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.
Keep in mind that there were no police dept's in the late 18th century. One was responsible for protecting his own life, family and property...and The Federalist Papers clearly state that the purpose of the militia was to protect the States from the Feds.
BTW- The NRA was established after the war of succession because it was obvious that the urbanized Yankees were largely ignorant of how to use firearms, as opposed to the easy familiarity the more rural Rebs had with them.
The Second Amendment guarntees an individual right to keep and bear arms. It has absolutely nothing to do with the militia, and "well regulated" is irrelevant. By the way, when the Founders wrote "well regulated" it simply meant "well trained", not some formalized military group. Well regulated simply meant well trained and well provided for.
There was much debate about including the militia clause or not for this very reason. That is why there are so many quotes about "what is the militia". It was not a foregone conclusion that they were going to include the militia clause in the amendment.
What you're saying is when I go to the dictionary I'll find the definition of "regulated" = "trained" = "regulated". Wanna bet?
Actually I'd like to read up more into Stevens' dissenting opinion beyond what Wikipedia says because it seems like he made the argument that the 2nd Amendment did not necessarily make the right for individuals to bear arms set in stone.
What you're saying is when I go to the dictionary I'll find the definition of "regulated" = "trained" = "regulated". Wanna bet?
Not at all.
You need to know the original meaning, not the current meaning of the word. I assumed you would know that word meanings have changed in 240 years.
The word gay currently means homosexual.
The word gay used to mean happy and carefree. The Gay '90s was the American era of the 1890s when peope were so prosperous, they were seen as happy and carefree. Or gay. Same for the 1932 movie, the Gay Caballero. The movie is so named for a happy and carefree cowboy not one who is homosexual.
Definitions change.
Today a tablet is an iPad or a Microsoft Surface.
In biblical times, a tablet was a block of stone with writing When Moses carried the tablets down the mountain to give the Jews the 10 commandments, they were on blocks of stone, not on iPads.
Definitions change.
It is preposerous to assume the meaning of a word today is the same as it was back in 1791.
Last edited by Igor Blevin; 08-30-2020 at 01:04 AM..
You need to know the original meaning, not the current meaning of the word. I assumed you would know that word meanings have changed in 240 years.
The word gay currently means homosexual.
The word gay used to mean happy and carefree. The Gay '90s was the American era of the 1890s when peope were so prosperous, they were seen as happy and carefree. Or gay. Same for the 1932 movie, the Gay Caballero. The movie is so named for a happy and carefree cowboy not one who is homosexual.
Definitions change.
Today a tablet is an iPad or a Microsoft Surface.
In biblical times, a tablet was a block of stone with writing When Moses carried the tablets down the mountain to give the Jews the 10 commandments, they were on blocks of stone, not on iPads.
Definitions change.
It is preposerous to assume the meaning of a word today is the same as it was back in 1791.
That would imply you believe that many or most words have changed meaning since 1791?
On "regulated and trained", have one, other, or both changed meaning since the document was written?
If yes, do tell, from what to what.
The Constitution is written for all of us. Not just 9 people who have the privilege of passing on to the rest of us, by their "interpretations", the meanings of plain english.
In the Federalist No.28... Hamilton: "If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no recourse left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government."
In the Federalist No.29... Hamilton: "Little more can be reasonably aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped... This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens."
So that one might not only argue against the Second Amendment to the Federal Constitution...
Connecticut constitution 1818: "Every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the State."
Rhode Island constitution 1842: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights 1776: "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state..."
Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights 1790 and Kentucky Declaration of Rights 1792: "That the right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
The Supreme Court notwithstanding, the language and meaning of the Second Amendment as put forth by it's authors could not be more clear and of no difficulty to comprehend.
For all those interested in delving into the meaning and intent behind the words used in the 2A document, here is a helpful discussion on the subject, guided by Constitutional experts Jeffrey Rosen (President and CEO of the National Constitution Center) and Jack Rakove (Pulitzer Prize winning author and professor of political science and law at Stanford University): https://constitutioncenter.org/image...CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Quote:
What is a militia?
At the time of the American Revolutionary War, militias were groups of able-bodied men who protected their towns, colonies, and eventually states. "[When the Constitution was drafted], the militia was a state-based institution," says Rakove. "States were responsible for organizing this."
What did it mean to be well regulated?
One of the biggest challenges in interpreting a centuries-old document is that the meanings of words change or diverge."Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
Excerpt quoted from above link.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 08-30-2020 at 06:25 AM..
I answered your question but you don't like my answer or accept it. Good grief. What is the point in trying?
Beyond that, once again, the militia cause is completely irrelevant. It is pointless for you to say that the definition of "militia" is up for interpretation, when the Heller dicision cites an INDIVIDUAL right to keep and bear arms. Group affilliation is completely irrelevant.
You could redefine the meaning of "militia" to the US Space Force and it would not change the meaning of the Second Amendment in any regard. The militia clause is superfluous.
If you cut out the militia clause entirely, the Heller decision makes it pointedly clear that the Second Amendment right of the people to both keep arms and then to bear those arms they keep, would be completey unaffected. It would be identical in either case, since those rights SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED either way. Either with or without a militia. It is an INDIVIDUAL right.
* Bolded capitals are for emphasis, not for the purpose of shouting at you. I am not trying to shout but simply underscore the extreme importance of both of these items. I'm not trying to be rude here.
Why stop cutting at the militia clause? It suits your purposes?
Cut some more and then someone would have room to add........
All Heller does is to confirm the right of the individual to own a gun in their home.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 08-30-2020 at 09:02 AM..
Reason: Use bold font -- do not use red font, which is reserved for moderator edits.
For all those interested in delving into the meaning and intent behind the words used in the 2A document, here is a helpful discussion on the subject, guided by Constitutional experts Jeffrey Rosen (President and CEO of the National Constitution Center) and Jack Rakove (Pulitzer Prize winning author and professor of political science and law at Stanford University): https://constitutioncenter.org/image...CNN_Aug_11.pdf
Excerpt quoted from above link.
From your quote above. In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
Certain way, implies a specific method that was not permitted, and is silent on other ways that may have been permitted. I don't think that analysis would pass muster.
In order to do its duty, it was necessary to have a hierarchy, officers etc. to ensure orders were followed to achieve a common aim. To do that, rules & regs are needed, not as sophisticated as today, but necessary nonetheless.
Amazing. To be a judge much less a justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, one has to be really dedicated to researching and writing about law to have the energy and enthusiasm to write such a long piece. This dissenting opinion kind of brings up the argument over what the Founders were really thinking about back in the day which might or might not have been reflected in the Constitution. This is why I don't think the Heller decision really settles the 2A debate. In fact I think interpretation is bound to see-saw back and forth just like interpretation of so many other parts of the Constitution.
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.
