A common question to both sides...

Should there be?

what does the word militia mean to each individaul in this group.

Is that what we are addressing?

...is the topic, it was my point to show that believing any right to be limited to a group, case in point being the militia, is entirely unamerican.

a militia can be a set with a subset of one. The rules for the set will apply to the subset. Therefore the rights are applicable to all.

Using a convention such as describing the militia as a subset of the people, necessarily describes an alternate, non-militia subset. The act of alienating the RKBA from the non-militia subset would be unamerican. The idea of equality is expressed in the founding documents and writings of the founders. How is it logical to conclude that a people who eschewed the social hierarchy of British society would not afford to everyone the same rights. How could someone even term a human attribute such as freedom of religion, the RKBA or the freedom of speech as a RIGHT and in the same sentence limit it away from the general population?

The Bill of Rights describes limitations on the government's authority over the people. Were the use of firearms within the strict pervue of the active militia only, the KEEPING and BEARING of ARMS would not be called a ***RIGHT***! Maybe a duty but not a right.

...the double negative, elaborate a bit more, please, on what militia means to you, and a bit less on what it is not. While you're at it, please share what you think about a right possessed only by some of the people and not all of the people.

...as you say is very clear:

Richard Henry Lee: "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms."

George Mason: "I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

Tenche Coxe: "Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American… The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."

Thomas Paine: "…arms…discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. …Horrid mischief would ensue were (the law-abiding) deprived the use of them."


If you're wondering 'Who are the militia?', you can stop wondering; YOU ARE.

And you left out the definition most pro-gun folks were using earlier which says it is men between 17 and 45 years of age. Of course, when I asked the old guys if they were still carrying since they were over 45, complete "silence." I'd ask a similar question about women too, but suspect more silence.

Fact is, you and I are not a "well regulated militia."

...but the Founders, as I quoted, left out those qualifications as well. The Militia Act as amended in 1795 qualifies the group you mentioned as active militia members. There is nothing anywhere which disqualifies anyone from firearm ownership based on militia service.

Have a nice day.

They were not some kind of infallible deity. Neither were they prescient. If any were around today, I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random. First and foremost, they were all intelligent men. To connect them with the current Scalia/NRA interpretation of their intent is insulting to their intelligence and their integrity.

"The founders were a bunch of smart white guys who owned slaves" - They were in general intelligent. There has been speculation that John Hanson was a black man. Some of the founders did own slaves, but I find this indirect indictment rather ad hominem.

"They were not some kind of infallible deity." - No one said they were. Please address elements of law or government rather than impugning historical figures.

"Neither were they prescient." - I didn't say they were. They were very familiar with the results of abuses by government.

"If any were around today, I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random." - In the prior sentence you speak of the inability to predict the future, and now you make your own predictions. I predict you've switched to de-caf.

"To connect them with the current Scalia/NRA interpretation of their intent is insulting to their intelligence and their integrity." - It is left to you highlight and defend your interpretation of the Bill of Rights.

:cheers:

I didn't predict anything. I said "I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random." Hardly a prediction. Rather an opinion based on their proven intelligence and demonstrated ability to adapt to actual circumstances.

...to be more specific, this is all conjecture.

"If any were around today, I doubt very much that they would support carrying concealed semi-automatic weapons at random." - Starboard Tack





“Laws that forbid the carrying of arms...disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” - Thomas Jefferson (Quoting Cesare Beccaria)

"A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives a moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball, and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun therefore be the constant companion of your walks." - Thomas Jefferson

"The supposed quietude of a good man allures the ruffian; while on the other hand arms, like laws, discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as property. The same balance would be preserved were all the world destitute of arms, for all would be alike; but since some will not, others dare not lay them aside … Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." - Thomas Paine

"The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry

"The best we can help for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence … from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable ... the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference, they deserve a place of honor with all that's good." - Geaorge Washington










"This year will go down in history. For the first time, a civilized nation has full gun registration. Our streets will be safer, our police more efficient, and the world will follow our lead into the future!" - Adolph Hitler

"Cause the registration of all firearms on some pretext, with the view of confiscating them and leaving the population defenseless." - Vladimir Ilich Lenin

Carry thy musket or thy flintlock for good exercise while taking one's constitutional walk,but leave thy glock at the mansion with thy slaves.

