Post by: bflynn on June 21, 2016, 06:43:26 AM
But in the 2nd Amendment there is also this phrase "well regulated militia". NOT well regulated guns, which is how we've screwed this up. And that is where my thinking turns to a different idea.
So I offer the following idea: To let the people own whatever they want as a militia member and then to regulate the militia.
The militia are not military people. They are and should always be civilians. They will never be subject to the UCMJ. But they can still be well regulated in ways that move both sides closer to what they want - a well armed militia and a well regulated militia.
1) The militia is defined as any citizen who wishes to join. Join means to be registered with your state and to follow the regulations
they set forth. At a minimum, these are
a) be a citizen and
b) not considered a threat to commit violent. That includes
i) domestic violence
ii) felon
iii) mental health
iv) active terrorist investigation
c) any of the conditions listed under b) must be proven and are subject to challenge in a court.
d) the regulations set forth by the State are not so strict as to disqualify "too many" of the citizenry. I don't know how to phrase this
e) a citizen who becomes disqualified or is accused of a disqualifying condition can have their weapons stored at a militia armory
until such time as they elect to defer militia participation or are permanently disqualified
2) Ownership of certain weapons will be restricted to members of the militia who identify themselves to and participate in their
state's well regulated program.
a) no tactical battlefield weapons system is denied to a militia member except WMDs. Note that this would potentially include tanks,
airplanes, ships, etc.
b) Nuclear, chemical and biological weapons are weapons with strategic implications and are not to be wielded by individuals. That's the gist of it. Obviously there are details to be filled in...but what do you think?
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 21, 2016, 07:32:29 AM
Post by: bflynn on June 21, 2016, 07:33:56 AM
"regulated" doesn't mean what you think it does.
Enlighten us. What does it mean?
Post by: Little Joe on June 21, 2016, 07:35:38 AM
Post by: Little Joe on June 21, 2016, 07:36:06 AM
"regulated" doesn't mean what you think it does.What do you think it means?
Post by: Bob Noel on June 21, 2016, 08:48:28 AM
Post by: Lucifer on June 21, 2016, 08:49:28 AM
Why do people misunderstand English so badly that they think the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is restricted to only militias?
Twisting and contorting words are not new.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 21, 2016, 08:59:58 AM
What do you think it means?
Hint: It doesn't refer to enforced bureaucratic rules.
Post by: Little Joe on June 21, 2016, 09:17:14 AM
Why do people misunderstand English so badly that they think the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is restricted to only militias?So what did they mean when they mentioned a well regulated militia?
If you don't know how to answer that, then go ahead and dodge the question.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 21, 2016, 10:11:23 AM
So what did they mean when they mentioned a well regulated militia?
If you don't know how to answer that, then go ahead and dodge the question.
The People have a right to keep and bear (carry on their persons anywhere) arms.
A well regulated (ready and equipped) militia (a non-standing army made up of the People) being necessary (in the eyes of the Framers) to ensure a free state (not a "state" like New Jersey) requires that the People be armed and ready to serve at all times. Weaponry wasn't to be held and distributed by the Government.
Why anyone with average intelligence can't parse this sentence logically is beyond comprehension.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 21, 2016, 10:23:28 AM
So what did they mean when they mentioned a well regulated militia?
If you don't know how to answer that, then go ahead and dodge the question.
As a (but not the only) reason for the recognition of the right to keep and bear arms.
Post by: Little Joe on June 21, 2016, 10:35:15 AM
The People have a right to keep and bear (carry on their persons anywhere) arms.That was a decent answer. But there has been much discussion over that awkward phrase for years. As is, it could be parsed and interpreted in different ways.
A well regulated (ready and equipped) militia (a non-standing army made up of the People) being necessary (in the eyes of the Framers) to ensure a free state (not a "state" like New Jersey) requires that the People be armed and ready to serve at all times. Weaponry wasn't to be held and distributed by the Government.
