General Discussion

jmg257

(11,996 posts)

13. Most people seem to be 'arguing' over the wrong phrases...

Sat Jan 26, 2013, 02:12 PM

Jan 2013

'a well regulated militia' had nothing to do with how the government could regulate the people's arms OUTSIDE of a militia right/duty. It refers to the Congress and States role in organizing arming and disciplining effective State Militias...period. This is well documented and well supported by the framers, the constitution, the 2nd, and the 1st Militia Acts.

'shall not be infringed' is pretty clear, as is 'of the people' - who are secure against government infringements.

Apparently what is most recently NOT so clear is 'the right to keep and bear arms'. In all the debates concerning the 2nd amendment, this exclusively was referred to in relation to militias, NOT an individual's ability to defend themselves, or hunt, or anything else.

And if there is any lack of clarity to exactly what this phrase means in the restriction, one only needs to look to the preamble clause..."a well regulated militia being necessary...".

In Heller the majority of the SCOTUS says otherwise...doesn't mean we need to agree.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

31 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Got the local gun entusiasts riled up today. [View all] bakpakr Jan 2013 OP

It is that simple: Well Regulated RobertEarl Jan 2013 #1

So to open a can of worms sarisataka Jan 2013 #5

What does well regulated mean to you? RobertEarl Jan 2013 #7

My take is sarisataka Jan 2013 #10

Hardly RobertEarl Jan 2013 #12

The RIGHT sarisataka Jan 2013 #15

Ho, boy RobertEarl Jan 2013 #18

Could you tell me sarisataka Jan 2013 #20

Really? RobertEarl Jan 2013 #22

It seems there were laws governing arms sarisataka Jan 2013 #30

ALL of them; from the .38 lady smith revolver JanMichael Jan 2013 #14

Consider case law sarisataka Jan 2013 #16

By constantly omitting the first part of the second amendment in posts and brewens Jan 2013 #2

Like some folks like to stick on the militia rationale and ignore that the right of the people TheKentuckian Jan 2013 #31

I like how you stated that, "Do those two words say that the government may stop qualified patrice Jan 2013 #3

And the public gets the final say on those regulations hack89 Jan 2013 #4

Only because gun culture is trying to confuse the issue to protect their access Hoyt Jan 2013 #6

DU Gungeoneers advocate for every weakening of gun laws that the NRA advocates Kolesar Jan 2013 #11

I support the President's EOs hack89 Jan 2013 #17

If you had public support it would not matter what the NRA says. hack89 Jan 2013 #24

"Tactical modern sporting rifles" Paladin Jan 2013 #8

At least two fairly recent SCOTUS decisions disagree with you. SayWut Jan 2013 #9

Most people seem to be 'arguing' over the wrong phrases... jmg257 Jan 2013 #13

Well, then rights have been infringed RobertEarl Jan 2013 #19

AFIK, No one has ever infringed on anyone's right to serve in the Militia. jmg257 Jan 2013 #21

Women, Blacks, couldn't serve. RobertEarl Jan 2013 #23

My point is that the phrase "to keep and bear arms" is a right related to the jmg257 Jan 2013 #25

It was so long ago... RobertEarl Jan 2013 #26

Agreed...and agreed! I think the SCOTUS squashed my take...for the most part anyway; so jmg257 Jan 2013 #27

You'd be a gas on a forum I frequent onethatcares Jan 2013 #28

Bolt action rifles, pump action shotguns and single action revolvers Paulie Jan 2013 #29