General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTwo words: "well regulated" are the answer to the whole thing.
The 2nd Amendment says well regulated. If these creeps are so about Constitutionality, then they should be all for regulating the weapons.
Problem solved, now all we have to is get the gun crazies to shut the f#$% up long enough to see the error of their ways.
veganlush
(2,049 posts)The authors put "well regulated" for a reason, and only the delusional can deny it.
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)And ignoring them has consequences in this case thousands of people dying every year due to violence and accidents. I consider suicide a form of violence, but I do separate the two kinds of violence outward and inward so to speak.
If you want a gun you should be part of the militia. If you want one for self defense you should be limited to the amount of guns you have for that purpose and the size of the magazine clip.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Keys words are "shall not be denied." The Founding Fathers (direct descendants of Jeebus) didn't give a shit what kind of weapon that might be developed. SHALL. NOT. BE. DENIED.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Just sayin'
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)What about Monica Lewinski?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)All I'm saying is that your key words do not exist in the 2nd Amendment. You are mistaken in your quote.
Do youself a favor and read the 2nd Amendment. The word "denied" is not in it anywhere.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I was being sarcastic.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Trolls, zombies and sock puppets are abound, my armor is thick as of late. Perhaps too thick...
My bad...
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Nevertheless, I understand completely.
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Is there a hair dryer in that mess?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)And an Easy Bake Oven.
It will also get your whites white and lift tough stains out of your carpet.
madokie
(51,076 posts)derby378
(30,252 posts)I think he's pulling our legs. (At least, I hope he is...)
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)My apologies.
Ptah
(32,983 posts)AUTOMATED MESSAGE: Results of your Jury Service
Mail Message
At Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:11 AM an alert was sent on the following post:
Hey! You commie pinko freak!
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2211439
REASON FOR ALERT:
This post is disruptive, hurtful, rude, insensitive, over-the-top, or otherwise inappropriate. (See <a href="http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=aboutus#communitystandards" target="_blank">Community Standards</a>.)
ALERTER'S COMMENTS:
Name calling is not allowed
You served on a randomly-selected Jury of DU members which reviewed this post. The review was completed at Fri Jan 18, 2013, 12:17 AM, and the Jury voted 1-5 to LEAVE IT.
Juror #1 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Comedy is allowed, leave it.
Juror #2 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: being sarcastic
Juror #3 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: Alerter failed to read the rest of the subthread.
Juror #4 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: No explanation given
Juror #5 voted to HIDE IT and said: No explanation given
Juror #6 voted to LEAVE IT ALONE and said: it was SARCASM!
Thank you very much for participating in our Jury system, and we hope you will be able to participate again in the future.
lastlib
(22,978 posts)It makes a difference in the logic. The phrase "a well-regulated militia" becomes a superior clause and thus the subject of the phrase "shall not be infringed." The other two clauses become subordinate, thus are modifiers of the superior clause. In other words, the sentence could be written without the two subordinate clauses.
http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)What?
immoderate
(20,885 posts)The militia "clause" can't be a main clause because it has no verb. It sports a gerund.
The subject of the main (independent) clause is "the rights" and the verb is "shall (not) be infringed."
The commas are irrelevant.
--imm
the verb is "be".
You are confused. "A well-regulated militia" is a nominative clause--it does not require a verb to do its job. The verb is in the predicate clause "shall not be infringed" following.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)"A well regulated militia shall not be infringed" does not make sense.
It's "rights" that are not infringed.
--imm
petronius
(26,580 posts)In historical usage it just means the printers felt like tossing in a couple of extra commas (and not all of them did)...
Ptah
(32,983 posts)As passed by the Congress:
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.
As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
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://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)They used commas like we use salt shakers. Check different drafts, even versions between the different houses of congress.
No, arguing about the placement of commas in an 18th century document is like arguing about the placement of bolts holding up a stop sign.
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)You can have you fucking gun, but it must be regulated.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)I was being a jackass and pulled you in.
Sorry.
Hugabear
(10,340 posts)You really think there should be no limits whatsoever?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)... He made it perfectly clear that we can own any weapons of any kind. And not just firearms. If I can afford it, I could buy a tactical nuke.
rustydog
(9,186 posts)Keep your fucking AR15's, HK's, 100-round drum shotgun....but we'll regulate the hell out of it. it says so in the 2nd Amendment!
You can own any fuckin firearm made on planet earth...BUTyou must store it at a state/federally-licensed gun range. You cannot remove anything from the range. All discharging of such weaponry must and will be done at said gun range.
