Is Gun Ownership a Right?

[PsyOps]

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.

Register with what/who? Who mandates this gun safety and how it's implemented? I'm not disagreeing with your answer, but I'm trying to get at the what and who when it comes to 'well regulated.

If you take it literally then you must couple it with the words of the founders that thought it up. The 2A is clear that it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms. That is a literal, word-for-word interpretation. The 'well regulated militia' is what's necessary to secure a free state. Who makes up this militia? It's obviously the people. When our government turns against the people, we form up in militias in order to secure the 'free state'. Until then, it is necessary that all able-bodied Americans remain armed.

“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" - George Washington

“What country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance. Let them take arms.” – Thomas Jefferson

“The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.” – Thomas Jefferson

“That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.” - George Mason

“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

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American … the unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.” -Tenche Coxe

The founders' words were the literal understanding of the 2A. Their intent was that the militia are the people. In order for there to even be such a militia, made up of the people, they must have arms. Without arms, what is the point? And that they be armed with every terrible implement of the military.

So, we are left with 'well regulated'. Currently the people as a whole have not gathered up into militias because there isn't a need to do so. But, if that day comes, who or what will regulate them? THEY will. The people. They will assign their own officers and leaders that will regulate how each militia will train and operate. 'Well regulated' is only inferring that if there isn't order within the militias, there will only be chaos.

 

[Gilligan]

Register with what/who? Who mandates this gun safety and how it's implemented?

Sappy lies a lot..always making stuff up out of whole cloth and thin air. I think he and Transgender are twins.

 

[PeoplesElbow]

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.

Why? none of this existed during the revolution or when the constitution was written.

Well regulated could mean Jim Bob and the boys meet every Wednesday morning at McDonald's for a McGriddle.

 

[Starman]

I saw The Patriot. Militia just means anyone with guns, attitude, free will, and not afraid to use it.

 

[PsyOps]

I saw The Patriot. Militia just means anyone with guns, attitude, free will, and not afraid to use it.

Love that movie. And I think that was an accurate depiction of what the founders meant by militia. Everyone in Benjamin Martin's militia, who he commanded (well regulated), was free to come and go, but while they were under his command they will obey his orders or be shot. They were made up of ordinary citizens, with their own firearms fighting against threatened tyranny. Our founders knew all-too-well it could happen again, and they needed to establish the means for the people to have the RIGHT to be able to combat it. Very wise men. Wisdom lost in today's society.

 

[Gilligan]

Love that movie. And I think that was an accurate depiction of what the founders meant by militia. Everyone in Benjamin Martin's militia, who he commanded (well regulated), was free to come and go, but while they were under his command they will obey his orders or be shot. They were made up of ordinary citizens, with their own firearms fighting against threatened tyranny. Our founders knew all-too-well it could happen again, and they needed to establish the means for the people to have the RIGHT to be able to combat it. Very wise men. Wisdom lost in today's society.

But then we have the Sappy's of todays world..the ones who literally pee their pants when confronted at the checkout counter of a grocery store for a credit card rejection.

 

[PsyOps]

But then we have the Sappy's of todays world..the ones who literally pee their pants when confronted at the checkout counter of a grocery store for a credit card rejection.

Snark aside, I've asked the question to Sap: the left has called Trump the next Hitler or Stalin or whatever evil dictator. I would NEVER say that isn't a legitimate concern. A lot of people believed this of Obama. Tell you didn't think it. But if this is a legitimate concern for Sap, then why wouldn't he/she want to be armed and have the ability to form up militias to take our country back? If Trump was able to install himself as our dictator, I would take up arms with Sap and anyone else willing. It was a serious concern back in the Revolutionary War days for obvious reasons, but the founders knew if it could happen once, it could happen again; and it has, over and over again in history.

This is, in my opinion, a very serious issue that we just can't allow to be fooled around with because there are dangerous people in this country.

 

[stgislander]

Talk about having your ass handed to you. I don't think we'll be seeing anymore of Sappy in this thread.

 

[This_person]

Talk about having your ass handed to you. I don't think we'll be seeing anymore of Sappy in this thread.

Once Sap loses, Sap tends to forget the thread exists, or completely ignores and never responds to the posts that demonstrate Sap's incorrect/invalid/disproven positions. Then, Sap comes back and makes the same claims again.

There are a few with whom you could simply do a global replacement of name, and have the same result.

 

[Sapidus]

Talk about having your ass handed to you. I don't think we'll be seeing anymore of Sappy in this thread.

Why are you guys so obsessed with me?

Don't you ever leave your houses? go to work? Talk to people in real life?

I'm sorry you are waiting with baited breath on my response.

Seems odd you would care so much since you then dismiss everything I say as stupid.

 

[This_person]

Why are you guys so obsessed with me?

Don't you ever leave your houses? go to work? Talk to people in real life?

