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.
To those of different opinions I would ask, if a well regulated militia was not the intention of the founders, then why was a well regulated militia even put into the amendment?
Why didn't it just read, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?
Let's hear what you think.
It was the intention of the founders to have a "well regulated" militia.
Quote:
"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 it's duty.
In Federalist 29, Hamilton writes about the composition of the militia, saying
Quote:
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Here again, "well regulated" refers to the militia's ability to be an effective fighting force. Nothing more.
Quote:
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a
century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order.
Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in
using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government
powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
Seems people will always have their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and more than likely will we never know the founding father's reason for writing it as they did, even though the courts feel the amendment meant the general population.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
MY feeling has always been, the amendment was directed at people who would form a militia, just as they did in the revolutionary war.
People, ordinary people took up arms to fight the British, and it was these people that won the war.
Seems only natural that people who made up a well regulated militia, would be given the right to bear arms, not the general population.
I have never felt the amendment was to ward of a corrupt government, but rather to defend the country from future invasion from a foreign power, as the British had tried.
To those of different opinions I would ask, if a well regulated militia was not the intention of the founders, then why was a well regulated militia even put into the amendment?
Why didn't it just read, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?
Let's hear what you think.
"Seems people will always have their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and more than likely will we never know the founding father's reason for writing it as they did" B.S., we Know EXACTLY "their reasoning"!
"MY feeling has always been" and your "FEELING" IS WRONG.
Not our fault you have a SEVERE reading comprehension problem.
"George Washington Gun Quotes
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
-George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788
“That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion.”
-George Washington, letter to George Mason April 5th 1769
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
-George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton May 2, 1783 John Adams Gun Quotes
Moderator cut: too long copy and paste
"Seems people will always have their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and more than likely will we never know the founding father's reason for writing it as they did" B.S., we Know EXACTLY "their reasoning"!
"MY feeling has always been" and your "FEELING" IS WRONG.
Not our fault you have a SEVERE reading comprehension problem.
"George Washington Gun Quotes
“A free people ought not only to be armed, but disciplined…”
– George Washington, First Annual Address, to both House of Congress, January 8, 1790
“And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peaceable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possessions.”
-George Washington, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of February 6, 1788
“That no man should scruple, or hesitate a moment, to use arms in defence of so valuable a blessing, on which all the good and evil of life depends, is clearly my opinion.”
-George Washington, letter to George Mason April 5th 1769
“It may be laid down, as a primary position, and the basis of our system, that every citizen who enjoys the protection of a free government, owes not only a proportion of his property, but even of his personal services to the defence of it, and consequently that the Citizens of America (with a few legal and official exceptions) from 18 to 50 Years of Age should be borne on the Militia Rolls, provided with uniform Arms, and so far accustomed to the use of them, that the Total strength of the Country might be called forth at Short Notice on any very interesting Emergency.”
-George Washington, letter to Alexander Hamilton May 2, 1783 John Adams Gun Quotes
Moderator cut: too long copy and paste
Do you think people to be in a "well-regulated militia" were sitting around waiting to be called?
No. They were running shops, farming, blue collar tradesmen, politicians of the day. They came together when the need arose. These ordinary people selected leaders and followed them.
Ordinary people. With ordinary arms came together and became the "well-regulated militia."
"Well regulated" means "make regular". It meant that each member was responsible for maintaining their firearm and keeping a minimum amount of ammunition and powder. They would show up a selected times for training.
The Nazis were allowed to take full control of Germany because they had previously disarmed the people. The Jews would not have voluntarily migrated to the camps if they still had their guns.
The Democrats are doing the same thing. Once they have all the guns, the people will no longer be able to fight back.
The Founding Father's reasoning is contained withing their writings. The only ambiguity is in those that seek to create it.
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Constitution, Draft 1, 1776
"The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man."
- Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."
- George Mason, Address to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 4, 1788
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."
- James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434, June 8, 1789
"...the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone..."
- James Madison, Federalist No. 46, January 29, 1788
"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
Ah.....you beat me to it. Since the 2nd Amendment has been subjected to differing interpretations, one has to look to the founders’ others writings to correctly determine what they intended. Another quote is by Madison (which I will look up later) saying that (and I may be paraphrasing here slightly) that “all it takes for a tyrant to oppress is an enslaved media and a disarmed populace.”
The Left now effectively has an enslaved media, and thus they are now going after our guns.
Response: Opinion For the one millionth and oneth time!
Who regulates the militia?
Answer?
We The people.
Better yet.
We The people with guns....................
Not me the person who decides who gets one and who doesn't.
Not me the person that keeps them locked away under lock and key to be had for the right price.
WE THE PEOPLE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS WHETHER WE MAKE OR BUY IT OR USE IT OR NOT.
Seems people will always have their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and more than likely will we never know the founding father's reason for writing it as they did, even though the courts feel the amendment meant the general population.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
MY feeling has always been, the amendment was directed at people who would form a militia, just as they did in the revolutionary war.
