Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Umm..OK. But what has that got go do with my post you quoted? I wasn't addressing any constitutional issues.
But...wtfe. The term, "well regulated" does not mean controlled, by the government. It means equipped, and ready. Sheesh, if the framers could have foreseen how their words would get twisted around, by those who would see an all powerful central government, they would have phrased it differently.
So, I am part of a "well regulated militia". I have procured adequate and proper, personal arms, suitable for militia use, and am proficient in their use. As have most of my friends and acquaintances. We are , quite, "well regulated". Sorry, even though this reply doesn't address my post you quoted, I'll play, and tell you this "good argument" you mention, falls flat on its face. Were things meant to be interpreted, as you say, that's how they would have structured firearms ownership, wouldn't you think? The framers would have put such restrictions on personal arms into law somewhere.
Instead, the RIGHT to personal arms, is listed as one of the basic RIGHTS of the PEOPLE, second, only to the right of free speech, and to not have ones Faith mandated by the government. Serious fail, man. Just sayin'.
Did I SAY "well regulated" meant "controlled by the government"?
If I did - kindly point that out.
It seems to me that you are simply making Assumptions.
I simply pointed out that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not so that every ignorant bozo could simply own a gun because "it's their right". It wasn't so that people could hunt or even to protect themselves from criminals. It was there for a very specific purpose. To help support the national defense.
Today, virtually NO ONE gives that a 2nd thought - and you are just making excuses for that.
People have a right to own guns. Sadly most gun owners don't bother with their responsibilities.
And yes, I know that they have the right regardless of whether or not they bother with their responsibilities. That doesn't mean that they SHOULD ignore those responsibilities.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 09-18-2015 at 07:15 AM..
You could say that, but the Supreme Court has ruled against you.
“A free people ought to be armed.” – George Washington.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” – Thomas Jefferson.
Yes, I'm well aware of that. The fact that the Heller case had to be decided all the way up at the Supreme Court level kind'a proves my point that "you could make a pretty good case" for it. Even at that level the decision was only 5-4 so it was just a one justice advantage that decided that the "well-regulated militia" part could be ignored- a very close decision.
Ken
Last edited by LordBalfor; 09-18-2015 at 07:16 AM..
Someone needs to google "well regulated 17th century"
So if your theory is people should be the back up to the military than every adult should be able to purchase common military weapons being used by ground troops. Things like an m4, hand grenade, 40mm launchers, etc.
Just sayin'
The Supreme Court has upheld the the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of 'dangerous and unusual weapons".
That's twice in about as many days that the LORD has been shut down!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! All because what the SC has ruled....
Not really.
I stated that "Technically, one could make a pretty good argument that the ONLY people who should be allowed guns are those who are part of such a "well regulated militia" - since the constitution specifically mentions such people as the REASON why folks should be allowed to have guns."
The Supreme Court ruled against that argument, but the decision went against it by just a single vote - so apparently it was a "pretty good argument" - even it wasn't quite good enough to win. In the end - by a very close decision - the Supreme Court simply decided to ignore the "well-regulated militia" part.
Seeing as almost all weapons are mass produced, none of them will be both dangerious AND unusual.
Actually the Supreme Court did specifically mention one such weapon - short-barrel shotguns. Based on the Heller decision, 4 Circuit Courts have added "machine guns" to that list. Overall though it's still an uncertain issue.
Actually the Supreme Court did specifically mention one such weapon - short-barrel shotguns. Based on the Heller decision, 4 Circuit Courts have added "machine guns" to that list. Overall though it's still an uncertain issue.
Ken
Sbs shotguns at the time were not mass produced, they were individually modified. And based on the miller ruining stating weapons suitable for militia service are specifically covered than that means machine guns and explosives used by infantrymen should be able to be purchased by adults.
Not to mention sbs are now being used in the military.
Did I SAY "well regulated" meant "controlled by the government"?
If I did - kindly point that out.
It seems to me that you are simply making Assumptions.
I simply pointed out that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment was not so that every ignorant bozo could simply own a gun because "it's their right". It wasn't so that people could hunt or even to protect themselves from criminals. It was there for a very specific purpose. To help support the national defense.
Today, virtually NO ONE gives that a 2nd thought - and you are just making excuses for that.
People have a right to own guns. Sadly most gun owners don't bother with their responsibilities.
And yes, I know that they have the right regardless of whether or not they bother with their responsibilities. That doesn't mean that they SHOULD ignore those responsibilities.
Ken
What you say here, yon flip around and contradict, in #136. By stating that "only people who are part of the well regulated militia" should be allowed firearms. That's governmental control, and , it seems, you still don't get the proper context of what "well regulated" means.
Moving on, I'm doing what now? Making excuses for people who don't understand what the militia is, and own firearms in ignorance of the responsibility for militia duty? Really ? Well, everyone I know, personally, that owns firearms, is fully aware of that responsibility, knows , exactly, what it means, and are well regulated. How it is you figure I'm making excuses for people who aren't, that I don't know, eludes me. Why people choose to own firearms, is none of my business, and if they are ignorant as to responsibility to the militia, it not my duty to inform them. If the militia gets called up, they'll figure it out, quick enough.
Besides,,stating that "virtually no one" gives civil support of the national defense,a second thought, in context with firearms ownership, is inaccurate. At best. THAT is just making assumptions. There's a LOT of folks, out here, that learned about that in grammar school. Its not taught much anymore, since the term "militia" ,has been hijacked by anti 2A types, and twisted to mean "right wing terrorist". and educators see firearms ownership, for any reason, as something to be discouraged.
So, if young people learn about the responsibility of the 2A, it comes from parents. Parents like me, who teach our kids about that. Youngsters don't even get a glimmer of real US hjstory in school anymore. They did in my house. And to say "virtually no one" has no clue or feels any obligation, to the intent of the 2A, to the "common defense", mentioned just ahead of the BoR
R, in the Preamble is just , flat, ignorant. Quite the contrary, most of the firearms owning public is fully aware of that, though that may not be the reason they own guns. Its not my primary reason, though I'm ready, should it come to that.
Militia duty is not most peoples reason for owning guns. Its either self defense or sport shooting. Nevertheless, they are "well regulated" should the militia be needed. Self defense , hunting and other sport shooting is , certainly,not the primary reason for the 2A, and that fact has been central to the case that firearms rights advocates present as an argument against strict firearms laws. Has been for decades upon decades. That's another strike against your take that "virtually no one" thinks about that. THAT just ain't true.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Sheesh, if the framers could have foreseen how their words would get twisted around, by those who would see an all powerful central government, they would have phrased it differently. 