Why anyone with average intelligence can't parse this sentence logically is beyond comprehension.
But thanks for the insult. It can help me when I am formulating my questions and replies.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 21, 2016, 10:46:09 AM
That was a decent answer. But there has been much discussion over that awkward phrase for years. As is, it could be parsed and interpreted in different ways.
But thanks for the insult. It can help me when I am formulating my questions and replies.
Apologies Joe, that wasn't intended specifically to you, it's a general observation. If there's any other "interpretation", it's ideologically motivated.
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 21, 2016, 10:48:49 AM
As a (but not the only) reason for the recognition of the right to keep and bear arms.
The uninfringed Right is necessary for the preceding phrase to be possible.
Post by: bflynn on June 21, 2016, 10:53:57 AM
That was a decent answer. But there has been much discussion over that awkward phrase for years. As is, it could be parsed and interpreted in different ways.
No, there's pretty much just one way to parse it. The noun of the phrase is "the right (of the people)" and the verb is "shall not be infringed". Everything else is explanatory.
Wow, she wins again. My 6th grade teacher told us that parsing sentences would be critical one day. We all swore we'd never use it. Rats, she keeps winning.
Post by: nddons on June 21, 2016, 11:04:18 AM
That was a decent answer. But there has been much discussion over that awkward phrase for years. As is, it could be parsed and interpreted in different ways.
But thanks for the insult. It can help me when I am formulating my questions and replies.
I think you insulted him first, Joe, and unnecessarily so, implying that he didn't know the answer.
So what did they mean when they mentioned a well regulated militia?
If you don't know how to answer that, then go ahead and dodge the question.
Post by: bflynn on June 21, 2016, 11:06:07 AM
Why do people misunderstand English so badly that they think the "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is restricted to only militias?
It's obviously not. But some of the weapons could be restricted to the realm of a well regulated militia. There's a pretty good reason we don't let just anyone get a 155mm howitzer or a F-35.
It's a trade off. Whether you think a well regulated militia just means well armed or if it means that they are armed and disciplined then there is something to gain by formalizing the unorganized militia. You want the .50 caliber sniper rilfe? Ok, you can have it, but you'll have it as a formal member of the militia.
BTW, I don't believe the term "well regulated" means "well equipped". When that was written, States appointed the officers of the militia. They were not just bands of farmers that showed up with their muskets and milled around until the shooting started. Militia were considered an important part of an army and having them organized and able to function with the army was "well regulated". Well, in order to get to that level, you need them to have comparable weapons and some kind of minimal organization that allows you to integrate the local forces into the larger group.
Post by: Bob Noel on June 21, 2016, 11:32:11 AM
It's obviously not. But some of the weapons could be restricted to the realm of a well regulated militia. There's a pretty good reason we don't let just anyone get a 155mm howitzer or a F-35.
It's a trade off. Whether you think a well regulated militia just means well armed or if it means that they are armed and disciplined then there is something to gain by formalizing the unorganized militia. You want the .50 caliber sniper rilfe? Ok, you can have it, but you'll have it as a formal member of the militia.
BTW, I don't believe the term "well regulated" means "well equipped". When that was written, States appointed the officers of the militia. They were not just bands of farmers that showed up with their muskets and milled around until the shooting started. Militia were considered an important part of an army and having them organized and able to function with the army was "well regulated". Well, in order to get to that level, you need them to have comparable weapons and some kind of minimal organization that allows you to integrate the local forces into the larger group.
What's the reason someone can't have a 155mm tube or an F-35?
btw - people having arms implies that they know how to use them... kind of important when the shooting starts.
another btw - what's the difference between a long range rifle capable of 1000 yd target shooting and a sniper rifle?
another btw - (directed at everyone) are the rights listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights the only rights we have? If not, then why would anyone think that militias are the only reason to have the right to keep and bear arms?
