General Discussion

KY_EnviroGuy

(14,488 posts)

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

Sun Oct 8, 2017, 02:07 AM

Oct 2017

it all falls back into the lap of Congress to eliminate the conflict between the 2nd Amendment's language, and all the other later laws establishing the NG and standing military.

Why wasn't that conflict considered when they established the NG?

Can that even be fixed without amending the Constitution?

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