People, ordinary people took up arms to fight the British, and it was these people that won the war.
Seems only natural that people who made up a well regulated militia, would be given the right to bear arms, not the general population.
I have never felt the amendment was to ward of a corrupt government, but rather to defend the country from future invasion from a foreign power, as the British had tried.
To those of different opinions I would ask, if a well regulated militia was not the intention of the founders, then why was a well regulated militia even put into the amendment?
Why didn't it just read, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?
Let's hear what you think.
I'm pro-gun and a Lifetime NRA member, but I have often wondered why we (NRA, pro-gun folks) put all of our eggs in the 2nd amendment basket. I've read the 2nd Amendment frontwards, backwards, upside down, and every which way and I just don't see where it says any old yahoo can possess any weapon they choose.
That being said, anti-gun hysterical types grossly over-hype the use of guns for criminal purposes by failing to acknowledged that criminals will just find another way. It's why gun bans and gun laws in general don't work. By definition, killing someone with a gun (non self defense) is a criminal action. Ergo, the perpetrator has demonstrated a willful disregard for laws. As such, it is sheer lunacy to expect additional laws to keep criminals for killing people with guns.
To me, having guns in my home in analogous to having fire insurance. I pray I will never need it, but when I do I'm going to feel pretty stupid for not having it.
Seems people will always have their own interpretation of the 2nd amendment, and more than likely will we never know the founding father's reason for writing it as they did, even though the courts feel the amendment meant the general population.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
MY feeling has always been, the amendment was directed at people who would form a militia, just as they did in the revolutionary war.
People, ordinary people took up arms to fight the British, and it was these people that won the war.
Seems only natural that people who made up a well regulated militia, would be given the right to bear arms, not the general population.
I have never felt the amendment was to ward of a corrupt government, but rather to defend the country from future invasion from a foreign power, as the British had tried.
To those of different opinions I would ask, if a well regulated militia was not the intention of the founders, then why was a well regulated militia even put into the amendment?
Why didn't it just read, the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed?
Let's hear what you think.
We settled the debate in this thread here, since closed upon completion.
Interpreting the 2nd Amendment (Congress, regular, weapons, suspect)
The 2nd Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right to own and carry firearms, for the express purpose of defending citizens against their own government. Self-defense, hunting, and sportsmanship were all crucial, but the #1 reason was to protect the citizens from their government, so they would not be subject to Tyrany as they were under King George.
Here are some highlights from the debate thread.
An Individual right, not a "militia" right
Heller codified an "individual right" to keep and bear arms, not a right confined to membership in a specific group such as a state militia.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as
provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
This law establishes a minimum age of 17. The "under 45 years of age" does not exclude those older than 45, just removes the compulsory obligation. Same for females; not excluded, just not mandatory to be a part of the militia.
"I ask who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers." - George Mason,
"A militia when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in great measure unnecessary. …To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them…." Richard Henry Lee
"Well regulated" Militia
Meaning "well run" not heavily government regulated.
At the time it was written Well Regulated did not mean regulation or rules, It quite literally meant in good working order. So for a Militia to be in good working order it was expected that the Militia be familiar with weapons and well versed on their use. In 1789 the term "well regulated" did not mean "subject to a bunch of government regulations". It meant that people should be trained in how to use firearms.
Regarding the US Constitution
"On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed"
Thomas Jefferson.
The problem here is the ignorance of average Millennials and GenX, they simply have no understanding of the Constitution and most couldn’t care less about the founding of the USA. Our “education” systems deprecate the topic. Most of human history is a brutal story of tyranny and subjugation with individual rights an afterthought. The ~250 years of this American experiment is an exception, one that will be forgotten soon enough.
I'm pro-gun and a Lifetime NRA member, but I have often wondered why we (NRA, pro-gun folks) put all of our eggs in the 2nd amendment basket. I've read the 2nd Amendment frontwards, backwards, upside down, and every which way and I just don't see where it says any old yahoo can possess any weapon they choose.
That being said, anti-gun hysterical types grossly over-hype the use of guns for criminal purposes by failing to acknowledged that criminals will just find another way. It's why gun bans and gun laws in general don't work. By definition, killing someone with a gun (non self defense) is a criminal action. Ergo, the perpetrator has demonstrated a willful disregard for laws. As such, it is sheer lunacy to expect additional laws to keep criminals for killing people with guns.
To me, having guns in my home in analogous to having fire insurance. I pray I will never need it, but when I do I'm going to feel pretty stupid for not having it.
It's doesn't have to explicitly give permission to have any weapon you choose
Because the Constitution, and the 2nd amendment don't bestow rights upon the people.
They limit the power of Government to restrict rights that the people already have.
That's why it says "shall not be infringed".....not "shall be limited".
.......that pretty much covers any and all types of weapons that an individual can possess.
Remember, at the time the 2nd was written, individual citizens owned artillery and battleships.
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.
