Posted on 02/27/2017 9:00:10 AM PST by Sean_Anthony
Ignoring “militia,” “arms” and “shall not infringe” the court sounded more like Chief Justice Oprah Winfrey
The most confusing dependent clause in the history of the nation, at least as far as personal liberty goes, is the one that begins the 2nd Amendment to the Bill of Rights. The full text of the amendment reads:
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.
To understand what the Founders meant it helps to understand how much the former colonists disliked a standing army. As far as the Continental Congress was concerned the Revolution could be fought and won using an army composed entirely of citizen volunteers organized into local militia companies.
This BS won’t stand. As soon as Gorsuch us confirmed to SCOTUS this will be overturned. Might take a while, but it will go.
This won’t stand and Trump will get this guy off the bench. He is on the enemies list.
These words have always bothered me, “regulated Militia”. Militia to me is a uniformed group, regulated means some form of control. When does the militia drill? Where do they drill? Are they a cohesive group well disciplined and ready to follow orders? Who are their Commanders? Are they a separate branch of the military or are they a paramilitary group lead by former members of the military or a bunch of yahoos? I’m playing the devils advocate over the wording. I see no problem with a “regulated” militia, i.e. the Concord County Volunteer Militia, sort of a unit lower than the National Guard and self funded. Nothing new there, there were many during the 1860s and before that. It seems the wording is such, it depends on how you interpret the actual meaning, in that it can be suited to fit your intent.
The scourge of judicial overreach is now clearly visible and bound to draw some righteous lightning. Bad time to be a judge with too much imagination and not enough common sense restraint.
This decision will be overturned by the Supreme Court.
Step 1 - Deligitimize
Step 2 - Dehumanize
Step 3 - Scapegoat
Step 4 - Disarm
Step 5 - Genocide
I am not so sure. Heller was 5-4 with Scalia. Kennedy is a very shaky vote. I think he would be inclined to water down the 2nd if he can. Gorsuch may be a Trojan Horse. I think many if not most judges hate the 2nd A.
These words have always bothered me, “regulated Militia”
There’s a comma after that part of the sentence. The comma is very important. By putting the comma there it separates the individual right to own gives it its own standing.
This is the clause which explains why the Second Amendment was added to the Bill of Rights. It has nothing to do with duck hunting or target shooting.
You are spot on.
A person needs to go back to the “original intent” and look at “standing army” compared to “militia.”
There was to be no “standing army” - an army always ready, armed and well regulated, to do the bidding of the federal government.
Instead, there were to be state militias, that could be mustered up by the federal government during times of national war. The states were in control of their militia, not the federal government. This gave the states more power and authority.
Recently (last 100 years or so), we now have a “standing army” in the power and authority of the federal government, which has obviously abused their power, over and over.
We clearly see this example during the civil war. Each “unit” was a state militia. They identified by the state where they had come from. There was no federal standing army.
Anyway, a lot has been written in the last 30 years or so on this topic regarding “original intent” of states militia, national guard, standing army, etc.
Who cares what these judges do? I don’t care what they, SCOTUS or anyone in Washington or the UN rules on guns. I’m not giving mine up, and no, I’m not “losing” them in a boating accident either. They’re going to be right along my side.
The 2nd Amendment says "well regulated Militia...". "well regulated" means properly functioning, as in a "well regulated" clock, a usage from this same period.
It is a semantic fallacy to impose current usage on this late 18th century term. We must go back to that period to understand the force of its meaning.
Further, the 2nd amendment is a contraint on Federal power, not an authorization to "regulate" the Militia. COTUS Article I, Section 8, Para 16 dictates what powers the Federal government has over the Militia.
When it was written, “well regulated” meant adequately armed. The “militia” was every able-bodied white male between 16 and 45.
Legislate all you want. You will disarm us at your own peril.
That is exactly right.
And it went beyond that. The militias - state chartered units - could be raised by anyone in the State.
My g-g uncle raised a North Carolina regiment on his own by recruiting locals he knew. Because he did that, they were assigned a company name and number and put under a State militia commander, but with G-G-Uncle as the Captain - a title he earned for having raised the company.
Federal control of the of the State militias - now called National Guard - starts with the Dick Act and was the slippery slope to an all Federal standing army which we now have, with the NG units as junior member subsidiaries.
They are the State militias and should be untouchable by the Federal commands until formally ordered into service for a conflict of declared war - by the Congress.
The Constitution doesn’t give us the right to own a BB gun or participate in paintball conflicts. The Constitution gives us the right to own and bear light infantry weapons.
Wrong and wrong.
The Constitution doesn’t give us ANY rights whatsoever. It clearly defines and delineates what God given rights our elected Government officials my not violate or infringe on. How I wish the document had a definition of the word 'infringe' included in the Preamble.
Every time I think about what these tyrants in black burkas did, the Concord minuteman statue pops into my mind. A farmer standing next to his plow with a “weapon of war” in his hand that would have been banned had these bastards been around at that time. As an American, all of those “judicial” tyrants can KMA.
The constitution was written from the perspective of what the founders had just experienced; a civil war against a well regulated militia, the British army. What were their feelings about an army at that time? The answer is fear. The second amendment means that because a well regulated militia (an army) is a necessary evil for the security of a free country, but also inherently dangerous to the freedom of said country, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The second amendment exists to protect the people from the government. Read some of the state versions of the right to keep and Bear arms.
The militia bit is legally meaningless.
Some of the Founding Fathers didn’t like ordinary people having the right to guns, but they lost out.
A few words about militias was their meaningless consolation prize.
Without well-armed ordinary people, the nation wouldn’t have gotten over the Appalachian Mountains.
The Indians would have shot up every home on the frontier using British guns.
“Regulated” means EQUIPPED.
The amendment means that the people must have guns so that they will be WELL-EQUIPPED to defend themselves.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.