I'm sorry you are waiting with baited breath on my response.

Seems odd you would care so much since you then dismiss everything I say as stupid.

It's concern. We want to know that you acknowledge you had it wrong and now you have been taught. It's important to us that our fellow citizens know their rights.

 

[Sapidus]

Snark aside, I've asked the question to Sap: the left has called Trump the next Hitler or Stalin or whatever evil dictator. I would NEVER say that isn't a legitimate concern. A lot of people believed this of Obama. Tell you didn't think it. But if this is a legitimate concern for Sap, then why wouldn't he/she want to be armed and have the ability to form up militias to take our country back? If Trump was able to install himself as our dictator, I would take up arms with Sap and anyone else willing. It was a serious concern back in the Revolutionary War days for obvious reasons, but the founders knew if it could happen once, it could happen again; and it has, over and over again in history.

This is, in my opinion, a very serious issue that we just can't allow to be fooled around with because there are dangerous people in this country.

We have rules and regulations and a system of checks and balances in this country which is our first line of defense.

As I said before if the government wants you to do something or wants to take what you have your assault rifles aren't going to do anything to stop them against the largest and strongest military in the world. Keep fooling yourself.
With both Obama and especially Trump his level of support is no where near a level that would allow him to take over our government without a revolt. Fortunately in this country that doesn't necessarily mean we would have to fight back using weapons.

 

[Sapidus]

It's concern. We want to know that you acknowledge you had it wrong and now you have been taught. It's important to us that our fellow citizens know their rights.

You actually made me LOL.


I never said anything about banning all guns. If you believe in the 2a you must believe in the portion that reads " well regulated" which means their needs to be organization, regulation, registration and training.

You can't be well regulated without any regulations other than you must be 18 and have money

 

[This_person]

We have rules and regulations and a system of checks and balances in this country which is our first line of defense.

As I said before if the government wants you to do something or wants to take what you have your assault rifles aren't going to do anything to stop them against the largest and strongest military in the world. Keep fooling yourself.
With both Obama and especially Trump his level of support is no where near a level that would allow him to take over our government without a revolt. Fortunately in this country that doesn't necessarily mean we would have to fight back using weapons.

Again, you are correct in that our first line of defense is the ballot box, the states having control over the constitution, etc. The Constitution IS indeed our first line of defense - that system of checks and balances on government vs. We, the People.

Where you are incorrect is whether or not we could defend ourselves against the government. Certainly you were taught in history class about the lone Chinese man in Tienanmen Square in 1989? Review.

That said, you gave a great reason to make sure that the current unconstitutional restrictions on firearms ownership are reversed.

 

[This_person]

You actually made me LOL.


I never said anything about banning all guns. If you believe in the 2a you must believe in the portion that reads " well regulated" which means their needs to be organization, regulation, registration and training.

You can't be well regulated without any regulations other than you must be 18 and have money

So, what I'm hearing you say is that you didn't read anything we wrote in response to that, or, you are ignoring it and acting like it never happened and you were proven wrong in your position?

 

[Gilligan]

So, what I'm hearing you say is that you didn't read anything we wrote in response to that, or, you are ignoring it and acting like it never happened and you were proven wrong in your position?

I vote for "ignoring it and acting like it never happened". He's routinely obtuse like that.

 

[Gilligan]

If you believe in the 2a you must believe in the portion that reads " well regulated" which means their needs to be organization, regulation, registration and training.

You can't be well regulated without any regulations other than you must be 18 and have money

That's fine and dandy...except that's not what the 2A states or means. Not even close. The Supreme Court clarified it for you and I posted it. Go read it again. ;-)

 

[Clem72]

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

I will preface this by saying I am not a huge fan of firearms, don't own any, and generally wouldn't be directly affected by changes to any laws governing their purchase or use.

However, english is english. The clause makes the claim that a "well regulated malitia" is a necessity, therefore the right of civilians to be armed is a necessity. The direct inference is that armed civilians are a requirement of a well regulated malitia. That doesn't by any means imply the opposite, that the civilians need to be in the malitia or well regulated.

In order to have a true Neapolitan pizza, the right of pizza makers to import buffalo mozarella may not be infringed. Doesn't mean all pizza makers have to import buffalo mozarella, or make Neapolitan pizza.

Now you want to have a discussion about amending the constitution to reflect the changing ideals surrounding gun ownership, go right ahead. But pretending that language conventions are not a thing because it's convenient to your argument is idiotic. I would make the claim that the average person who could read and write at the time the constitution was drafted could do so more adroitly than the average person making #### forum posts today, and to claim they didn't write exactly what they meant is a croc.

 

[This_person]

I never said anything about banning all guns.

Nor did I suggest that you did

 

[stgislander]

And it appears I was wrong about him coming back. Oh well... won't be the first time.