Is Gun Ownership a Right?
- Thread starter GURPS
- Start date
I wonder why you keep leaving out the well regulated part?
It's almost like you are avoiding the question because it doesn't fit your narrative
No, it's more like you are clueless about the meaning of the 2A even after it's been explained to you. One term for your condition is:Willful ignorance. Own it.
The right of all citizens to possess and carry firearms is a stated precondition for the maintenance of any and all militias, well regulated or not.
To wit:
Last edited:
Be that as it may, the Second Amendment says what it says and I still believe the authors of the amendment intended the right to bear arms as an individual right. Penn Jillette of Penn & Teller gave the best explanation of the meaning of the Second Amendment I have ever heard in an episode from their 3rd Season of their Showtime show Bull####!
I have never heard this explanation before but it makes perfect sense. Penn goes on to say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to make certain that the citizens could violently overthrow the government if the citizens found it necessary. It’s only natural that the government would try to disarm the citizen if it was under constant threat of an armed revolution. Moa, Lenin, and Stalin understood this perfectly well and said much the same thing.
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/200...on-of-the-second-amendment-i-have-ever-heard/
“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,” sure we need an organized military force to defend your country BUT “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
This is the people in contrast with the militia. It doesn’t say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” it says “the right of the people.”
Now why the word “people” ? Because the people who wrote this just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical state militia. They knew the time might come when they would have to do that again so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away.
This is the people in contrast with the militia. It doesn’t say “the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” it says “the right of the people.”
Now why the word “people” ? Because the people who wrote this just fought a war for two years against a tyrannical state militia. They knew the time might come when they would have to do that again so they made the possession of weapons a right that the militia could never take away.
I have never heard this explanation before but it makes perfect sense. Penn goes on to say that the purpose of the Second Amendment was to make certain that the citizens could violently overthrow the government if the citizens found it necessary. It’s only natural that the government would try to disarm the citizen if it was under constant threat of an armed revolution. Moa, Lenin, and Stalin understood this perfectly well and said much the same thing.
http://www.thelibertypapers.org/200...on-of-the-second-amendment-i-have-ever-heard/
Which I never argued. The point i was making is that that comes with certain conditions such as being well regulated which could include, training , licensing and registration.
But keep on ignoring common sense and literacy to make some imaginary point
Says the man who just advocated for Kellyanne not to face charges since her boss can ignore the recommendation. Who thinks it would be amusing if Jared was pardoned for crimes against the country.
You keep being a hypocrite and choosing which laws should be ignored and which are unimpeachable.
what are you blathering about .... none of that has anything to do with the 2nd Amendment and Firearm Ownership
PsyOps
Pixelated
And you seem to have avoided me asking you: what does 'well regulated' mean to you? What do you believe the militia really is as the founders intended?
You really are stone stupid. Read again, the most recent Supreme Court word on the subject:
Give it up, shortbus. You lost. Again. Another day going by with zero minds changed.
as i said above I believe well regulated means that there needs to be some registration process to join this "militia" along with proper gun safety and training courses and proper licensing.
I believe in the 2A but i also believe you need to take all of it literally if that is how you want it interpreted. You can't say that all the words in the 2a are intrinsic rights while ignoring the well regulated part.
Too bad the Supreme Court says you are flat wrong, eh?
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held, in a 5–4 decision, that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home,
This_person
Well-Known Member
I think you're right - WHEN YOU JOIN a militia, you would be well-regulated. There are many other things within the Constitution that imply this well-regulated part of the militia, including (but not limited to)
- Article 1 Section 8 which states: The Congress shall have the power to...raise and support armies, but no appropriateion of money to that use shall be for a longer term than two years.
- Article 1 Section 8 which states: The Congress shall have the power to...provide and maintain a Navy.
- Article 1 Section 8 which states: The Congress shall have the power to...provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers and the authority of training the millitia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.
- Article 2 Section 2 which states: The president shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States...
So, the "militia" really is a thing. But, because we need a well-regulated militia to be available whenever it is called into the service of the United States, the government may not infringe upon the rights of the private citizen to keep and bear war-capable weapons.
So, you're right, even though you don't know what you're talking about.
That's what I did there above.
Last edited:
well you would be incorrect ...
... joining the the militia [when the 2A was written] was as simple as showing up with your weapon with the proscribed number of shot, powder and flints
NO Licensing
NO Training Courses
NO Gun Safety Courses
as a citizen you were expected to show up, to defend your home, county and fellow citizens, when the Militia was CALLED OUT ...
Last edited:
That. And some of them actually conducted semi-regular musters and drills...but attendance was not mandatory. The "well regulated militia" was more of a fond hope and desired outcome than anything else...wishful thinking even.
LightRoasted
If I may ...
If I may ...
It meant that the people, of fighting age, that make up and are the militia, were to have in their possession, well regulated equipment, meaning, up to date and serviceable arms, with all the accoutrements, at the ready, so when called up to defend they could just grab and go. Not items that were to be "regulated" by government, Federal, State, or otherwise. It was dependent upon each able bodied man to acquire arms, equipment, any extra accoutrements, practice, and to always be at the ready. Just like the men, and women, of today still do. If arms were meant to be "regulated" by the States, or Federal government, it would have been written into the Constitution. Do not forget sucky sappy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Where our government is instituted from among the people. Not governed by some monarchy or dictator. And hey look, even though handguns are banned in merry 'ol England, with also extremely strict licensing requirements for any kind of rifle or shotgun, just to possess let alone purchase, this fella was killed with a handgun ... HERE. Apparently in merry 'ol England, criminals don't follow the law either.
It meant that the people, of fighting age, that make up and are the militia, were to have in their possession, well regulated equipment, meaning, up to date and serviceable arms, with all the accoutrements, at the ready, so when called up to defend they could just grab and go. Not items that were to be "regulated" by government, Federal, State, or otherwise. It was dependent upon each able bodied man to acquire arms, equipment, any extra accoutrements, practice, and to always be at the ready. Just like the men, and women, of today still do. If arms were meant to be "regulated" by the States, or Federal government, it would have been written into the Constitution. Do not forget sucky sappy, we are a Constitutional Republic. Where our government is instituted from among the people. Not governed by some monarchy or dictator. And hey look, even though handguns are banned in merry 'ol England, with also extremely strict licensing requirements for any kind of rifle or shotgun, just to possess let alone purchase, this fella was killed with a handgun ... HERE. Apparently in merry 'ol England, criminals don't follow the law either.
black dog
Free America
The last time Well Regulated came up in the Supreme Court was with Heller,
Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[167] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
Which registration process do you think the people who wrote it intended? A database, a federal register? More likely well regulated meant who formed up with whom when the British came back (25 years later).
Well..Sappy isn't very smart, so...