When you purchase a new assault weapon,it will be shipped to your chosen gun range.
Your ammunition must be purchased through the gun range you store your firearms at. You cannot remove any ammunition from the gun range.
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Is this a fantasy of yours?
bluerum
(6,109 posts)No. Not really.
How many guns did you see today?
Why are you so afraid?
Buzz Clik
(38,437 posts)Personally, I am not afraid. I own firearms but do not carry them because I am not afraid of my own shadow.
By the way, "creeps" pretty well describes people who flatly refuse to help find a solution while enabling thousands of deaths every year.
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)That is why I am so very afraid, that and short fused people.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)It's a poorly drafted Amendment, frankly. Reeks of being worked over by too many committees. But it is kind of funny to hear "strict constructionist" arguments that neatly excise the entire "militia" clause.
Ed Suspicious
(8,879 posts)really muffed that one up.
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)They condensed them into eleven, and removing the language which Madison had used so they would be integrated into the body of the constitution. I think some things were lost in the translations of the meaning by more contemporay generations.
DirkGently
(12,151 posts)I like Madison. He was crystal clear in his later years that a true "separation of church and state" WAS intended in the First Amendment.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)whose right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)mucifer
(23,371 posts)Seems to me the whole thing is open to interpretation.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)That's why we have a mountain of case law sitting on top of it. A selection of "the people" who have the right to keep and bear arms would members of the "well regulated" militia.
RC
(25,592 posts)It wound have been much clearer if it were written as: To keep and bear arms, you must be a member of a well regulated militia.
Just because one has "arms", it does not follow they are a member of any militia, regulated or not.
There is one fundamental truth about all weapons, including guns. They can be used for offense and defense. That was the case before the eighteenth century, it's the case now, and it will always be so. The militia part was probably a necessary recognition of the times, while the fundamental truth of human aggression and hate are eternal.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)"Well regulated" meant you knew how to shoot it. (See federalist #29.)
--imm
RC
(25,592 posts)immoderate
(20,885 posts)I can explain it, but I can't understand it for you.
In Federalist 29, Hamilton discusses the problems of supporting standing armies. He uses the terms well regulated several times. And you'll get an idea of what that phrase meant in the 18th century.
--imm
davepc
(3,936 posts)(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.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311
mucifer
(23,371 posts)--imm
Berserker
(3,419 posts)We are the only one with guns now. Next we are taking over the world.
immoderate
(20,885 posts)He uses the term "well regulated militia" several times in such a way as its meaning can be inferred. It is similar in meaning to "well qualified" or "adequate." The founders wanted to allow citizens to keep their guns, so they would know how to shoot them if they were called up.
The militia itself was more like a posse than a national guard.
--imm
Response to liberal N proud (Original post)
Ed Suspicious This message was self-deleted by its author.
libdem4life
(13,877 posts)Well regulated seems to speak for itself in modern terms, albeit debatable.
xoom
(322 posts)Everyone will have a different opinion.
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)Not all this rhetoric about having their precious killing machines taken away.
We can't have a civil discussion about gun control in this country because of the crazies in the gun nut realm.
xoom
(322 posts)Proud Liberal Dem
(24,354 posts)is that the Amendment implies/suggests that gun ownership can be regulated (just not banned/prohibited completely) and, presumably, the manner and type of regulation can be decided by the legislature. It's an badly written Amendment that would practically require the resurrection of its authors to figure out just what the hell they meant!
Historic NY
(37,449 posts)both in Philadelphia and the states conventions....what they were thinking.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=2171843
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Regulating the militia is one of its enumerated powers in Article I.
riverwalker
(8,694 posts)not just regulated, but WELL regulated.
onenote
(42,374 posts)One more justice on our side and a different interpretation probably would have ruled the day. But the interpretation that was adopted by a majority of the court looked at those two words and concluded that (1) its the militia that the Constitution refers to as being "well regulated" not the right to bear arms and (2) the phrase "well regulated" as used in the 18th century meant "well trained". I'm not saying I agree with those interpretations, just that those are the interpretations that a majority of the court adopted.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)If they are required to be "well trained" prior to owning the guns ---- what provision is there for training at this time?
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)Too many gun owners have little or no official training on the use of such a machine.
cheyanne
(733 posts)sarisataka
(18,204 posts)The ruling of Perpich v. Department of Defense, 496 U.S. 334 (1990) gives the Federal Government power over the NG superior to that of the State. The power to order the NG to duty in non-emergency situations is not limited by the militia clause Art. 1 Sec. 8. Essentially declaring the NG is a part of the US Army and not a State militia.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)It's currently all able-bodied males between 17 and 45.
petronius
(26,580 posts)The meaning of the second is pretty clear: the Framers believed that the ability to call forth a properly functioning militia is essential, and that ability relies on an armed (and competent) citizenry. So, the right of individuals to own small arms was protected.