Were you quoting all your heroes?

your blantant demonstration of ignorance to the facts of the subject at hand.

You are aware "pocket pistols" existed during this era, and were known to be carried by all my "heroes"

Speaking of heroes, wasn't it you that stated "First and foremost, they were all intelligent men."

I simply posted the words of those "intelligent men" so that you might better understand just how wrong your opinion is.

I guess you like the taste of your shoe leather.

I have much respect for them and they were all exceptional men of their time.
I doubt any were talking about pocket pistols, but even if they were, they had a maximum of 2 shots from a weapon that was not noted for it's accuracy.
Pocket pistol. Gotta love that term

about 100 years, and they sold fairly well in Europe. From what I read, more so than here.

And the so called founding fathers were around when? I know it wasn't your post, but had to slip it in there.

Also there was once a time when women were not able to vote and were not considered to be equal to men as citizens so your question "about women too" is not a valid one.

Fact is, you are wrong about who a "well regulated militia" is.

with such obviously flawed interpretations.

I think this site lays it out succinctly:
http://www.aclu.org/racial-justice_prisoners-rights_drug-law-reform_immigrants-rights/second-amendment

In the future, we need to make sure the make up of the Supreme Court changes so that the next case has a chance of being decided correctly, rather than merely copying/pasting language endorsed by the NRA and right wing gun groups.

don't like it, too bad, it's settled law.

What are YOU doing to get it changed besides whining about it on the internet?

Guns are still restricted, notwithstanding supposed Supreme Court decisions that the "gun culture" keeps touting.

does not negate the value of those court decisions. It simply reaffirms the need for sanctions against those (in)subordinate governments who would thumb their noses at our system of justice. The citizens of Chicago and Washington D.C. are Americans, and share the same rights as everyone else in this country. They deserve to enjoy their right to be armed for their own defense with little government obstruction just as I do.

our government exists to protect the interests of the minorities (like myself) against the bullying of the majority, huh? It sure would suck for the majority to be able to run roughshod over everyone else. Hurray Constitutional Republics!!

sounds to me like a bunch of anti-gun fringe zealots holding on by their fingernails when the rest of the nation is moving on.

How on earth did you pull out that conclusion?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/09/01/AR2009090103836.html

[div class='excerpt']Reluctantly, Mayor Adrian M. Fenty's administration set up a process through which about 550 residents -- now including yours truly -- have acquired a handgun. But as my four trips to the police department attest, D.C. officials haven't made it easy.

it does not mean that that they are under estimating the damage the ruling has on democracy.

over guns.

Hopefully, those who vote primarily on "guns" will not beat Obama in 2012, and Obama will get to appoint some reasonable justices to correct some of the damage.

the SC is mostly based on precedent. Citizens United started with a margin note in the 19th century to Buckley v Vallejo to this.
there has never been a SC case supporting the collective theory, only reasonable restrictions are allowed. In US v Miller in 1939, the lower courts ruled NFA violated the 2A. Miller was a non decision that kicked it back to the lower courts. Since Miller was dead and no council for him was at the SCOTUS.
All Heller and McDonald said was bans are unreasonable restrictions (as predicted by the drafters of NFA, the reason why they went with huge tax and registration instead of a ban. They knew a ban would not stand up if challenged). Heller, like 1894's Texas v Miller (a different Miller violating Texas' handgun licensing law of the era) allowed ruled licensing is a reasonable restriction. The thing that I never understood about that is why Miller bothered to challenge the law. Having an unlicensed pistol in Texas was the least of his problems. He was a poor white guy (with a SO of color) that shot and killed a Dallas cop.

