A "Well Regulated Militia" .....

[This_person]

That wasn't the question.

It kind of was.

Let me explain. If the limitation on government is that it shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms is limited to the federal government only, and the tenth amendment allows the states to violate that limitation (as in, the limitation is not on the states), then the only possible legal conclusion by that precedential interpretation is that things like the right to free speech, the limitation on government to keep the people free from search and seizure, the right of the people to not be discriminated against by their government, etc., would all be within the realm of state authority as well. There's no way to imply one limit on government in the constitution is federal only, but all others are not.

So, no, we can't change over two centuries of interpretation of the constitution in favor of your interpretation.

 

[Larry Gude]

I would agree because it was understood that the Bill of Rights only limited the power of the federal government.

Thank you. I've long been an absolutist on so many things about our government but this past 15 years, man, the blatant excuse making that has become so obvious: 'our guy' is misunderstood, meant well, had the deck stacked against him/her, it was the media, the 'they' are all bad and evil, but THEIR guy/gal is a lying SOB, hater of the Constitution who is out to destroy 'merica!"

It's just given me pause to try and look at everything from the other side and just challenge myself. Frankly, once Vrai got me to look at gay rights and marriage from the other side, that is the first big issue, that and abortion, which changed a couple of times in my adult life, so, now, the FIRST thing I do after thinking I have an opinion is look at it from the other side and see if I can make a persuasive argument for/against, whatever the case may be and then go from there. At the very least, I know I don't have to agree with the 'other' view but I ought to at least be able to see the point. Frankly, it helps you really see when they, or your own side, is simply full of #### and pounding the table because they're got neither right nor the law on their side.

Clearly, the founders were saying the federal gummint can not restrict your rights. But the states still have lots of powers. For the 2nd, I think it is left to the states. If they don't want you armed or want to restrict it to some extent, the feds are to be silent and you go appeal to your state reps for that grievance.

It seems to me it is the left and the search for federalization of everything, Roe, gay rights, schooling, that have lead to them wanting their cake, the feds making a lot of calls, and eat it to, the states being able to retain the ability to restrict. So, if we end up with a solid federal guarantee of the right to keep and bear, commerce clause settlements that guarantee your license to carry in State A applies to all, as a marriage or drivers license does, we should thank the 'progressives'. Not assail them. The appeal should be on the same grounds as abortion and gay rights as well as schooling and other issues that have been wrenched from the states. Take away their power on the 2nd, as well.

 

[This_person]

Again, not the question. What's the point of states rights if they are exactly the same as the feds?

They aren't even close to the same. States have full jurisdiction within their state for all things not specifically given to the federal government in the Constitution. States cannot, for example, set a tariff on another state's goods, or enter into treaties with other nations - these things are specifically prohibited to states. States can determine what the definition of "marriage" is in their state for the purpose of issuing a license. Well, that's no longer true in practice, but it is in fact the actual power of the state, just like driver's licenses, or building codes, etc.

 

[Larry Gude]

I would agree because it was understood that the Bill of Rights only limited the power of the federal government.

Thank you. I've long been an absolutist on so many things about our government but this past 15 years, man, the blatant excuse making that has become so obvious: 'our guy' is misunderstood, meant well, had the deck stacked against him/her, it was the media, the 'they' are all bad and evil, but THEIR guy/gal is a lying SOB, hater of the Constitution who is out to destroy 'merica!"

It's just given me pause to try and look at everything from the other side and just challenge myself. Frankly, once Vrai got me to look at gay rights and marriage from the other side, that is the first big issue, that and abortion, which changed a couple of times in my adult life, so, now, the FIRST thing I do after thinking I have an opinion is look at it from the other side and see if I can make a persuasive argument for/against, whatever the case may be and then go from there. At the very least, I know I don't have to agree with the 'other' view but I ought to at least be able to see the point. Frankly, it helps you really see when they, or your own side, is simply full of #### and pounding the table because they're got neither right nor the law on their side.

Clearly, the founders were saying the federal gummint can not restrict your rights. But the states still have lots of powers. For the 2nd, I think it is left to the states. If they don't want you armed or want to restrict it to some extent, the feds are to be silent and you go appeal to your state reps for that grievance.

It seems to me it is the left and the search for federalization of everything, Roe, gay rights, schooling, that have lead to them wanting their cake, the feds making a lot of calls, and eat it to, the states being able to retain the ability to restrict. So, if we end up with a solid federal guarantee of the right to keep and bear, commerce clause settlements that guarantee your license to carry in State A applies to all, as a marriage or drivers license does, we should thank the 'progressives'. Not assail them. The appeal should be on the same grounds as abortion and gay rights as well as schooling and other issues that have been wrenched from the states. Take away their power on the 2nd, as well.

 

[This_person]

Thank you. I've long been an absolutist on so many things about our government but this past 15 years, man, the blatant excuse making that has become so obvious: 'our guy' is misunderstood, meant well, had the deck stacked against him/her, it was the media, the 'they' are all bad and evil, but THEIR guy/gal is a lying SOB, hater of the Constitution who is out to destroy 'merica!"

