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 ...
September 1st, 2019 01:36 PM
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. :)
Originally Posted by KILTED COWBOY
Never let anything mechanical know that you're in a hurry.
September 1st, 2019 03:34 PM
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
September 1st, 2019 03:57 PM
I seem to recall reading that "well regulated" in the 1700s meant well-running or effective. Such as a well-regulated clock.
Originally Posted by G26Raven
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
September 1st, 2019 04:28 PM
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.
Originally Posted by G26Raven
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
September 1st, 2019 04:35 PM
Originally Posted by Bikenut
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.
September 1st, 2019 07:40 PM
Yes PT 305 took the ride it was awesome on lake ponchatrain.
Originally Posted by rotorhead1026
Highly recommend f you ever get the chance
September 1st, 2019 08:08 PM
Of course, it sure would have been nice if they left that clause out entirely.
September 1st, 2019 09:00 PM
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:
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 Congress shall have Power
To ...raise and support Armies,....."
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.
September 1st, 2019 09:17 PM
Oxford definition of "well-regulated"
Sent from my SM-G955U using Tapatalk
September 1st, 2019 11:14 PM
Not to mention every right listed is to protect the individual from the government.
Originally Posted by G26Raven
A man has got to know his limitations.
In a world of snowflakes, be a torch.
September 2nd, 2019 07:57 PM
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)
September 3rd, 2019 07:29 AM
It seems that when a militia morphs into a standing army, it is no longer a militia.
September 3rd, 2019 09:58 AM
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
September 3rd, 2019 10:45 AM
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:
Originally Posted by LimaCharlie
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.
September 3rd, 2019 11:12 AM
They will say "Out Dated Verbiage For An Out Dated Document".
Originally Posted by patkelly4370