Post by: You Only Live Twice on June 21, 2016, 12:44:43 PM
another btw - (directed at everyone) are the rights listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights the only rights we have? If not, then why would anyone think that militias are the only reason to have the right to keep and bear arms?
No, those are just the "enumerated" ones. In Roe v Wade the SCOTUS found a new one.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 21, 2016, 02:29:26 PM
2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/state?s=t
Quote
7. a politically unified people occupying a definite territory; nation
15. of or relating to the central civil government or authority.
16. made, maintained, or chartered by or under the authority of one of the commonwealths that make up a federal union:
What if that's what it means?
Post by: Little Joe on June 21, 2016, 02:35:38 PM
I think you insulted him first, Joe, and unnecessarily so, implying that he didn't know the answer.:-[ :-[ :-[
Post by: nddons on June 21, 2016, 02:47:09 PM
Mind if I weigh in on this?Congratulations! You are the first person in history to endeavor to study the word "state" in the Second Amendment.
2nd Amendment:
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/state?s=t
What if that's what it means?
Lesser men worry about the words "well", "regulated", Militia", "right", "people", "keep", "bear", "Arms", "not", and of course "infringed."
Post by: Anthony on June 22, 2016, 05:43:25 AM
Regulated means well trained, well timed, organized, equipped, etc. like a clock.
reg·u·late.
[ˈreɡyəˌlāt]
VERB
1.control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly:
Post by: JeffDG on June 22, 2016, 05:58:57 AM
Let's look, historically, at the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment. No, it wasn't so people could put down a tyrannical government. The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the new rebpublic with the ability to defend itself against great powers like Britain and France. Let me elaborate.
The founders did not establish a standing army. They were determined to rely upon "citizen soldiers" in the form of militia to defend the nation against attack. You know what helps people become effective citizen soldiers: Having weapons, and knowing how to use them! Citizens were expected to have weapons suitable for use in the event of being called into service in the militia, and be proficient in their use.
How does that map forward to today?
The standard rifle used in the US Army is the M16. Based on a simple historical reading of the 2nd Amendment, citizens should most certainly be entitled to purchase such rifles, such that they can become proficient in their use, and bring their weapons with them should the militia be called into service. That means a rifle that is capable of full-auto should be fully protected by the 2nd Amendment, if you read the prefatory clause in.
And for the record, the militia consists of all male US Citizens (and aliens who have declared their intent to become citizens) between the ages of 17 and 45, and female citizens who are members of the National Guard.
Post by: bflynn on June 22, 2016, 06:28:17 AM
Regulated means well trained, well timed, organized, equipped, etc. like a clock.
So would you say that our unorganized militia is at all well regulated? They are increasingly restricted in the weapons they can bear. They have no understanding of a military environment. There is no organization to their structure and there is no training.
It seems to me that a compromise to gain the freedom to equip better weapons with a requirement to enter into a minimum level of organization and training is a win-win.
Post by: bflynn on June 22, 2016, 06:32:23 AM
No, it wasn't so people could put down a tyrannical government.
It wasn't only so the people could put down a tyrannical government. You need to keep in mind the history that these men had been through. Part of the reason was providing future generations the ability to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.
Post by: JeffDG on June 22, 2016, 06:36:02 AM
It wasn't only so the people could put down a tyrannical government. You need to keep in mind the history that these men had been through. Part of the reason was providing future generations the ability to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another.Yes, they threw off a government from Britain, however, there is no indication that they thought that the new United States could throw off the new Republic. For example, the first governing document was the "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union". The Constitution was formed to create "a more perfect Union", and if I may paraphrase Texas v. White, what about a perpetual union made more perfect would permit such a union to be overthrown? The whole "dissolving the bands that connected them, one to another" was from the Declaration and such right of withdrawal appears nowhere in the Articles or Constitution.
The founders suffered a common malady...they believed THEIR republic could not be corrupted like the old government was.
Post by: bflynn on June 22, 2016, 07:02:49 AM
they believed THEIR republic could not be corrupted like the old government was.