...does side against the USSC's decision in Heller. I must point out that the ACLU, as highlighted in the link you provided, does not take a position in the debate on gun-control. I further point out that they did not file a brief in Heller so perhaps you have an opinion supporting your position from a person or group having some recognized status within the actual case? Please let me know.

we are obligated to step forward for militia service. When called to muster, we are obligated to perform in a disciplined and professional manner - "well regulated" in the founders' words. The 2nd Amendment was worded that way in direct response to the serious issue George Washington had with militiamen showing up to muster drunk, or fleeing in the middle of the night to tend to their crops, and general insubordination. It had nothing to do with "regulation" in the bureaucratic sense that so many anti-gun mistakenly believe.

Fact is, when you and I are needed for militia service, we are obligated to perform as a "well regulated militia".

in a broad sense, is the basis for having an armed populace. The militia serves that ideal in a collective sense, but the militia clause does not in any way devalue the need for being armed as individuals. Freedom can be threatened by foreign invaders, the tyranny of our own government, or the local drug gangs.

from exercising their right to do so, there is no problem.

is beside the point. If you believe you should not, then don't. Do not presume to believe you have the right to tell others what they should or should not do.

Your attitude is no different than the racists 70 years ago who would try to keep people like my grandparents from voting.

is the arguments are virtually identical too. Mentally replace the word "gun" with "black" in any of the non-technical "arguments" and you'll see what I mean.

The sad part is, the pro-control crowd doesn't even realize they are advocating for a loss of freedom...

You guys are shameless in your attempts to promote guns in society. Your plight ain't close to the Civil Rights Movement or that of others who have been truly discriminated against.

which you shamelessly seek to undermine, with the plight of my PARENTS AND GRANDPARENTS during the Civil Rights Movement. What I compared was your ATTITUDE to that of the racists MY FAMILY endured, as your argument is, in principal, shockingly similar.

You aren't discriminating against my right to be armed because you aren't in a position to do so. You are just a mouthpiece for an ideology of discrimination. In the 1960's, you wouldn't have worn a white sheet while burning a cross in my grandparents' yard, but you would have defended the cross burning to anyone who would listen.

Authoritarians make me sick. You're no different than the bible thumpers trying to beat the rest of America into Christian submission.

And I have had a Klansman threaten to blow my head off if he ever came to my town when I called him on his absurd assertion that he is a "civil rights activist" due to membership in the Klan. Another reason I don't like guns in public -- they are used for oppression.

by some crazy WHITE people. All the more reason for some black people to own and carry guns.

No matter how much they might deserve it.

Thankfully, such incidents are extremely rare. However, I would rather tolerate a society where we have an occasional armed confrontation/shooting/shoot out if it means that good people may be armed with an adequate means of self defense, than for the majority to be "fish in a barrel" for the predators among us.

Being pro-gun control is like being anti-voter rights?

Advocating against freedom is advocating against freedom, regardless of which freedom it is.

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."

1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."

The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

somehow sounded intelligent when you wrote it, so I will go ahead and explain.

A militia must be in possession of weapons to be in “working-order” to defend the country and it’s citizens.
Therefore possession of said weapons by the people (militia) shall not be infringed.

Please do us the favor of researching what the “militia” is before you reply, and after you take your foot out of your mouth.

Does working-order mean the arming of unsavory elements that may oppose participation in the militia such as criminals and those untrusted to preserve public safety?

Did the Founding Fathers not fear insurrection and slave uprising?

they are also included in this.

and in extreme war conditions, older men and younger boys have been called to serve.

in WW2 women were drafted. Many of USSR's fighter aces and top snipers were women. Today IIRC, Norway and Israel do.

This has been decided. Yet there are people in this world who choose to make their own law. In DC instead of following the law DC reclassified Mr. Heller's gun as a machine gun. Even after judgement against DC, they still found a slimy way to deny his rights.

