Well Regulated Militia?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Bon_Croix
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Those stats are disingenuous, they only include “intentional homicides”, our suicide rate by gun is one of the absolute highest in the world. You will also notice that we are by far the highest in the “western” world. Most of the others are either war zones or have less than stable societies/ governments.
 
Bon_Croix said:
What is a well-regulated militia?
Click to expand...
“Well-regulated militia” means that the militia is following the laws/votes/instructions/mandates of the local govt they represent, and not picking taking the law into their own hands.
 
Last edited:
So now we have to try and regulate anything people are going to try and use to kill themselves? I don’t really see how that’s something that can be solved through legislation.
 
JanSobieskiIII said:
So now we have to try and regulate anything people are going to try and use to kill themselves? I don’t really see how that’s something that can be solved through legislation.
Click to expand...
A death is a death and as I pointed out previously, we have by far the highest death rate by gun than any other western country.
 
I don’t really see why that matters honestly.

We can’t stop people from killing themselves, we gonna ban rope if that becomes the next most popular way to commit suicide?
 
Gun control is unconstitutional. People control is not unconstitutional,
but tends to violate principles of liberty.

Any office holder who enforces Federal Gun Control Laws is a violator of
the law.
 
Last edited:
That federal code does not contradict anything.

the penn and teller clip is simple and explains its meaning, because you know it is simple and anyone who tries to contort it just has an agenda.

it is two separate statements, a ‘why’ statement and ‘what’(the actual limit of the government meant by the second amendment in the bill of rights).

Yes, it is that simple.
 
Bon_Croix said:
Gun control is unconstitutional. People control is not unconstitutional, but tends to violate principles of liberty.

Any office holder who enforces Federal Gun Control Laws is a violator of the law.
Click to expand...
Are LGBT rights unconstitutional? There have been plenty of attempts to outlaw them, is an office enforcing these laws also in volition?
 
I have a problem with the “kill themselves” remark in your statement. Our society has an issue with individuals that want to kill as many others as possible while seeking their own destruction. Somehow the term “regulate” comes up as if there is an unalienable right for some to fortify ourselves? I am certain that you have heard the comparison made to the First Amendment; your rights end where your neighbor’s start.

I don’t think one single piece of legislation is going to have any monumental effect for either side. But I like the up-rise in activism. People are experiencing a crisis in public gathering places, it even effects the ability to be safe in Church! That alone should have been an awakening for action among Christians.

This is a movement that I pray can now truly stop more innocence lives from being taken.
 
It is a shame that more worthy movements can’t be perpetrated by the same
folks who are perpetrating this movement.

First, the kid should have never have never gained access to the school.
Second, the officer in charge should have acted.

Now, if both those issues had been executed properly, the kid would not
have been able to illegally enter the property, and the skilled officer
would have seen to it that the threat were eliminated after he was made
aware of illegal entry.
 
Last edited:
Bon_Croix said:
What is a well-regulated militia?

What distinguishes a well regulated one from one that is not well regulated?
Click to expand...
Penn and Teller and our opinions are all very fine and good. However, from a US legal standpoint, the US Supreme Court has the job of determining what the phrase means when used in the US Constitution. They addressed this in detail in DC v. Heller a few years ago. See page 22 of the opinion.

 
It says:

““The militia of a country are the able bodied men organized into com panies, regiments and brigades . . . and required by law to attend military exercises on certain days only, but at other times left to pursue their usual occupations”)”

So that’s like a military “reserve”.

I understand the militia is all the able bodied men? How often are they called up to exercises? Does everyone know what company/brigade etc they are in??
 
From the opinion, it appears to me the Court is taking the position that Congress can make rules for all the calling up and assigning to a company if it were necessary to do so, as they did in the Militia Act. I do note that the discussion of the term “well regulated” is at the end of a section and kind of tossed off, which signifies that it is not a strong point of their argument.

However, the Court was most concerned here with getting rid of the idea that scholars like Akhil Reed Amar had been harping on for a couple decades that “well regulated militia” meant you had to have some government action to even make a militia and hence to allow a citizen in said militia to own a firearm. It would seem they accomplished their goal.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top