I would agree that YOU think the founders believed their government was incorruptible. But even a casual reading of the writings of the founding fathers makes it clear they were very concerned about overbearing governments and about their government becoming overbearing. They tried to design the government so that it would be difficult to do and to be the least invasive possible.
But somehow we've let people screw it up and that is why we have arguments today about things like gay marriage, drug use and compulsory denial of religious beliefs. And guns / self defense
Post by: JeffDG on June 22, 2016, 07:06:10 AM
I would agree that YOU think the founders believed their government was uncorruptable. But even a casual reading of the writings of the founding fathers makes it clear they were very concerned about overbearing governments. They tried to design the government so that it would be the least invasive possible.Yet, their actual legal documents, the Articles and the Constitution, provided no provision for any kind of withdrawal from the Union, and made the Union "perpetual".
But somehow we've let people screw it up and that is why we have arguments today about things like gay marriage, drug use and compulsory denial of religious beliefs. And guns / self defense
I care not for the private motives of the Founders. They disliked standing armies for example, yet they failed to prohibit same in the Constitution when they wrote it. As such, regardless of their motives (standing armies bad), there is no prohibition against standing armies.
By the same token, some may have thought it the right of states to secede, yet they provided no mechanism for doing so, and declared the union perpetual.
The private motives of the founders is secondary to what they legally established.
Post by: Anthony on June 22, 2016, 07:19:00 AM
Post by: asechrest on June 22, 2016, 07:43:44 AM
England was not a foreign government. It was the sovereign standing government in which we took up arms against. That was the genesis of the 2A. You're wrong again Jeff.
Jeff is right. The British were a foreign force in the view of the colonists. Further, the infant Republic had two rebellions, which were summarily crushed, one by Washington himself, and with Madison decrying another treasonous.
Additional support is given elsewhere in the constitution, wherein it states that one of the purposes of the militia is to defeat insurrection.
There is little to no evidence that 2A was drafted with insurrection in mind, though in my opinion it's a nice side effect.
Post by: bflynn on June 22, 2016, 07:51:33 AM
I care not for the private motives of the Founders.
...
The private motives of the founders is secondary to what they legally established.
Then you should not be injecting them.
What they legally created has to be examined in terms of their personal beliefs
Post by: JeffDG on June 22, 2016, 10:03:56 AM
Then you should not be injecting them.Whose personal beliefs?
What they legally created has to be examined in terms of their personal beliefs
Those who wrote the Constitution? Those who approved it at the Continental Congress? Those people at the ratifying conventions in the Several States? The people who selected the delegates to the ratifying conventions?
Groups of people do not have motives, individuals do. Groups distill all the motives of their collective into what they actually put down on paper. What Madison thought about a particular amendment is no different than any other Congresscritter at the time, and no different from any state legislator who voted to ratify, and no different from the voters for either of those who sent them to represent them.
Post by: bflynn on June 22, 2016, 10:38:05 AM
Groups of people do not have motives, individuals do.
Yes. And if you want to understand the motives behind those who wrote and approved the Constitution, you should read their own words on it. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are a great source as are TJ's set of correspondence.
Here's a quote from George Washington showing the need for a well regulated militia:
Quote from: George Washington
To place any dependance upon Militia, is, assuredly, resting upon a broken staff. Men just dragged from the tender Scenes of domestick life; unaccustomed to the din of Arms; totally unacquainted with every kind of Military skill, which being followed by a want of confidence in themselves, when opposed to Troops regulary train'd, disciplined, and appointed, superior in knowledge, and superior in Arms, makes them timid, and ready to fly from their own shadows.
Essentially he argues that our unorganized militia is insufficient to be effective at all. I would add to his thoughts that a militia which is not equally equipped would be little more than cannon fodder. In the General's day, that would have equated to militia showing up to defend their homes with pitchforks against the organized British Army.