Is this a riddle?

"well equipped"

In the language of the day in which the BoR was written, the most concise meaning IMO would be 'effective'.

Original language- "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 I interpret it- An effective Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


The reason for my OP was to say that enumerating and protecting a RIGHT (by name, by inference due to its inclusion in the Bill of Rights...) and reserving said RIGHT to only a subset of the people is an oxymoron.

Not to disparage or disrespect the interpretations of others but as I read many, many writings of the founders, jurists and statesmen of last two centuries, and more than a few folks here, it is my current opinion that the 2A protects and individual right. I must add however that I am now rereading the dissenting opinion of Justice Stevens as joined by Justices Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer in the Heller decision.

Please share your opinion and reasoning.

I don't see any ambiguity in that either in the 18th century or the 21st century. The Founders knew what they were saying and in defining a "well-regulated Militia" there is no complexity to what they meant - for example, consider the Uniform Militia Acts: http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

Regulated does not mean equipped - it means regulated i.e. controlled.

Please highlight/site from the linked text what you are referring to.

Focusing on Sec.2, 3, and 5 of the first bill, and Sec 1, Clause. 1, 7, 10, of the Second Bill. This is why Heller had to expressly say that firearms ownership is not connected with service in the Militia because the Second Amendment clearly says that it is connected and that Congress, the President, and the Courts have very broad power to regulate ownership. It's kinda like the Swiss model, and it's certainly not what we have today where people think they can pretty much store as many firearms of as many types as they want to no end. The Founding Fathers were deeply concerned about the potential of insurrection and thus sought to limit firearm ownership. They never anticipated today's silliness, or that Antonin Scalia and friends would be re-writing the Constitution without a Constitutional amendment to proclaim an "individual right." This is the height of judicial activism.

Also, cite, not site.

the militia weapons are issued. The pistol or assault rifle (depending which is issued) sits next to your personal guns. Once your militia service has ended, you may keep it. With the rifle, the unit charges a small fee for the armorer to make it semi automatic only.

...that what we are doing today which is nearly the complete opposite of what they intended. How the Swiss incorporate this into society:

To carry firearms in public or outdoors (and for an individual who is a member of the militia carrying a firearm other than his Army-issue personal weapons off-duty), a person must have a Waffentragschein (gun carrying permit), which in most cases is issued only to private citizens working in occupations such as security.

It is, however, quite common to see a person serving military service to be en route with his rifle.
[edit] Conditions for getting a Carrying Permit

There are three conditions:

fulfilling the conditions for buying a permit (see section below)
stating plausibly the need to carry firearms to protect oneself, other people, or real property from a specified danger
passing an examination proving both weapon handling skills and knowledge regarding lawful use of the weapon

The carrying permit remains valid for a term of five years (unless otherwise surrendered or revoked), and applies only to the type of firearm for which the permit was issued. Additional constraints may be invoked to modify any specific permit. Neither hunters nor game wardens require a carrying permit.

-------

To purchase a firearm in a commercial shop, one needs to have a Waffenerwerbsschein (weapon acquisition permit). A permit allows the purchase of three firearms. Everyone over the age of 18 who is not psychiatrically disabled (such as having had a history of endangering his own life or the lives of others) or identified as posing security problems, and who has a clean criminal record (requires a Criminal Records Bureau check) can request such a permit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_Switzerland

I wonder if the Swiss arm Neo-Nazis and how common it is now to have dozens of weapons that aren't antiques.

I have said several times that I would support dismantling the empire (yeah it has been good to me) but keep the active Air Force and Navy at a reasonable size. That does not have anything to do with their views of private ownership. The two are not mutually exclusive.
From what I understand, if you want the fourth gun you simply go get another permit. That said, regardless of laws they buy fewer guns per person for the same reason they buy fewer TVs, cars, DvD players and other junk.

