LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Just my personal opinion.LeafByNiggle:
Why? (words added to fill minimum)
- Status
U
upant
Guest
i don’t disagree with it. i understand it. i will pick up where the government stops for me and my family.
why do you think i want something to happen? i follow current law and fill in the gaps myself.
well look them up and report back.
you haven’t been paying attention to recent riots. many cops have done nothing while people are getting hurt in front of them.
I didn’t say there was, only that apparently no one is testing that water.
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Interesting debate in Virginia commonwealth assembly:
greatamericanrepublic.com
Great American Republic • Articulating American Principles & Values
Great American Republic • Articulating American Principles & Values
greatamericanrepublic.com
M
MonteRCMS
Guest
Interesting discussion:
Why doesn’t the United States government enact gun control legislation that exactly matches the literal 1791 wording of the 2nd amendment: To own a gun, you must belong to a state’s “well regulated militia” including any required annual training?
Would be fine with this. But the reason why I would be fine with it probably isn’t going to make you happy…
Let’s begin. Here is the exact wording of the 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.
So let’s go with a very literal, exactly-as-it’s-written definition here. No twists, no loose interpretations, word for word as intended.
Remember that in context, “militia” meant an organized group of private citizens dedicated to defending the security of their state. That’s not to be confused with a state-sponsored army. A “standing army” is not a militia. And let’s also remember that, in context, “well regulated” means “trained and in working order”. And of course “keep and bear arms” in today’s words means “own and carry guns”.
Still with me? Ok. So, taken literally word for word, the Second Amendment states that a well-trained militia - not a standing army - is necessary, and their right to own and carry guns shall not be infringed.
There are currently 276 active militias in the USA, spanning across all 50 states. This is good, because that means there is at least one private militia in every state, and the constitution says they are necessary.
It also says that the people who are part of a militia have the right to own and carry guns, and that right cannot be infringed.
Therefore, if one chooses to join and train with one of those militias, that person must be able to own and carry guns, and this right cannot be taken from them. And remember, the Constitution mandates that militias are necessary for the security of a free state. Not optional, or “a good thing to have”. Necessary.
So, based on the only literal definition that can exist, you are now free to take guns away from everyone who chooses not to join a private militia.
But you cannot in any way restrict access to guns for the people who have joined a militia. And you can’t ban militias.
Why doesn’t the United States government enact gun control legislation that exactly matches the literal 1791 wording of the 2nd amendment: To own a gun, you must belong to a state’s “well regulated militia” including any required annual training?
Would be fine with this. But the reason why I would be fine with it probably isn’t going to make you happy…
Let’s begin. Here is the exact wording of the 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.
So let’s go with a very literal, exactly-as-it’s-written definition here. No twists, no loose interpretations, word for word as intended.
Remember that in context, “militia” meant an organized group of private citizens dedicated to defending the security of their state. That’s not to be confused with a state-sponsored army. A “standing army” is not a militia. And let’s also remember that, in context, “well regulated” means “trained and in working order”. And of course “keep and bear arms” in today’s words means “own and carry guns”.
Still with me? Ok. So, taken literally word for word, the Second Amendment states that a well-trained militia - not a standing army - is necessary, and their right to own and carry guns shall not be infringed.
There are currently 276 active militias in the USA, spanning across all 50 states. This is good, because that means there is at least one private militia in every state, and the constitution says they are necessary.
It also says that the people who are part of a militia have the right to own and carry guns, and that right cannot be infringed.
Therefore, if one chooses to join and train with one of those militias, that person must be able to own and carry guns, and this right cannot be taken from them. And remember, the Constitution mandates that militias are necessary for the security of a free state. Not optional, or “a good thing to have”. Necessary.
So, based on the only literal definition that can exist, you are now free to take guns away from everyone who chooses not to join a private militia.
But you cannot in any way restrict access to guns for the people who have joined a militia. And you can’t ban militias.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
The fact that the 2nd amendment can be interpreted like this today is the best argument I’ve seen yet for its repeal.
For the record, your definition of the word “militia” is too narrow. It can refer to a private non-government-sanctioned force, but it can also refer to a state sanctioned force of non-professional part-time citizens that can be called upon by the state in times of emergency to supplement the professional forces and be regulated by the state. And by “state” I do mean “state,” not the federal government.
If people would just apply a reasonable interpretation to the 2nd amendment there would be no need to repeal it.
For the record, your definition of the word “militia” is too narrow. It can refer to a private non-government-sanctioned force, but it can also refer to a state sanctioned force of non-professional part-time citizens that can be called upon by the state in times of emergency to supplement the professional forces and be regulated by the state. And by “state” I do mean “state,” not the federal government.
If people would just apply a reasonable interpretation to the 2nd amendment there would be no need to repeal it.
Last edited:
R
Ridgerunner
Guest
Actually I do, though it’s not “well regulated”, particularly. In my state, every man between, I think age 18 and 65 is automatically a member of the State Militia and subject to being called up for service by the governor.
I don’t recall the governor ever doing it, but it does exist.
U
upant
Guest
what is reasonable to one is not necessarily reasonable to another.
the devil is in the details
so is every man signed up by the selective service system.
R
Rau
Guest
An observation of fact, but of no significance, unless you have reason to believe that failures of police officers ought be a breach of the Constitution.
R
Rau
Guest
What would be the most effective means to deal with and prevent future cases of “police failure to act”?
R
Rau
Guest
It’s a pity that even the idea of revising it to make it clear is anathema to many!
R
Rau
Guest
So you don’t enjoy a 2nd amendment right?
I
Inisfallen
Guest
And also affirming the Constitutionality of regulation of who may possess what kind of firearms.
U
upant
Guest
the significance is that the idea that you can rely on the police is false.
learn to defend yourself and properly arm yourself for the situation.
it is a matter of trust. many don’t trust the gun control group because if you listen to them they really don’t understand the subject.
where do i buy a magazine clip?
how can they make reasonable laws about something they don’t understand and obviously don’t take the time to learn it.
R
Rau
Guest
That has nothing to do with the scope of the Cobstitution!
You avoided my question. Your solution has no good effect on police failure to act.
But they are not in charge and not the only voice. There are established processes to write laws and the revise the Constitution.
Last edited:
LeafByNiggle
Well-known member
Those decisions do indeed clarify that one point. But there are still many many points still in need of clarification, such as:Rau:
Heller and MacDonald provided historically accurate and reasonable interpretations, affirming the individual right.LeafByNiggle:
It’s a pity that even the idea of revising it to make it clear is anathema to many!
- At what age does a person begin to enjoy this right?
- What sorts of mental disqualifications are constitutional?
- What sort of social situations may legitimately ban guns?
- What sorts of firearms are covered and in which situation?
- Is mandatory registration constitutional?
- Are universal background checks constitutional?
- Are Risk Protective Orders constitutional?
Not whom, outside the exceptions of convicts or those adjudicated a threat to themselves and others. Both cases defended the individual right against government attempts to disarm the law abiding
I
Inisfallen
Guest
I don’t recall that Heller said we may not set the minimum age for firearms purchases to 21 years.
I think we’re about to find out.JonNC:
I don’t recall that Heller said we may not set the minimum age for firearms purchases to 21 years.
- Status