General Discussion

leanforward

(1,077 posts)

34. So, there is more clarification of the 2nd Amendment

Reply to brush (Original post)

Sun Oct 8, 2017, 01:35 AM

Oct 2017

"A well regulated Militia," that I had thought was being ignored. Time for research.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

89 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

The Militia Acts of 1792 and 1795 clarified what the 2nd Amendment means. [View all] brush Oct 2017 OP

I am sure the likes of Jefferson, Adams, Richard Henry Lee, and all the other jmg257 Oct 2017 #1

Why would they be immune? Did you go to the link and read. brush Oct 2017 #2

You sure you read it? jmg257 Oct 2017 #3

So what's the snark about. The acts were passed by the Congress. brush Oct 2017 #6

Yes, and pretty sure their intent was not to give up any rights in doing so. jmg257 Oct 2017 #7

Your interpretation differs from what Congress passed. brush Oct 2017 #8

Congress wrote/passed the militia acts. They also wrote/debated the amendments. jmg257 Oct 2017 #9

So you think things are just fine? The next mass shooting will happen with things the way they are. brush Oct 2017 #10

Well you see, that is an entirely different point than the one we were just discussing. jmg257 Oct 2017 #11

Certainly a related point. The point being that the 2nd Amendment was not meant to be... brush Oct 2017 #13

No doubt related. But the 2nd was to explicitly secure a right of the people. jmg257 Oct 2017 #18

perhaps you could list the 2nd Amendment so we know what it says Angry Dragon Oct 2017 #20

Sure but is there sme doubt? jmg257 Oct 2017 #23

Not in my mind Angry Dragon Oct 2017 #26

Well, lets not call it a right, but a power...its articulated well in Article 1... jmg257 Oct 2017 #32

Are you claiming that the 2d Amendment ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #50

I don't think you understand what you're implying discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #70

How about this.......... Angry Dragon Oct 2017 #71

Two points: discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #75

that was my mistake ......... I should have written Second Amendment Angry Dragon Oct 2017 #80

Yes... fallout87 Oct 2017 #74

From what I can see in the wikipedia women were Doreen Oct 2017 #4

10 U.S. Code Section 246 is the statute today. "Unorganized militia" covers a lot of people by law Pope George Ringo II Oct 2017 #5

What happened to the "well regulated" part? n/t Stonepounder Oct 2017 #12

Keeping the militia up to snuff Igel Oct 2017 #43

Sure it is...note that "well regulated militias are "necessary". jmg257 Oct 2017 #46

Well, the "organized militia" brings us back to the National Guard Pope George Ringo II Oct 2017 #59

While I do not object to common sense gun laws to try and prevent things like the las vegas shooting cstanleytech Oct 2017 #14

Agreed. brush Oct 2017 #15

It's the "well regulated militia" part that 2nd amendment fans ignore. longship Oct 2017 #16

Yes. The militia acts further clarified what "well regulated militia" meant. brush Oct 2017 #17

It's obvious in the original text. longship Oct 2017 #22

I agree Angry Dragon Oct 2017 #21

Why would they ignore it? Thats the part that allows for the keeping jmg257 Oct 2017 #24

All that was superceded by the Act of 1903 though that created the National Guard. brush Oct 2017 #25

Ah now you are getting to the meat! :) The Congress usurped power jmg257 Oct 2017 #30

So you're saying that since it's obsoleted, we need to disregard the clause about... brush Oct 2017 #33

No it will not can not just be ignored. but maybe it could be amended? jmg257 Oct 2017 #35

While ignoring the "well regulated" part. longship Oct 2017 #28

Yep - they may think being well armed is 'well-regulated', or jmg257 Oct 2017 #36

Eeee-yup! nt longship Oct 2017 #37

How does the "well regulated" language ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #51

Well, here's one thing we can all agree on. longship Oct 2017 #64

I'm completely on board with the notion that there's room for further regulation of firearms ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #72

Unfortunately, this is a decided issue. TomSlick Oct 2017 #19

SCOTUS should have codified registration, insurance, background checks, quantity limitations... brush Oct 2017 #27

+1000. n/t whathehell Oct 2017 #31

That's not the Supreme Court's role ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #52

Well, then, that would be obviously wrong to anyone who can read. dchill Oct 2017 #29

That would also eliminate... KY_EnviroGuy Oct 2017 #40

That's not how courts interpret the Constitution or statutes ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #54

The innocent victim of a musket ball OR a 7.62 bump-stocked bullet... dchill Oct 2017 #88

So, if I read you guys right that have thoroughly researched this issue... KY_EnviroGuy Oct 2017 #39

It falls back to Congress, State legislatures, and (maybe) local governments TomSlick Oct 2017 #81

So, there is more clarification of the 2nd Amendment leanforward Oct 2017 #34

See Hamilton/federalist 29 for a good definition of well-regulated. jmg257 Oct 2017 #38

Our country is blind to its own history... Docreed2003 Oct 2017 #41

The individual right wasn't established until Heller. Igel Oct 2017 #44

The Miller decision didn't go against Miller because he wasn't in a militia, jmg257 Oct 2017 #47

I've often thought that SCOTUS avoids Second Amendment cases because of Miller Pope George Ringo II Oct 2017 #60

Agreed - Miller died, so no evidence was presented. But imagine if he had a BAR? Would autos still jmg257 Oct 2017 #62

Even if you believe it means that all have a right to bear arms, bdjhawk Oct 2017 #42

The Bill of Rights MichMary Oct 2017 #45

Not the game changer you hoped it would be. aikoaiko Oct 2017 #48

Like someone needs to own 40-some, unregistered guns. We get Las Vegas, Orlando... brush Oct 2017 #58

Maybe, maybe not. aikoaiko Oct 2017 #65

It is wrong thinking to believe that "LAW" prevents "CRIME" discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #68

Google Australia and how that country dealt with guns and mass shootings brush Oct 2017 #73

No thanks, no need, I'm quite familiar discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #76

Ridiculous bit of broad brushing. Banks couldn't stay in business if there was no law against... brush Oct 2017 #77

I don't know about you but... discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #78

Even you had to make a joke of your broad brushing, huh? brush Oct 2017 #79

Well there you have it...send out the trucks starting tomorrow. ileus Oct 2017 #49

How is Meatloaf's 'I'd Do Anything for Love' like the 2nd Amendment? HAB911 Oct 2017 #53

You are qualifying the language in a way the the drafters of the 2d Amendment did not ClarendonDem Oct 2017 #55

"the 2nd Amendment does not actually give citizens a right to bear arms." Well - you got that right jmg257 Oct 2017 #56

When and where has militia membership as prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms Marengo Oct 2017 #63

Ok. So what? hack89 Oct 2017 #57

When and where has militia membership as a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by Marengo Oct 2017 #61

In the hopes and dreams of gun regulators everywhere discntnt_irny_srcsm Oct 2017 #69

But facts won't matter to the gun humpers. Initech Oct 2017 #66

When and where has militia membership as a prerequisite for the private ownership of firearms by Marengo Oct 2017 #84

And SCOTUS clarified it in 2008 n/t Alea Oct 2017 #67

The "formed militia" bdamomma Oct 2017 #82

You would think but guns have become sacred totems to fetishers of a certain demographic segment... brush Oct 2017 #83

And yet somehow they left the 2nd in place. And made it even more confusing jmg257 Oct 2017 #85

if only the 2nd can be abolished bdamomma Oct 2017 #89

It all boils down to the composition of the SCOTUS. roamer65 Oct 2017 #86

2A is for self-defense. It is for militias, as Federalist 29 and even anti-federalists discuss. TheBlackAdder Oct 2017 #87