However, what is "infringed"? It could be a completely hands-off, no restriction, anything goes sort of rule - but it's been pretty well accepted that that isn't the case for any right. They're all subject to some sort of restriction and limitation. So what sort of limitations are allowable on 2A before it becomes 'infringement'?
The second really is only about militias - it doesn't refer to hunting, self-defense, target shooting, collecting, investment, or anything else that gun owners mosty care about. The Framers probably took those things for granted - enumerating the right to keep a gun for hunting perhaps sounded as silly to them as enumerating the right to wear shoes - but it's not in the BoR.
So, that militia clause is really a double-edged sword - if all that really matters is protecting the ability to summon a militia, the arms that are really protected are those that a modern infantryman would carry - today, that's a true (select-fire) assault rifle. Gun controllers certainly don't want to argue that. But, if 2A doesn't really protect anything other than the ability to summon a militia, there's no reason to think that laws against public carry, or target shooting, or even hunting are impermissible. Pro-RKBA folk don't want to go down that road...
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)You can allow people to own weapons, just regulate the number of rounds they are allowed to fire without reloading.
You still have your gun and there is less chance of someone killing 26 people at one pull of the trigger.
regjoe
(206 posts)we already regulate the abillity to kill 26 people "at one pull of the trigger."
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)And who hunts with an assault weapon?
Semi Automatic Weapons have one purpose, to kill people, why do you need one.
regjoe
(206 posts)YOU falsely stated "...less chance of someone killing 26 people at one pull of the trigger." More than likely intentionally in order to incite fear so as to garner support.
Fact is, one would have to have a fully automatic weapon in order to do what you say and those weapons are heavily regulated.
pipoman
(16,038 posts)and other lawful uses and have been for at least 8 decades..
Others may also say the Bill of Rights has nothing to do with "needs"..if we are going to only protect "needs", most of the Bill of Rights is unnecessary..
petronius
(26,580 posts)"regulated" really doesn't refer to legal, statutory, political regulation. "Infringed" is the word that matters - rights are subject to some limitation and restriction, the question is always where that restriction becomes infringement...
slackmaster
(60,567 posts)Paladin
(28,202 posts)hack89
(39,171 posts)I thought that is what you wanted.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)IANAL, but as I read it even Scalia said that pretty much anything but an actual literal ban on firearm ownership in the home a la DC or Chicago is permissible.
Great Caesars Ghost
(532 posts)Everthing is either vague or outdated
davidn3600
(6,342 posts)No one would agree on anything. We would literally be at each other's throats.
Great Caesars Ghost
(532 posts)We're in a civil cold war anyway.
Recursion
(56,582 posts)Something on the order of 20 million deaths.
Great Caesars Ghost
(532 posts)Riftaxe
(2,693 posts)working order, so i am in compliance.
cali
(114,904 posts)and that is not what the damned SCOTUS has ruled. They are the arbiters of the Constitution.
bluestate10
(10,942 posts)Why do you expect them to now read and think about what the Amendment really says? The Founders never intended for people to run around with guns willy nilly, with no role for governments.
madokie
(51,076 posts)maybe if I erased my cookies I could do it.
Volaris
(10,260 posts)"Constructionism is only allowed to work in OUR favor. Fool."
I'm NOT being a troll. This is what they REALLY believe over there...
beevul
(12,194 posts)libodem
(19,288 posts)No where does it state "running amuck".
Heimer
(63 posts)Which I would agree we have none of. There is no regulation at all. Hence the problem. -Replace regulated with trained and it will read the way it was intended by the founders.
It will never boil down to the weapon. Just the people. There are adults out there that cannot safely handle a screw gun, let alone the real thing.
However, I know 14 yo children I would trust with my life, a bazooka and a minigun - and some of them can even outshoot me.
It's the people, people.
liberal N proud
(60,298 posts)Heimer
(63 posts)Whovian
(2,866 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Gotcha.
Because, you see, as a male between the ages of 17 and 45, I'm in the militia as defined by 10USC311.
The unorganized militia, of which I'm a part, is as well-regulated as Congress mandates it be... which seems to consist entirely of me being able to breathe.
There are 3 entities in the amendment: the State, the People, and the Militia. One of them is required to be well-regulated, and another of them is required to have the right to keep and bear arms.