It is also quite common to see people carrying their rifles to shooting competitions like stultzenfests. They hang them on the coat racks in diners. Their version of the NRA is named after William Tell. Even if they liberalized their pistol carry laws, I doubt very few would take advantage of it. Their violent crime is lower than Japan's. Take the Czech Republic for example, a owning permit is also a CCW. Very few actually do.
Growing up in Wyoming, how many people open carried in town? Zero. Pre Faux and CNN, there was no "it bleeds it leads" cable bullshit. That is why people are more afraid of crime even though it is going down. Wyoming and Vermont's murder rates are about the same as Japan and Europe.
As for Neo-Nazies etc., they would go to the Netherlands because the illegal gun trade routes is the same as the drug routes in Europe. That is why the Red Brigade went to Amsterdam to buy guns.
What difference does it make how many guns someone owns? The issue is what they do with it.

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 if we went to a Swiss model we could deny right-wing extremists and Neo-Nazis guns? Sweet.

"What difference does it make how many guns someone owns?" - Theft, plotting insurrection.

What this should all tell you is that the current order of things is nonsensical...

your scholarship. Regardless of military model, the BoR is still negative rights, limits on government not the people. Notice the word PEOPLE.

What their military model has anything to do with extremists escapes me. Like I said before, left wing extremists (they get left wing, we get right wing) like Red Brigade, IRA, etc. went to the Netherlands even though they have stricter gun laws because that is where the untraceable pistols and machine guns were smuggled to.

Plotting insurrection? If they get a lot of NFA items illegally you would have a reasonable concern. Four hunting rifles, two ARs and ten target pistols is not.

There are infinite historical and cultural factors.
strong sense of community
violent video games are illegal (I don't think that has anything to do with it)
Old people love their grand kids more than they hate snow (Yes Villages, FL and Sun City, AZ that means you)
community policing
sane drug laws

that is just what I can think of off the top of my head
The murder rates in Europe the same or lower when they were laxer than Arizona. That should tell you how absurd your current order of things is. Please read about logical fallacies closely and with an open mind.

When was the last time there was a left-wing terrorist attack in Switzerland.


Source: Southern Poverty Law Center

Italy and the UK. The IRA was specifically UK. Canada also had a few with Quebec separatists and first nation revolts.

Fear of political violence from both the right and left motivated European gun laws after the first world war, when murder and violent crime rates were lower then than now.

Re: "Also, cite, not site." TY I'm an engineer with the requisite spelling and grammar deficits.


Would you please read The Federalist No. 46 and render your impression of it.

Some quotations in point being:

"Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of."

"On summing up the considerations stated in this and the last paper, they seem to amount to the most convincing evidence, that the powers proposed to be lodged in the federal government are as little formidable to those reserved to the individual States, as they are indispensably necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Union; and that all those alarms which have been sounded, of a meditated and consequential annihilation of the State governments, must, on the most favorable interpretation, be ascribed to the chimerical fears of the authors of them."

Madison clearly argues against a standing army unless necessary to repel a foreign invader and that a Militia should be formed in case of either that scenario or insurrection. He affirms the reasonable nature of checks and balances in relation to Federal authority over the states and notes the flaws inherent in allowing the states to grow too far apart in their laws and regulations. Madison's argument is in defense of the Constitution and against the notion that the people are not adequately represented by the republican model. He's explaining why the Articles of Confederacy have been insufficient in providing for a national defense of the federated states. He's portending the Civil War or a likewise insurrection and wishfully hoping that it should not come to that because it would be so destructive because the Militias will be contained. He hopes that if insurrection or invasion were to occur and a State were to be compromised that once the insurrection/invader was put down that there would be no permanent occupation.

As it was, and as you've seen in 1792 the Militias were placed under the direct authority of the President of the United States, and the expectation was that in event of war that this would be the protocol such as to provide for a united defense rather than individual states defending only their own. He is against a permanent large standing army.