It's just given me pause to try and look at everything from the other side and just challenge myself. Frankly, once Vrai got me to look at gay rights and marriage from the other side, that is the first big issue, that and abortion, which changed a couple of times in my adult life, so, now, the FIRST thing I do after thinking I have an opinion is look at it from the other side and see if I can make a persuasive argument for/against, whatever the case may be and then go from there. At the very least, I know I don't have to agree with the 'other' view but I ought to at least be able to see the point. Frankly, it helps you really see when they, or your own side, is simply full of #### and pounding the table because they're got neither right nor the law on their side.

Clearly, the founders were saying the federal gummint can not restrict your rights. But the states still have lots of powers. For the 2nd, I think it is left to the states. If they don't want you armed or want to restrict it to some extent, the feds are to be silent and you go appeal to your state reps for that grievance.

It seems to me it is the left and the search for federalization of everything, Roe, gay rights, schooling, that have lead to them wanting their cake, the feds making a lot of calls, and eat it to, the states being able to retain the ability to restrict. So, if we end up with a solid federal guarantee of the right to keep and bear, commerce clause settlements that guarantee your license to carry in State A applies to all, as a marriage or drivers license does, we should thank the 'progressives'. Not assail them. The appeal should be on the same grounds as abortion and gay rights as well as schooling and other issues that have been wrenched from the states. Take away their power on the 2nd, as well.

So, do you believe the states have the right to establish a state religion?

 

[Tilted]

Larry - Are you just asserting the states rights position (e.g. when it comes to their ability to regulate firearms) as a starting point? As in, can we agree that this is how it was up until the 1860's so that we can then move on to consider how the 14th Amendment affects those states rights and the power of states to, e.g., regulate firearms?

Or are you suggesting that the states still aren't restricted by the Bill of Rights - i.e., that the limits on the federal government specified in the Bill of Rights still don't apply to the states?

It is certainly true that through most of the 19th Century (and to some extent through all of it) most of the Bill of Rights was understood as not applying to states. But that was supposed to change with the 14th Amendment and eventually, as by interpretations of the Supreme Court, it did change.

 

[Larry Gude]

Larry - Are you just asserting the states rights position (e.g. when it comes to their ability to regulate firearms) as a starting point? As in, can we agree that this is how it was up until the 1860's so that we can then move on to consider how the 14th Amendment affects those states rights and the power of states to, e.g., regulate firearms?

Or are you suggesting that the states still aren't restricted by the Bill of Rights - i.e., that the limits on the federal government specified in the Bill of Rights still don't apply to the states?

It is certainly true that through most of the 19th Century (and to some extent through all of it) most of the Bill of Rights was understood as not applying to states. But that was supposed to change with the 14th Amendment and eventually, as by interpretations of the Supreme Court, it did change.

The former. My intent was to lay the ground work for shoving the 14th amendment up the ass of the left. Sideways. If the feds properly ought to regulate abortion, gay marriage and schooling, then, just as clearly, it ought to supersede the states on guns, too.

 

[Larry Gude]

So, do you believe the states have the right to establish a state religion?

Now? No. No more than they have the right to decide pretty much anything else. As I say, I was trying to lay out the broader argument. If abortion and gay rights and schooling and so many other issues are to be federal then gun rights ought to be, too.

 

[Tilted]

The former. My intent was to lay the ground work for shoving the 14th amendment up the ass of the left. Sideways. If the feds properly ought to regulate abortion, gay marriage and schooling, then, just as clearly, it ought to supersede the states on guns, too.

Okay. But their main argument won't be that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply the 2nd Amendment to the states. Their main argument will be that you're reading the 2nd Amendment wrongly.

 

[itsbob]

Do y'all accept that the Constitution forbids the federal gummint from restricting the right to keep and bear arms and that all other powers are to be delegated to the states whereby they CAN regulate private firearm possession and use? I ask this as a a starting point because we're clearly, from 1936 on, beyond the feds violating the Constitution in regards to the 2nd.

No, you are defining the constitution and the delineation of powers, the Bill of Rights (though considered amendments to) is a separate document as it were, and weren't even written at the time the constitution was ratified.. in fact some signers were hesitant because there was no Bill of Rights.

When the bill of rights are read as a separate document they do not define State v Federal powers, but define rights of the individual, and their rights alone. They don't differentiate these are the rights afforded to you by the Federal Government nor do they say States can regulate these rights all they want. In fact, they say these rights are divine, and given to ALL men, not by any government but by God. They do spell out SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.. which means to me, THEY SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED by any contradictory law from any land, or any level of government.

Absolutely has nothing to do with the separation of powers the Constitution spells out.

 

[Larry Gude]

Okay. But their main argument won't be that the 14th Amendment doesn't apply the 2nd Amendment to the states. Their main argument will be that you're reading the 2nd Amendment wrongly.

They can be wrong any way they choose. I'm very liberal when it comes to that.

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.

If they meant;

A well armed people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

...they'd have said that.


Just as with slavery, the right to succeed, leave the club, just as clearly, they meant the states could do WTF they want with arms including banning them nigras from having arms assuming anyone was every crazy enough to argue they wasn't property and no fool'd ever arm a horse or mule.

