Obama: executive action to expand background checks
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
15-12-2015, 02:53 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 02:02 PM)yakherder Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 01:42 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I think some people need to look up the meaning of the word "militia".

No where in that definition does it imply just a regular person.

It doesn't mean "people".

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 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia is simply provided as a reason for that right.

It doesn't begin with every person must own a gun. It begins with well regulated militia.

The part of the sentence provides context for the rest of of it.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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."

An individual can't say they're a militia, nor can they claim to be part of one just because you own one gun or 20. It must be a well regulated militia, I would reason that means police, military, etc...

Someday our lawmakers will see their grave error, but don't worry many more people will die before that ever happens.

Sad


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Momsurroundedbyboys's post
15-12-2015, 03:03 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 02:12 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 01:42 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  I think some people need to look up the meaning of the word "militia".

No where in that definition does it imply just a regular person.

It doesn't mean "people".

I posted this earlier. The militia are the people of the United States, according to the people that wrote the Constitution or were alive at the time it was ratified.

The 2nd 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."

Well regulated militia. Who makes up the militia? The people. Who are the people? Individuals. The constitution makes it very clear that the militia is not the same thing as the regular army. Section 2 of Article 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia..."

And who makes up the militia? The people.

..."that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." -Alexander Hamilton

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Lee

"As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." - James Madison

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." -George Mason

"The people" specifically means individuals. The First Amendment (free speech, religion) ensures "the right of the people" to petition the government and to assemble peacefully; the Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to "the people" non-enumerated rights and powers. In all of those instances, "the people" means an individual right. The preamble to the constitution says "We the people."

It's very clear. The people are individuals.

This one is my favorite. It is often argued that even if the people are the militia, and the people have the right to use arms in a militia, they should be forced to keep the guns at an armory or on a military base and only use them when needed. This pretty much settles where the militia (the people) should keep their weapons.

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry (the guy that said "Give me liberty, or give me death!")

Obviously he meant that we should have those arms with us, "in our own hands" not kept by the government for use later.

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" so they can join the militia if necessary, to either repel a foreign army or their own government. It is what makes us truly free. The people who signed the constitution wrote or spoke on multiple occasions about their intent. Writers, philosophers and patriots of the time wrote repeatedly what the meaning of the 2nd amendment was all about.

So you're applying a 18th century mindset to today.

Do you carry a musket? Consider

A time of revolutionary war. Where the British could come into people homes and take their weapons. Which in turn limits their ability to feed their families.

I won't despute that guns were once an important and intricate part of society at that time, but for the last 50 years they've done far more harm to our society than good (military, police etc aside).


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 03:04 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 02:53 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 02:02 PM)yakherder Wrote:  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 to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The militia is simply provided as a reason for that right.

It doesn't begin with every person must own a gun. It begins with well regulated militia.

The part of the sentence provides context for the rest of of it.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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."

An individual can't say they're a militia, nor can they claim to be part of one just because you own one gun or 20. It must be a well regulated militia, I would reason that means police, military, etc...

Someday our lawmakers will see their grave error, but don't worry many more people will die before that ever happens.

Sad

Well regulated meant "well armed" back then, not regulated by rules. Troops were called "regulars" which meant they were foot soldiers. The Constitution specifically notes a difference between the militia and the military, Section 2 of Article 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia..."

We are all the militia. There are so many quotes by the founders on the militia and their intent that entire books could be filled.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 03:09 PM (This post was last modified: 15-12-2015 03:18 PM by Lord Dark Helmet.)
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 03:03 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 02:12 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  I posted this earlier. The militia are the people of the United States, according to the people that wrote the Constitution or were alive at the time it was ratified.

The 2nd 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."

Well regulated militia. Who makes up the militia? The people. Who are the people? Individuals. The constitution makes it very clear that the militia is not the same thing as the regular army. Section 2 of Article 2: "The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia..."

And who makes up the militia? The people.

..."that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms." -Alexander Hamilton

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms." - Richard Lee

"As the greatest danger to liberty is from large standing armies, it is best to prevent them by an effectual provision for a good militia." - James Madison

"I ask you sir, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people." -George Mason

"The people" specifically means individuals. The First Amendment (free speech, religion) ensures "the right of the people" to petition the government and to assemble peacefully; the Fourth Amendment protects "the right of the people" against unreasonable searches and seizures; and the Ninth and Tenth Amendments reserve to "the people" non-enumerated rights and powers. In all of those instances, "the people" means an individual right. The preamble to the constitution says "We the people."

It's very clear. The people are individuals.