If you are suggesting we seriously reduce the Defense Department budget, fund the National Guard better, and institute stricter gun control to prevent an internal uprising and to "insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," I am all for it. But this current situation, which President William Jefferson Clinton described as "madness," is unacceptable not consistent with an tea leaves reading of the Federalist Papers or the Constitution. It was for this reason that Antonin Scalia and his fellow Justices turned to this nebulous concept:

-

Why do we care about what "the Antifederalists feared"when the real issue is what the practical balance of the Second Amendment constitutes? I don't think it means unlimited ownership of arms of whatever type one may please by any measure of the law. Scalia is engaging in mystification from this point on out; there is no "individual right" to the keeping or beating of arms and because this proclamation is so inconsistent with the actual text of the Second Amendment, much less the principles of Liberty, he has to caution:



This is chickenshit justice; this is right-wing Supreme Court judges throwing an ideological bone to the NRA and friends by engaging in statements not previously made and not pertinent to the case through the very judicial activism that he decries. Fuck Antonin Scalia.


California National Guardsmen - Los Angeles, 1992.

"as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia"

Training sufficient to acquire the characteristics of a "proscribed by laws" militia??

That doesn't even make sense. No, the common usage, as Spoonman indicated in post 41, fits- 'well functioning'.

Everyone understood what the Militia was in those times, there was nothing hazy about it - they meant what they said - if they wanted it to mean that they would have said well-armed. Stop trying to rewrite the Constitution to meet a political ends; Scalia is wrong, you are wrong, and the whole "gun rights" movement is wrong. There is no defined "individual right" to bear arms in the Constitution; there were always standards for conduct within the Militia, and the Founding Fathers were not the least bit confused about what they were speaking thereof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shay%27s_Rebellion#Consequences
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_rebellion#Federal_response

I just thought it funny that you missed that in your analysis of FP 29

I find the sections of Justice Steven's opinion in Heller contrived and unconvincing which define "the people" as other than individuals. I further see no reason for a Bill of Rights, as was demanded, considered concurrently with and passed within days in 1789 of the Constitution, to give federal authority of the regulation of private citizens regarding arms. The Bill of Rights names individual rights. In all cases the BoR assigns to individuals and protects basic rights. Its existence is a measure of restrictions against government.

I have read the Militia Act focusing on the sections you highlighted and find nothing to alter my opinion.

Your refusal to accept the nature of an individual and the inherent source of personal rights blinds you to the nature of the need for a Bill of Rights apart from convention for individual restriction. Some people look at society and see our laws as drawing a line of absolutes which bounds an area beyond which is solely the pervue of government. They see the area short of that bound as possibly subject to government limitation depending on laws which may or may not yet be written.

It is the correct and the ONLY correct view of society that rights limit the government. The boundary between personal liberty and government authority describes a bound beyond which government may not legislatively intrude. No respectful government limits my sole and most basic instinct to preserve my own life. A government destructive of individual sovereignty can justify no source for its own authority compatible with the reasoning within the Declaration of Independence "...That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...". What facility is there to devise a governmental power derived from the consent of the governed, not originally possessed by the governed? This would be self-contradictory. Further in the Declaration: "...That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness." Some people may see that if the people find an attractive idea, that it may be legislated into reality by their popular agreement.

This is BULLSHIT. Legislation is bounded by personal rights. There is a non-arbitrary boundary between the liberty of a free person and the authority of government beyond which government may not intrude. No justification of saving the children, the whales, the under privileged or the grand opinion of an overly self-important judge, legislator or executive may stand against freedom.

The spirit evident in right of the people to alter or abolish the government, supersedes any justification of how anything binding of the individual, has any business being named as a right.

A healthy fear of the people by the government yields freedom.

“It is better to be feared than loved, if you cannot be both.” - Machiavelli

Given that, how do you justify gun control at all..."to give federal authority of the regulation of private citizens regarding arms" - so there should be no background checks?