It is clear the feds meant "you states can not be forbidden by the gummint at Washington from restricting you from arms and training. Have all you want. Do all you like."

We'll know Texas is serious when it builds a state militia strong enough to evict the feds from Ft. Hood and others. It can have the arms and it can do the training. So can Rhode Island.

 

[This_person]

The former. My intent was to lay the ground work for shoving the 14th amendment up the ass of the left. Sideways. If the feds properly ought to regulate abortion, gay marriage and schooling, then, just as clearly, it ought to supersede the states on guns, too.

But, the federal government should NOT regulate abortion (murder is a state thing, not a federal thing), marriage, schooling, etc. These are all appropriately STATE things.

 

[Larry Gude]

But, the federal government should NOT regulate abortion (murder is a state thing, not a federal thing), marriage, schooling, etc. These are all appropriately STATE things.

Nah. It's one thing to say "We're not regulating guns. You states do that.' That's allowing a thing. Allowing state control over a thing. The Constitution can't allow states to restrict abortion because that is control over a person. Same as slavery. Same as women's right to vote.

 

[This_person]

Nah. It's one thing to say "We're not regulating guns. You states do that.' That's allowing a thing. Allowing state control over a thing. The Constitution can't allow states to restrict abortion because that is control over a person. Same as slavery. Same as women's right to vote.

EVERY law is control over a person. Speed limits are control over a person. Not allowing kidnapping is control over a person. Not allowing one person to kill another is control over a person. I'm not understanding what you're advocating here.

Neither the state nor the federal government may, per the constitution (not in practice, we know the government does a hell of a lot they're not allowed to do) infringe upon a person's right to keep and bear arms. Of course there are common sense limits, such as a reasonable age restriction, or limiting known felons who've used arms in the act of criminal activity, etc. But wholesale open restriction is not allowed or allowable to reasonable people.

Now, you bring up Texas having a state "army" (national guard). This was always the intent, and the constitution limits the federal government from having a standing army (like we do, again, government does what it wants when unchecked by the people) by limiting the funding for one to two years only (the clear intent being "time of war" for a standing army). The state, having the right to arm and train citizens, is not in conflict with 2A in anyway.

Again, I'm not sure what you're trying to advocate.

 

[itsbob]

They can be wrong any way they choose. I'm very liberal when it comes to that.




If they meant;



...they'd have said that.


Just as with slavery, the right to succeed, leave the club, just as clearly, they meant the states could do WTF they want with arms including banning them nigras from having arms assuming anyone was every crazy enough to argue they wasn't property and no fool'd ever arm a horse or mule.

It is clear the feds meant "you states can not be forbidden by the gummint at Washington from restricting you from arms and training. Have all you want. Do all you like."

We'll know Texas is serious when it builds a state militia strong enough to evict the feds from Ft. Hood and others. It can have the arms and it can do the training. So can Rhode Island.

Words have meaning... words don't change, but meaning do.

A well regulated militia in terms used 200 years ago, would mean exactly what you propose.. A well armed people.. hence the requirement for every able bodied man to be armed, with their own rifle and ammunition. If we take it by the word of the law, the same should apply today.. EVERY able bodied man should have a rifle in good working order, and in fact in 5.56/.223.. Not only should we not infringe on the right, but to do their part as citizens they must be armed.

 

[itsbob]

Nah. It's one thing to say "We're not regulating guns. You states do that.' That's allowing a thing. Allowing state control over a thing. The Constitution can't allow states to restrict abortion because that is control over a person. Same as slavery. Same as women's right to vote.

Again, states can not infringe on God given rights.. You'd have to point out where in the constitution it says We (the Feds) can't infringe on your God given rights, but somebody else can and that will be ok.. NOWHERE does it say the Feds won't infringe.. it states fairly clearly WILL NOT BE INFRINGED.. by anyone, or anything.

 

[TheLibertonian]

Words have meaning... words don't change, but meaning do.

A well regulated militia in terms used 200 years ago, would mean exactly what you propose.. A well armed people.. hence the requirement for every able bodied man to be armed, with their own rifle and ammunition. If we take it by the word of the law, the same should apply today.. EVERY able bodied man should have a rifle in good working order, and in fact in 5.56/.223.. Not only should we not infringe on the right, but to do their part as citizens they must be armed.

Except they also had to understand orders and not break the minute they were fired upon. Otherwise they were a crappy militia.

 

[This_person]

Except they also had to understand orders and not break the minute they were fired upon. Otherwise they were a crappy militia.

The limit on government was not that it could only generate a good militia. The limit that was put upon government was that it could not infringe upon people's rights to keep and bear arms.

 

[itsbob]

Except they also had to understand orders and not break the minute they were fired upon. Otherwise they were a crappy militia.

That maybe in addition to, but the fact remains, first and foremost they must be armed and able bodied..

Well regulated could be something as simple as they all have the same caliber weapon..

 

[Larry Gude]

That maybe in addition to, but the fact remains, first and foremost they must be armed and able bodied..

Well regulated could be something as simple as they all have the same caliber weapon..

Or all get enough fiber...