This one is my favorite. It is often argued that even if the people are the militia, and the people have the right to use arms in a militia, they should be forced to keep the guns at an armory or on a military base and only use them when needed. This pretty much settles where the militia (the people) should keep their weapons.

"Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" - Patrick Henry (the guy that said "Give me liberty, or give me death!")

Obviously he meant that we should have those arms with us, "in our own hands" not kept by the government for use later.

The Second Amendment protects "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" so they can join the militia if necessary, to either repel a foreign army or their own government. It is what makes us truly free. The people who signed the constitution wrote or spoke on multiple occasions about their intent. Writers, philosophers and patriots of the time wrote repeatedly what the meaning of the 2nd amendment was all about.

So you're applying a 18th century mindset to today.

Do you carry a musket? Consider

A time of revolutionary war. Where the British could come into people homes and take their weapons. Which in turn limits their ability to feed their families.

I won't despute that guns were once an important and intricate part of society at that time, but for the last 50 years they've done far more harm to our society than good (military, police etc aside).

You have to apply the mindset. Just as every other bill of right stands today. Just as the freedom of speech applies even with technology, so does the 2nd amendment.

Since the founders used the words "well regulated" I take that to mean that the people should have the same weapons that "regulated" troops would have. Regulated troops were toops that were armed foot soldiers, known as regulars. In todays terms regulated troops would carry sidearms and a rifle. Militia men didn't bring cannons back then so they wouldn't have rocket launcher today. But we should at least have the minimum weapons of regulated troops. And that is exactly what we have today. Semi auto rifles and handguns that are the civilian equivalent of the military version.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 03:17 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 03:09 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 03:03 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  So you're applying a 18th century mindset to today.

Do you carry a musket? Consider

A time of revolutionary war. Where the British could come into people homes and take their weapons. Which in turn limits their ability to feed their families.

I won't despute that guns were once an important and intricate part of society at that time, but for the last 50 years they've done far more harm to our society than good (military, police etc aside).

You have to apply the mindset.

The mindset needs to evolve. We can change it, if we're brave enough to let go of the fantasy and embrace reason.

Oh wait...we're talking about guns. Facepalm
Tongue


But as if to knock me down, reality came around
And without so much as a mere touch, cut me into little pieces

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 03:26 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 03:17 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 03:09 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  You have to apply the mindset.

The mindset needs to evolve. We can change it, if we're brave enough to let go of the fantasy and embrace reason.

Oh wait...we're talking about guns. Facepalm
Tongue

That's a completely different issue. First, anti-gun people just have to face the facts of the intent of the 2nd amendment. It is what it is. It protects an individual right so that we can form militias. This militia serves two purposes. 1. To aid the U.S. government in time of invasion or 2. To go against the U.S. government if they become tyrannical. The founders themselves said this many times.

The 2nd amendment can be changed or repealed after two things are done:

1. Enough people in America decide it should change and the amendment process plays out to repeal it,

AND

2. The 2nd amendment supporters are forcefully removed of their arms before they can unite and take over the country by force.

Easy, right?

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 03:27 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 03:04 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  We are all the militia. There are so many quotes by the founders on the militia and their intent that entire books could be filled.

Yeah, no. Property-owning white men were the militia.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like cjlr's post
15-12-2015, 03:46 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 03:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 03:04 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  We are all the militia. There are so many quotes by the founders on the militia and their intent that entire books could be filled.

Yeah, no. Property-owning white men were the militia.

Free men, I believe. I've seen nothing in their written words that they had to be property owners or white (although this might have been a no brainer at the time, considering the white men were free). Not all militiamen owned property.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 04:01 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 03:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 03:04 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  We are all the militia. There are so many quotes by the founders on the militia and their intent that entire books could be filled.

Yeah, no. Property-owning white men were the militia.

Yeah, no. Property-owning white men mostly ran the militia, but the body of troops was made up of people from all walks of life including free blacks and slaves.

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
15-12-2015, 04:17 PM
RE: Obama: executive action to expand background checks
(15-12-2015 04:01 PM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  
(15-12-2015 03:27 PM)cjlr Wrote:  Yeah, no. Property-owning white men were the militia.

Yeah, no. Property-owning white men mostly ran the militia, but the body of troops was made up of people from all walks of life including free blacks and slaves.

A slave's participation implies nothing about their consent. I'm not sure what that's supposed to show? But yes, somewhat trivially (and initially ignored in my laziness), different outfits would inevitably have had different rules.

Given the large majority of the population was barred from the leadership class in any case, "we" are most emphatically not "all" served by militias as they would have been constituted two hundred and fifty years ago.
(which is rather the more important point - who gives a shit what people two hundred years dead thought about how societies should work?)

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes cjlr's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: