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.
Militias are illegal per laws enacted by the federal government.
The only authorized militia in the US is the Air and Army National Guards.
The great irony is that the National Guard can be ordered to active-duty by the federal government at which time it becomes an instrument of the federal government.
Well then what I said equally applies. Anyone who isn't issued a weapon, who believes the 2nd only permits ownership of arms by the militia, should be happy to turn them in, if they're intellectually honest.
I'm not a hoplophobe, I've been a firearms owner for more than 70 years and you know nothing about me. And I was NOT talking to you. So just get a grip on your hair trigger and can it with your personal insults and name calling.
I don't have a clue what you're carrying on about but your above post in response to mine is a classic example of how some people with a grudge and an agenda, yourself included, will deliberately misinterpret what they are reading to mean something entirely different from what was actually said.
Just like what has happened with the deliberate misinterpretation of the clear language in the 2A to suit your personal agendas.
It's just mind blowing to me.
.
I had to go back and look to see what it is you're on about here and I wasn't trying to quote you. I was after the person you quoted. So , my bad and I regret the mistake. But still you did agree with the premise that the 2A refers only to "militia" as in ...what. Exactly. The argument that th National Guard is in fact the "militia" has been used a lot and that is so erroneous as to be ridiculous. The NG is in reality US Army reserve by a different name. They are exactly what it reads above the left lapel of their uniform. US ARMY.
The NG has been called up and deployed to overseas conflict and the "militia" is only a domestic force which is not subject to federal or state command. Just as it was in the 18th century the militia is the people. Regula citizens like you and me. It forms up in time of need comprised of all who respond to the call. Service in the militia is strictly voluntary and members are free to come and go as they see fit providing they are not in cadre to the regular military. Volunteering for that puts the group under federal command in support of the regulars and subject to command thereof.
The interpretation of "well regulated" has become a bone of contention as well. It does not mean organized under the government. Wee that the case the central authority would be responsible for providing our weapons and equipment and setting regular drill/training exercise. Ala the NG. We the people of the citizen militia own all our own weapons and equipment and see to our own proficiency in whatever areas we judge to be pertinent. If it comes a time we need to form up and organize then leaders will be selected from our ranks and fighters put into jobs best suited to their abilities. And not everyone need be a fighter to be in such militia. People are needed in noncombatant roles as well.
You say you have been involved in whatever areas of weaponscraft for 70 years. I have been in it for 50. I am not well suited for font line fighter role any more. Despite my skill with weapons I have a physical disability that hinders me more now than when I was younger. I'm sure that you would not relish the thought of humping a 100 pounds of gear plus weapons and ammunition and neither would I. I would be a burden to a fast front line squad of guerilla fighters. But still I could make myself of use handily enough in other areas as I'm sure you could as well.
"Well regulated" means properly armed equipped proficient and able to organize into an effective force whatever the size. And militia does not have any obligation to serve under command of regular uniformed forces. We ae not in any way beholden to answer to the CiC or forces under his/her command.
The 2A is now what it was then. And the need for it is just as great now as well. A prime example of the need for "well regulated" militia is urban areas awash in crime and under thrall of criminal gangs. However the PEOPLE there who are honest decent folk have been stripped of their 2A rights in purely un constitutional manner by the municipal government. Self defense has been made illegal. Things in these gang infested areas might just look a little better if when they try to do a drive by the neighborhood residents opened up from every window on the street. Militia is fully within its rights to form in opposition to a criminal threat as much as a military one.
If you do indeed support the 2A how do you see your individual firearms in this picture? Since you are not in a "militia" ? But you is precious...yes you is I say in my best Gollum voice. And for the record I said THE hoplophobes not YOU ARE a hoplophobe. But still I apologize for my error in quoting. For whatever it's worth.
The irony being all these gun owners saying the 2nd Amendment only applies to the militia, who patently aren't members of a militia.
Surely the intellectually honest who truly believe the 2nd was intended for militia service only, would not possess firearms unless attached to a formal militia (not necessarily the Nasty Girls, but a self stated militia with state recognition).
Hence the Irony.
Let me fix that for you. I think it should read "Surely the intellectually honest who truly believe the 2nd was intended for militia service only, would not BEAR firearms unless attached to a formal militia".
I think that's what the 2nd A means. That people can have the right to own firearms but NOT to bear (carry) arms unless attached to a formal, well regulated militia.
Obviously that doesn't apply to me since I'm not an American resident and where I live ordinary citizens may possess arms but they do not bear arms. But what about the American gun owners who believe the 2nd A refers to only militia BEARING arms? Do those types of gun owners bear the arms they possess?
I think a poll should be taken of Americans to see how many of them actually understand the English language enough to know the difference between owning a gun and bearing a gun. The words OWN and BEAR do not mean the same thing.
For decades the 2nd amendment has been argued over and over.
Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms.
I don't recall anyone answering that question.
It has always been my feeling that the mention of" a well regulated militia", followed by "the people's right to bear arms, has been misinterpreted, even by the courts.
If the people mentioned in the 2nd were the general public, then why was the word "militia" put into the amendment?"
I believe the framers of the constitution were issuing and order that people who make up a militia are the one's who's right to bear arm shall not be infringed.
Why would the framers want the general population armed?
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
A "well regulated militia" would be a group of people well trained and regulated, should the need arise to have to use them once again to defend the country.
This certainly doesn't mean every Joe Blow from Alamo would be entitled to have a weapon.
