The wording of the 2A - Page 2

The wording of the 2A

This is a discussion on The wording of the 2A within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY Aye, the good old days. If you had the money you could outfit your own privateer. I would have loved ...

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 33
Like Tree141Likes

Thread: The wording of the 2A

  1. #16
    Member Array rotorhead1026's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2019
    Location
    The Far Side
    Posts
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY View Post
    Aye, the good old days. If you had the money you could outfit your own privateer.
    I would have loved that.
    My fantasy is to outfit an old PTboat update the weaponry and cruise the gulf
    There’s one in New Orleans and one in, I think, Washington state. Otherwise you’ll have to build from scratch. Good luck finding torpedoes, too. :)
    baren likes this.
    *********************************

    Never let anything mechanical know that you're in a hurry.

  2. #17
    Distinguished Member Array CavemanBob's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Kalirado
    Posts
    1,475
    It's the end-goal of politicians to eventually whittle the "may possess" list down to little or nothing. The law is now such that you may not buy high-caliber weapons over 50 cal. The supply and demand of full-auto small-caliber weapons is such that a full-auto is financially out of reach for most. Such is what they base their claim that the 2nd is limited essentially to "sporting arms" and that list will continue to shrink. Of course, the Founders never stated nor implied "sporting" purpose.
    Arsenal? That's not an arsenal, that's my gun collection! John Wick, now he has an arsenal.

    NRA Patron member

  3. #18
    Senior Member Array DZUS's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    The Great State of Idaho
    Posts
    1,071
    Quote Originally Posted by G26Raven View Post
    My understanding is that "well regulated" means "well trained and disciplined." The "shall not be infringed" part is the part dealing with the type of weapons that may be carried or any restriction thereof.
    I seem to recall reading that "well regulated" in the 1700s meant well-running or effective. Such as a well-regulated clock.

    Nowadays, regulated often means people who arecontrolled by government regulations.

    .
    Armed And Harmless
    ----
    Never give in--never, never, never, never, in nothing great or small, large or petty, never give in except to convictions of honour and good sense. Never yield to force; never yield to the apparently overwhelming might of the enemy.
    - - Sir Winston Churchill, 1941

  4. Remove Advertisements
    DefensiveCarry.com
    Advertisements
     

  5. #19
    Senior Member Array Bikenut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2018
    Location
    Too close to Saginaw Mi.
    Posts
    744
    Quote Originally Posted by G26Raven View Post
    True. And, anti-gunners always focus on the "militia" equating it with the military, but fail to recognize the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...."
    I like to watch the faces of anti gunners when I explain the "militia" is every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. Eyes bug out, faces turn red, spittle sputters, and it doesn't take long before they just walk away.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

    10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    That kinda takes the wind out of anti gunner sails.
    Character is doing the right thing when nobody's looking. There are too many people who think that the only thing that's right is to get by, and the only thing that's wrong is to get caught. ~J.C. Watts

  6. #20
    VIP Member Array G26Raven's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Southwest
    Posts
    6,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I like to watch the faces of anti gunners when I explain the "militia" is every able bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45. Eyes bug out, faces turn red, spittle sputters, and it doesn't take long before they just walk away.

    https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246

    10 U.S. Code § 246. Militia: composition and classes

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    That kinda takes the wind out of anti gunner sails.
    Perfect!
    If something is important enough, you will find a way. If it's not, you will find an excuse.
    Every man dies, but not every man truly lives.
    If you are asked to be the hero, be the hero.

  7. #21
    Member Array KILTED COWBOY's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2019
    Location
    TEXAS
    Posts
    448
    Quote Originally Posted by rotorhead1026 View Post
    There’s one in New Orleans and one in, I think, Washington state. Otherwise you’ll have to build from scratch. Good luck finding torpedoes, too. :)
    Yes PT 305 took the ride it was awesome on lake ponchatrain.
    Highly recommend f you ever get the chance
    Bad Bob likes this.

  8. #22
    Distinguished Member
    Array StevePVB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    1,775
    Of course, it sure would have been nice if they left that clause out entirely.
    Bad Bob, baren and G26Raven like this.

  9. #23
    Distinguished Member Array CAS_Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,559
    What possible reason would the government need to have a declared "right" to arm an organization that the government itself equips and manages. The National Guard is not unlike any other military branch (i.e., standing army). The government does not need a declared constitutional "right" to arm the members of a military branch, as the founding fathers took care of that in Article 1, Section 8:

    "The Congress shall have Power To ...raise and support Armies,....."
    Hence: Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, National Guard, Coast Guard. All military supported by the government. it is not a protected right for the government to arm the members of these branches, it is a "Power" granted by the constitution.

