, we have a problem that goes back to the creation of the Constitution itself. While the Framers devised a system of government intended to reflect the will of the people, aside from a few "anti-Federalists" no one anticipated that the federal government would become the rights-devouring monster that has twisted the constitutional checks and balances designed to limit its power into mechanisms that entrench and expand its power. Evidently, their silence on this "right" and its absence from the Constitution reflects their belief that an armed revolution would never be necessary - that they had devised a system where we could settle our differences at the ballot box and negotiating table instead of the battlefield. I guess I am left to argue that the "inherent right to abolish our government through armed revolution if necessary" exists in a gray area that can be argued in either direction and would require consideration of the circumstances that would make such a revolution not only necessary but legitimate.

As for the right to bear a machine gun, I'm inclined to agree with you, but when we start talking about shoulder-fired weapons that fire RPGs anti-aircraft and anti-tank missiles I'm not sure that the Framers would necessarily agree that individuals should have the right to possess those arms, much less heavy conventional weaponry, WMDs and nuclear arms.

Where do we draw the line?

 

The court addressed this in 1939, and then in 2008.
The 2nd protects your right to own and use a firearm in common use for the the traditionally legal purposes of same.

 

I am saying; Congress can make up its own dictionary definition regarding, wellness of regulation, not the Judiciary.