Government will intrude as it must, and that does not constitute infringement. BTW - The Declaration of Independence is not law, if it was I could simply complain as a public citizen that the incompetent distribution of arms is allowing criminals to prey upon the people and that my right to good government has been infringed.

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

I'm really not seeing how the libertarian argument for the weakest government possible is anywhere enshrined in our social contract; it seems to be that the Founders wanted good government, not no government at all, and that your quotation immediately following mine only indicates that such conditions existed under King George III, and not simply as a binary choice instead of a continuum of injustices. Your argument is circular and negates the very clear statements in the Constitution for the general right of the people to safety and general welfare.

Antifederalist claptrap that should be paid no more mind than Harry Potter.

Get over yourself and join your fellow citizens in the advancement of a Republic of the Good.

"...how do you justify gun control at all..."

18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(1)
Has been convicted in any court of a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
18, U.S.C. §922 (n)
Is under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year
18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(2)
Is a fugitive from justice
18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(3)
Is an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance
18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(4)
Has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution
18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(5)
Illegally or unlawfully in the United States
18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(6)
Has been discharged from the Armed Forces under dishonorable conditions
18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(7)
Having been a citizen of the United States, has renounced U.S. citizenship
18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(8)
Is subject to a court order that restrains the person from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner or child of such intimate partner
18, U.S.C. §922 (g)(9)
Has been convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence

These circumstances have consequences specified by law and the restrictions of proper gun control should accompany them.

"The Declaration of Independence is not law" I didn't claim it was. Neither is this from Justice Story:
"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." (Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States. 3 volumes. Boston, 1833)

I have read about Joseph Story and believe him to be quite correct in his opinions.

I don't see how you can reconcile those two views. Were the Confederate states right to secede?

Can we not add to that list?

What would you like to add?

...that advocates violence against fellow citizens or violent political change.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/hate_crimes/overview

...once they've actually been convicted in court of perpetrating violence.

Stevens wrote the majority opinion. Are you saying you disagree with Stevens, now? LOL

[div class='excerpt']Justice Stevens, joined by Justice Souter and Justice Ginsburg, concluded in Parts III, IV, and VI:

1. It was not improper for the state courts to conclude that the ordinance, which covers a significant amount of activity in addition to the intimidating conduct that is its factual predicate, is invalid on its face.
....
It is a criminal law that contains no mens rea requirement, see Colautti v. Franklin, 439 U.S. 379, 395, and infringes on constitutionally protected rights, see id., at 391. Pp. 7—12.
...
Justice Kennedy concluded that, as interpreted by the Illinois Supreme Court, the Chicago ordinance unconstitutionally reaches a broad range of innocent conduct, and, therefore, is not necessarily saved by the requirement that the citizen disobey a dispersal order before there is a violation. Although it can be assumed that disobeying some police commands will subject a citizen to prosecution whether or not the citizen knows why the order is given, it does not follow that any unexplained police order must be obeyed without notice of its lawfulness.
...
Justice Breyer concluded that the ordinance violates the Constitution because it delegates too much discretion to the police, and it is not saved by its limitations requiring that the police reasonably believe that the person ordered to disperse (or someone accompanying him) is a gang member, and that he remain in the public place “with no apparent purpose.”

I do not believe that the Constitution strangles itself. I'm also no disciple of the ACLU or the phrase "chap your ass" - when you could just as easily say "boggle your mind" and not sound as if you have some sort of obsession with my opinions.

It must be a right-wing conspiracy!

(Sauce, meet gander.)

...yes.

Without commenting on the overall injunction process, I am against provisions which limit individual rights without due process and the associated rights named in the 5th, 6th, 7th and 8th amendments.

some racist and classist bullshit like that?

...Neo-Nazis, the KKK, and anti-government groups is "racist and classist bullshit"

...

...

...

...

The spirit of the law was two working class Hispanics hanging out was labeled a gang. Yes racist cops abused the shit out of it. It also violated freedom of assembly.