On the topic of tyranny, there are many quotes, here's one from James Madison at the end of Federalist 48
Quote from: James Madison
The conclusion which I am warranted in drawing from these observations is, that a mere demarcation on parchment of the constitutional limits of the several departments, is not a sufficient guard against those encroachments which lead to a tyrannical concentration of all the powers of government in the same hands.
Mr Madison at least recognized and communicated the ability of the government to become tyrannical. His foresight in this document is frankly amazing.
Post by: JeffDG on June 22, 2016, 10:47:36 AM
Yes. And if you want to understand the motives behind those who wrote and approved the Constitution, you should read their own words on it. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are a great source as are TJ's set of correspondence.Why are those people's motives controlling? Why not others who voted on the Amendment, either in Congress or in the state legislatures who ratified the amendment? Why not those who elected those people, or the state legislators, as their representatives to Congress or the Legislature.
Here's a quote from George Washington showing the need for a well regulated militia:
Essentially he argues that our unorganized militia is insufficient to be effective at all. I would add to his thoughts that a militia which is not equally equipped would be little more than cannon fodder. In the General's day, that would have equated to militia showing up to defend their homes with pitchforks against the organized British Army.
On the topic of tyranny, there are many quotes, here's one from James Madison at the end of Federalist 48
Mr Madison at least recognized and communicated the ability of the government to become tyrannical. His foresight in this document is frankly amazing.
Intent is irrelevant. The words chosen, and their publicly known meanings at the time of proposal/ratification, matter.
Post by: asechrest on June 22, 2016, 10:55:29 AM
Then you should not be injecting them.
What they legally created has to be examined in terms of their personal beliefs
Those personal beliefs wildly differed, though. For example, following Shay's Rebellion, Madison desired a stronger central government than even the eventually-ratified constitution provided, to include total federal veto power over state legislatures. He was even initially nonchalant about the omission of a Bill of Rights from the ratified Constitution, though he came around from that eventually (obviously).
The personal feelings of the founders were varied and in some cases fluid. I find it difficult to divine absolute meaning through such a cloudy lens.
Post by: bflynn on June 22, 2016, 10:59:22 AM
Why are those people's motives controlling? Why not others who voted on the Amendment, either in Congress or in the state legislatures who ratified the amendment? Why not those who elected those people, or the state legislators, as their representatives to Congress or the Legislature.
Intent is irrelevant. The words chosen, and their publicly known meanings at the time of proposal/ratification, matter.
Because they wrote the words down and because we have their writings. If you want to include others, then show me their writings. I'm satisfied that there is a sufficiently broad sampling to include the major points. Intent is not irrelevant. It is used by judges all the time, especially the ones on the Supreme Court. You should write them and them them they're doing it wrong.
If I can roll back to a previous statement you made, I do agree that there is no provision made in the Constitution for withdrawal. But that does not mean there is no right to withdraw. The founders saw the Constitution as a continuation of the works of the previous Conventions, works that included the Declaration of Independence, which itself was a declaration of withdrawing from a government. The right to withdraw is not Constitutional, it is pre-Constitutional.
Post by: bflynn on June 22, 2016, 11:01:51 AM
Those personal beliefs wildly differed, though. For example, following Shay's Rebellion, Madison desired a stronger central government than even the eventually-ratified constitution provided, to include total federal veto power over state legislatures. He was even initially nonchalant about the omission of a Bill of Rights from the ratified Constitution, though he came around from that eventually (obviously).
The personal feelings of the founders were varied and in some cases fluid. I find it difficult to divine absolute meaning through such a cloudy lens.
They did differ and we still differ today. Let me recommend this website as a primary source (Ironically hosted in the Netherlands): http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/ (http://www.let.rug.nl/usa/documents/1786-1800/). Reading it can be very instructive on why things are worded the way they are and how certain things came about.