This has been answered literally hundreds of times. "The Militia" as envisioned by the founding fathers consisted of every able bodied citizen. So the militia consisted of every able bodied citizen.
So to review, what did they mean by militia: Every citizen.
The founding fathers explained all of this repeatedly and in great detail. The were asked, "Can ordinary citizens own cannons?" The answer was a resounding, "Yes they can!" They were asked if ordinary citizens could own warships, and the answer was the same. "Of course, that's what the 2nd Amendment is there for." Their reasoning was two-fold:
They didn't want to create a large permanent standing army/military, largely because they'd just survived a long and bitter war against just such a permanent standing military.
They quite specifically stated that an armed citizenry was a crucial protection against tyranny.
The Democrats desperate need to disarm America aligns perfectly Soviet Russia, Communist China and Nazi Germany.
Let me fix that for you. I think it should read "Surely the intellectually honest who truly believe the 2nd was intended for militia service only, would not BEAR firearms unless attached to a formal militia".
I think that's what the 2nd A means. That people can have the right to own firearms but NOT to bear (carry) arms unless attached to a formal, well regulated militia.
Obviously that doesn't apply to me since I'm not an American resident and where I live ordinary citizens may possess arms but they do not bear arms. But what about the American gun owners who believe the 2nd A refers to only militia BEARING arms? Do those types of gun owners bear the arms they possess?
I think a poll should be taken of Americans to see how many of them actually understand the English language enough to know the difference between owning a gun and bearing a gun. The words OWN and BEAR do not mean the same thing.
.
Oh, playing semantics.
I see the definition of bearing to mean more than carrying, but bearing the weight of responsibility for ownership of possessing lethal weapons. The physical mass is inconsequential. Owning firearms forces a discipline and responsibility that could be seen as a burden, thus you must bear that burden.
Of course people in Canada bear (using your definition) arms, how do they hunt? From their living room Lay-Z-Boy?
I see the definition of bearing to mean more than carrying, but bearing the weight of responsibility for ownership of possessing lethal weapons. The physical mass is inconsequential. Owning firearms forces a discipline and responsibility that could be seen as a burden, thus you must bear that burden.
Of course people in Canada bear (using your definition) arms, how do they hunt? From their living room Lay-Z-Boy?
There's these pieces of paper that hunters have to buy seasonally from government authorities before they can go out hunting and transport and bodily carry their firearms with them. They're called "Hunting Licenses" and "Authorization to Transport Firearms Permits". They all have short term expiry dates and must be renewed. Maybe you've never heard of them?
I don't play at semantics. I live, breathe and sleep semantics and it's not a game for me. Semantics, which has been an important part of my role as a life skills instructor to mentally handicapped people with poor language comprehension and poor cognition and critical thinking skills, means this:
".... the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive structure of meaning....."
I put that there for any people who don't even know what the word semantics means when they read your own post and your use of that word. These days there seems to be a disturbing increase in the number of people with poor language comprehension and poor cognition and critical thinking skills.
ETA: This sure is a mighty big fuss some people are making over a simple post I made that was concurring with somebody else's understanding of the English language. Methinks some people doth protest too much over a mole hill made into a mountain. Maybe they don't know how to read properly.
I think that's what the 2nd A means. That people can have the right to own firearms but NOT to bear (carry) arms unless attached to a formal, well regulated militia.
"The right of the People to keepandbear arms"
Given the text in question, please explain how your assertion is supported by the English language.
This is such a ridiculously stupid discussion, if you can just put yourself in to the frame of mind of the people who wrote the amendment.
Do you know why they call the United States "the great experiment"? Because it's the first time a system of self-governance was attempted.
How about, "we're a nation of laws, not men"? That means that we're all equal under the law. "The law" is a set of rules agreed upon by the citizens through their elected representatives. "We, the People" decide what rules we're going to self-impose. They're not created on a whim by some dictator or oligarchy. That's huge. Please understand how significant of a thing that is, historically.
There's no chance whatsoever that the founders intended for the federal government to be imposing arms restrictions of any kind on the People. None. I could have been convinced of that at one time, but the more I read and learn about our history, the more clearly I can understand where the founders were coming from on this, and it's just not possible. If you truly believe that it is, and you're not just lying about it because it's politically expedient, read more. Learn more. Get inside the founders' heads.
Given the text in question, please explain how your assertion is supported by the English language.
The text in question - a mere 27 words - says this:
“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.”
I think any explanation I give of my understanding of the meaning of a properly trained and well regulated MILITIA (which is made up of designated people) would be a waste of my time here. But you can read this instead and I'll leave it at that:
The text in question - a mere 27 words - says this:
“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.”
I think any explanation I give of my understanding of the meaning of a properly trained and well regulated MILITIA (which is made up of designated people) would be a waste of my time here. But you can read this instead and I'll leave it at that:
You wrote, "...people can have the right to own firearms but NOT to bear (carry) arms unless..."
All I want is for you to reconcile that belief (and it *IS* a belief) with how the English language works.
"the right of the People" = "the People have a right"
"to keep and bear arms" = "that right is the right to keep arms, and also the right to bear arms"
Basically, you're going to have to explain why the use of "and" doesn't do there what it does in every other sentence where it's used.
Look, you can believe whatever you like, but don't let your beliefs fail the very first, most simple of logic tests, or you're just deluding yourself.
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.
I'm not a hoplophobe, I've been a firearms owner for more than 70 years and you know nothing about me. And I was NOT talking to you. So just get a grip on your hair trigger and can it with your personal insults and name calling. 