I am opposed to arming the Nazis, KKK, SLA, Weather Underground, PETA etc. Here is a slippery slope, someone will try extend it to Green Peace or OWS.

I am more concerned about first four groups getting machine guns from Africa and Central America, just like Mexican drug cartels.

Japan does go to that extreme, if your nephew is a member of Green Peace (being subversive, Sea Shepard is labeled as a terrorist group there) you won't be taking up skeet.

the down side of thought crimes and profiling.

"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." - Edmund Burke, 1770.

During the revolution, some factions among the citizens militia were of varying help to the federal cause due to their varied experience and skills (or lack thereof). By protecting and promoting a militia armed, skilled and experienced as any 'regular' army would be, the framers enabled a town or community to raise a force as may be needed and whenever needed to see to local, regional or national security.

Without arms in the hands of those citizens, an armory would need to be established. Mustering to collect arms and then marching to the site of an engagement could cripple the response to certain types of threats.

The intention of the framers was to protect arms held in private hands to ensure their quick availability along with affording the owner with skill and familiarity with the arms. Day to day shooting for practice, to hunt and for the defense of self, family and property all augmented skills valuable in a military confrontation. Recently, hunters and woodsmen have such skills and form a valuable resource for today's military to draw from.

Part of Speech:
verb

Definition:
manage, organize

Synonyms:
adapt, adjust, administer, allocate, arrange, balance, classify, conduct, control, coordinate, correct, determine, direct, dispose, fit, fix, govern, guide, handle, improve, legislate, measure, methodize, moderate, modulate, monitor, order, oversee, pull things together, put in order, reconcile, rectify, rule, run, set, settle, shape up, square, standardize, straighten up, superintend, supervise, systematize, temper, time, true, tune, tune up

Antonyms:
deregulate, disorganize, mismanage

any of those synonyms would work in past tense and with the adverb "well"

as you can see by the antonyms we would definitely not want the opposite of a "well regulated militia"

I really don't see how anyone can be anti- 2A with a proper definition.

As a well governend country it would behoove us to be prepared for any circumstance that we can foresee to be possible.

coming together to assist the regular military personnel.

"Posse" has the same connotation in that it is a group of civilians voluntarily coming together to assist the recognized law enforcement officers.

Semper Fi,

militia
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

another dicitionary
1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.
2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.
3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

...you address Posts #27, 13 and 8?

militia is a subset of the people and an individual is a subset of both

by your *cough* logic, all mammals are squirrels.

Riiiiiiiiiight.

to abuse gun ownership.

I don't define it that way, because I think "well regulated militia" is pretty clear to me. Hopefully, we'll get a Supreme Court in the next few years that is not so right wing.

Hoyt, I sincerely doubt it. They have to study Constitutional Law. There is really not too many ways to twist the words "well regulated militia" and they have so much estalbished law on the books already that a precedent would be somewhat asthonishing.

Is this really where you want our Supreme court to focus its attention?

Aren't there other issues more pressing at this time? electoral matters, immigration issues, healthcare etc, DoMA ---

http://www.npr.org/2011/10/03/140964360/in-new-term-supreme-court-to-tackle-divisive-issues

http://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docket.aspx

It is the whole people.... to disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." George Mason during Virginia's ratification of the Constitution convention (1788)

Note when and where this definition was recorded.

Semper Fi,

Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm: "The Second Amendment was meant to accomplish two distinct goals…First, it was meant to guarantee the individual’s right to have arms for self-defense and self-preservation. These privately owned arms were meant to serve a larger purpose as well…and it is the coupling of these two objectives that has caused the most confusion. The customary American militia necessitated an armed public…the militia (being)…the body of the people. The argument that today’s National Guardsmen, members of a select militia, would constitute the only persons entitled to keep and bear arms has no historical foundation."

I have read Justice Steven's dissenting opinion in Heller v DC and I am unable to agree. Despite my respect for him and all SCJs, he is just wrong.