Post by: JeffDG on June 22, 2016, 11:04:04 AM
Because they wrote the words down and because we have their writings. If you want to include others, then show me their writings. I'm satisfied that there is a sufficiently broad. Intent is not irrelevant. It is used by judges all the time, especially the ones on the Supreme Court. You should write them and them them they're doing it wrong.Then why were the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union created, and a "more perfect Union" created by the Constitution?
If I can roll back to a previous statement you made, I do agree that there is no provision made in the Constitution for withdrawal. But that does not mean there is no right to withdraw. The founders saw the Constitution as a continuation of the works of the previous Conventions, works that included the Declaration of Independence, which itself was a declaration of withdrawing from a government. The right to withdraw is not Constitutional, it is pre-Constitutional.
And if you want to go to the Supremes as the absolute source of Truth, then Texas v. White made clear that there was absolutely no way to withdraw from the Constitution or the Union whatsoever.
The founders brutally put down rebellions themselves. Why is that manifest intent not relevant, but the writings of one person are?
Post by: bflynn on June 22, 2016, 11:21:02 AM
Then why were the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union created, and a "more perfect Union" created by the Constitution?
And if you want to go to the Supremes as the absolute source of Truth, then Texas v. White made clear that there was absolutely no way to withdraw from the Constitution or the Union whatsoever.
The founders brutally put down rebellions themselves. Why is that manifest intent not relevant, but the writings of one person are?
Because the Article of Confederation were failing. The preamble statement of the intent to create a more perfect union is because the one they had immediately after the Revolution was broken.
And you apparently aren't reading what I'm saying. The supreme court decides US law. The right to separate yourself from an abusive government is not in but is above the Constitution. It's also documented in the Declaration. The fact that the founders, as British citizens, exercised the right to succeed indicates it's something that you can do. The omission from the Constitution is not meaningful. If States do not have the right to succeed then how did our country get going? Do you claim we are actually rightfully British?
And the writings are of many, many people and different positions. If you looked at the primary source information I suggested, there are writings from Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Franklin, Paine, Adam Smith and dozens of others.
But, getting back to the topic - I assert that our militia is neither well regulated nor well equipped. It would be beneficial to apply some regulation and then to qualify the unorganized militia and allow them to have more than the modern day equivalent of a pitchfork.
Post by: Jaybird180 on June 23, 2016, 02:01:29 PM
OK, folks have a point that pro-gun folks tend to ignore the prefactory clause of the 2nd Amendment. However, anti-gun folks may want to keep it that way.
Let's look, historically, at the purpose behind the 2nd Amendment. No, it wasn't so people could put down a tyrannical government. The primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the new rebpublic with the ability to defend itself against great powers like Britain and France. Let me elaborate.
The founders did not establish a standing army. They were determined to rely upon "citizen soldiers" in the form of militia to defend the nation against attack. You know what helps people become effective citizen soldiers: Having weapons, and knowing how to use them! Citizens were expected to have weapons suitable for use in the event of being called into service in the militia, and be proficient in their use.
How does that map forward to today?
The standard rifle used in the US Army is the M16. Based on a simple historical reading of the 2nd Amendment, citizens should most certainly be entitled to purchase such rifles, such that they can become proficient in their use, and bring their weapons with them should the militia be called into service. That means a rifle that is capable of full-auto should be fully protected by the 2nd Amendment, if you read the prefatory clause in.
And for the record, the militia consists of all male US Citizens (and aliens who have declared their intent to become citizens) between the ages of 17 and 45, and female citizens who are members of the National Guard.
If this is the case, then the 2A has outlived its usefulness considering that the Congress has the power and has acted upon such to erect a Standing Army and Navy. Is this where you were going with this?
Post by: Anthony on June 26, 2016, 04:41:14 AM
If this is the case, then the 2A has outlived its usefulness considering that the Congress has the power and has acted upon such to erect a Standing Army and Navy. Is this where you were going with this?
The Federal Government has acted in an UN-Constitutional, and illegal matter on many issues, including the 2A. I will submit the Federal Government is now irrelevant as it is LAWLESS.