Many folks believe that the first part of the 2nd Amendment, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State", has nothing to do with the right of the people to keep and carry firearms. How can this be? Were the framers stupid? Did they just add nonsense to an amendment to confuse us? A common sense and logical interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, is that the authors wanted the USA to have ability to call up a well-trained, well-supervised, and well-regulated Militia in times of crisis, insurrection, invasion etc. This was due to the absense of a large standing Army, National Guard, and State/Local police force.
No the framers got it right and the Heller V DC supports that. Sorry but this theorem you antis use has already been destroyed and is a moot point! Carry On
5-4 decisions can be reversed. especially ones that so clearly ignore the text of the US Constitution.
Notice some Supreme Court rulings are "a done deal" while others are viewed by the same people as downright scandalous..
2nd Amendment says the Militia shall be well-regulated. those regulations clearly include what kinds of guns the militia uses, when they carry them, etc.
nope what is stupid are interpretations that ignore two essential facts 1) the 2nd amendment RECOGNIZES a pre-existing (pre-existing government and the constitution) right. that right is not of government to form a militia or people to be in a militia but the right of free men to be armed. 2) the 2A is not about what people can do but what the government cannot do. if you understand these two obvious and undisputed points, you cannot possibly claim that the 2nd amendment requires militia service or gives the federal government any powers - - - Updated - - - even if you believe (wrongly BTW) that the second amendment actually grants the federal government some power-so what? lets assume the federal government can tell those in the federal militia what guns they will use. the government can also tell the militia what uniforms its members will wear but that gives the federal government no power to tell those not actively in the militia what to wear or what clothing they can own your argument is specious
I agree with your legal interpretation. 5 justices literally pretend that the modifying phrase 'well regulated ' was only put in there to waste some extra ink and quill tip mileage , but we lost.
so tell us-since it is undisputed that the 2a merely recognizes a pre existing right, WTF is the pre existing right you think the 2A recognizes? and do you understand that no one is disputing the power of a federal government to regulate what arms members of a federal militia use while in active service but has nothing to do what private citizens can own or possess?
You clearly have not fully researched what the phrase "well-regulated" meant to those who wrote it into the Constitution.
Ignorance of what the founders intended is a prerequisite to making gun restrictionist comments about the constitution - - - Updated - - - in good working order-meaning a militia that has been formed, elected officers and has a mission at hand.
What it means to me is irrelevant. What it meat to the writers of the 2A is all important to honestly interpret their intent: 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." So you see, 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.
of course the well-regulated Militia is mentioned in the Constitution itself. it is to be armed, organized, disciplined, trained, by the Congress. its absurd to believe that this does NOT include regulations on what types of guns can be possessed and carried, depending on the role of each Militiaman, and who/when/how folks can obtain firearms and who cannot. don't forget that even in the Army, soldiers don't simply walk around with an M-16 all day long. depending on the situation and context, sometimes they carry arms and sometimes they dont. sometimes they carry rifles, sometimes they carry handguns. it all depends on the situation.
scandalous doesn't mean they aren't the law of the land. Notice how some supreme court rulings are viewed as needing updated or re-interpreted and others suit the poster just fine
You just had it explained to you what well regulated meant at the time. Your opinion of what it means is wrong and actually just a subjective opinion. At least when SCOTUS make decisions they research the intentions of the FFs and commonly used words and meanings of the time. Take the time to read the research done by SCOTUS. It's in their decision.
Basically a militia is required to protect the freedom of a State as in individual State. Therefore the pre-existing right of firearm ownership will not be infringed (by the Federal government). Government did not give anyone a pre-existing right but is only capable of oppressing the same. (It's in the Constitution) Many States have some variation of the same so their States cannot infringe on that pre-existing right either. - - - Updated - - - Wrong, see above.
doesn't say that anywhere in the USC. The well-regulated Militia is to protect the USA against invasion, insurrection, and other emergencies. they are to be trained, equipped, disciplined, armed, by superiors chosen by the federal govt.
You have switched from Militia to a Standing Army, which came later. The framers were fearful of a Standing Army as they have historically been used to oppress citizenry. That is the reason for the creation of Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 and the reason for the alarm of using the standing army on US soil for police work.
Ya know what. Pending a solid rebuttal, all I am going to say is that I learned something today. I buy that. It makes sense and it is persuasive, despite the fact my constitutional position is now much weaker. I think I have just switched sides on the original intent Constitutional argument. Thank-you!