    The government was already empowered by the constitution to create a military and that is what the national guard is part of. So we are suppose to believe that 2A was intended to ensure that the government can never be denied the right to arm the members of the military? The government is not the recipient of any right. By definition, the government doesn't need rights - people do.

  10. #24
    Distinguished Member Array patkelly4370's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2015
    Location
    Arizona
    Posts
    1,680
    https://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

    Oxford definition of "well-regulated"

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    Bad Bob, airslot and M1911A1 like this.

  11. #25
    VIP Member Array Bad Bob's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    The BAD lands
    Posts
    11,791
    Quote Originally Posted by G26Raven View Post
    True. And, anti-gunners always focus on the "militia" equating it with the military, but fail to recognize the words "the right of the people to keep and bear arms...."
    Not to mention every right listed is to protect the individual from the government.
    OD*, Hoganbeg, airslot and 5 others like this.
    A man has got to know his limitations.

    In a world of snowflakes, be a torch.

  12. #26
    VIP Member
    Array Pistology's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    South Coast LA Cty
    Posts
    2,579
    Good historiography of "well regulated". Explains the four meanings in use at the time. Supports the argument that they all apply to the intent of 2A.
    The "militia" largely morphed into the standing army which requires regulations specific and peculiar to it, but "the right of the people..." is distinct, imo.
    Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
    when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
    -Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

  13. #27
    Distinguished Member Array CAS_Shooter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    1,559
    It seems that when a militia morphs into a standing army, it is no longer a militia.
    G26Raven and airslot like this.

  14. #28
    Member Array Russ_Reese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2014
    Location
    Bishop, CA
    Posts
    34
    I predict, that in 50 years, the 2nd Amendment will be repealed. The regular occurrence of mass shootings will eventually make it happen. A repeal does not necessarily strip law abiding citizens from owning or concealed carry, rather, gun ownership then becomes a privilege to be earned, rather than a right. However, to make a repeal function, there must also be a strong "enter and search" law enacted, for crimminals and folks who want to keep guns will not voluntarily yield their weapons. So, in the future, gun ownership will require a thorough background check, a yearly psychological exam, a lengthy training program, and supervision by the local law enforcement agency. It simply makes sense that the ability to kill another person from a distance on a whim must be minimized. That includes the absolute promise that a shooter will die if he goes on a spree, no extended incarnation, no appeals, just immediate lights out.

    Sent from my SM-T710 using Tapatalk

  15. #29
    Senior Member Array Psycho41's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2015
    Location
    Kansas
    Posts
    829
    Quote Originally Posted by LimaCharlie View Post
    The problem with that analogy is that a "suit" is not made up of humans (as a militia is) and could arguably be said to be a false comparison. I would prefer something along the lines of:

    A well educated workforce, being necessary for the existence of a productive state, the right of the people to pursue an education shall not be infringed.

    It should be obvious that the right in this case is intended to support "the workforce" but that the right applies to "the people" - i.e. even those that do not work. It ludicrous how some will use linguistic gymnastics to try and make the argument that "the people" in the 2A really isn't "the people" but is instead the collective - as in the government (ergo the 2A is defining a right for the government to arm its military?!?!?). So, we are somehow to believe that the framers created a bill of rights that was supposed to define the rights of citizens that are to limit government overreach and they somehow mistakenly put one in to define a government power? Of course, it is the only place in the constitution where we are supposed to suspend reality with respect the phase "the people". Or, should the 4th only apply to unreasonable searches against government agencies?

    I have no problem with someone who wants to make the argument that the 2a should be changed, is no longer relevant, etc. Productive debate is a great thing. But, as soon as someone starts trying to argue that the 2A is about hunting or some other such nonsense, they lose all credibility.

  16. #30
    Member Array TimGunn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2019
    Location
    State of Jefferson
    Posts
    124
    Quote Originally Posted by patkelly4370 View Post
    I find myself repeatedly explaining what "well regulated" meant in the verbiage of the day.

    Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
    They will say "Out Dated Verbiage For An Out Dated Document".
    G26Raven and msgt/ret like this.
    Aut Pax Aut Bellum

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 1 2 3 LastLast

Sponsored Links

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •