The meaning of the 2nd Amendment's "well regulated militia"

[Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.Did you miss your activation email?]

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

March 11, 2010, 10:54:24 PM

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Advanced search

   

Please contribute to the college fund benefiting Nathan Wager's two children, Little Nate and Madalena.

[Today]

• About fucking time: "requ... by merch [Today at 10:51:59 PM]
• Did Rafael Mendes pop Cob... by chris burke [Today at 10:44:42 PM]
• Rafael Lovato Jr NJ semin... by SPUDS [Today at 10:35:20 PM]
• Jesse Ventura on Larry Ki... by bhfsim [Today at 10:24:36 PM]
• NAGA by grapplingkids [Today at 10:22:51 PM]

Change Color Black Red Yellow Pink Green Orange Purple Blue Beige Brown Teal Navy Maroon LimeGreen

[more]

Members

• Total Members: 8754
• Latest: JJd2sc

Stats

• Total Posts: 1196199
• Total Topics: 76700
• Online Today: 112
• Online Ever: 291
• (August 06, 2008, 10:00:28 PM)

Users Online

• Users: 21
• Guests: 65
• Total: 86
• nphocus
  goatfury
  etdragon
  merch
  McDoublejoint
  TeeVee
  Lapelaplata
  Karlinhos
  tonyknuckles
  thebaadtouchh
  TATAME
  Experiment626
  Pesadelo_Triangulo
  chris burke
  Fredson Duff
  RickMcCoy
  vegard
  JTR
  bwb
  Lexan
  

NHB GEAR NEWS

Email:

[David Jacobs]

As a conservative constitutional scholar, I prefer to give words their plain meanings.

A well oiled machine is a machine that functions efficiently because it has a shitload of oil.

A well thought out plan is a plan that works successfully because A  LOT of thought went into the plan beforehand.

Thus, a "well regulated miltia" means a militia that is governed by a whole lot of regulations.  The founders obviously intended that the right to bear arms would be subject to many government regulations.  As a conservative who strictly interperets the constitution according to its plain meaning, I think it's clear that the founders wanted many regulations covering the right to bear arms.  Therefore, a new regulatory agency should be established to promulgate and enforce these regulations.  Obama should create this agency with all deliberate speed.  It's what the founders wanted.   


My logic is unassailable.

[Fredson Duff]

As a conservative constitutional scholar, I prefer to give words their plain meanings.

A well oiled machine is a machine that functions efficiently because it has a shitload of oil.

A well thought out plan is a plan that works successfully because A  LOT of thought went into the plan beforehand.

Thus, a "well regulated miltia" means a militia that is governed by a whole lot of regulations.  The founders obviously intended that the right to bear arms would be subject to many government regulations.  As a conservative who strictly interperets the constitution according to its plain meaning, I think it's clear that the founders wanted many regulations covering the right to bear arms.  Therefore, a new regulatory agency should be established to promulgate and enforce these regulations.  Obama should create this agency with all deliberate speed.  It's what the founders wanted.   


My logic is unassailable.

your logic is weaksause.

[thebaadtouchh]

This is the second Amendement.

 "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."

This one sentence talks about two different things. The right of the State to keep a well regulated militia, and the right of the people to keep and bare arms.

The State does not refer to the United States, but rather the individual states themselves, and a well regulated militia refers to what has become the National Guard. This is stating that the federal government cannot come in and remove the various state financed armed forces, which in effect would become the state army should that state leave the Union.. which will never happen, but it is a protection granted none the less. This also empowers the states to defend themselves should the federal government ever become overly oppressive.

The people refered to are the citizens of the United States, and the arms refered to are weapons. Thus the People, AKA Citizens, have the right to own weapons. This can be knives, swords, firearms, maces, explosive devices, etc.

As a member of the National Guard, I found it prudent to really take an indepth look at this particular Amendment.

[David Jacobs]

Both of you are obviously liberals who see the constitution as a document that can be interpreted according to the whim of the moment.  As a conservative constitutional scholar, I believe the US Constitution should be interpreted according to what the founders intended.  Their intentions are obvious from the plain meanings of the words.  

If you were conservative, you would support big government and more regulations as it relates to the 2nd amendment.

[thebaadtouchh]

The only thing I *really* get from the second amendment is the founding fathers were in favor of run on sentences.

[clinzy]

I like it when Dave Jacobs is bored.  That is all.

[goatfury]

Both of you are obviously liberals who see the constitution as a document that can be interpreted according to the whim of the moment.  As a conservative constitutional scholar, I believe the US Constitution should be interpreted according to what the founders intended.  Their intentions are obvious from the plain meanings of the words.  

This reminds me of so-called scholars who choose to interpret one portion of the Bible literally (homosexuals are bad!) and other portions as metaphor (well, God really meant an age, not a day!).

[MardiGras Bandit]

Dave Jacobs is on the right track, but his conclusion is just off the mark. The Second Amendment was clearly intended to protect the rights of businesses such as XE, formerly Blackwater, to form private militia groups without facing scrutiny from angry liberals who didn't think of the idea first and now feel locked out of the market. Such businesses are well regulated by the US tax code and corporate law, and unassailable under the protection of our wise founding fathers.

[David Jacobs]

Both of you are obviously liberals who see the constitution as a document that can be interpreted according to the whim of the moment.  As a conservative constitutional scholar, I believe the US Constitution should be interpreted according to what the founders intended.  Their intentions are obvious from the plain meanings of the words.  

This reminds me of so-called scholars who choose to interpret one portion of the Bible literally (homosexuals are bad!) and other portions as metaphor (well, God really meant an age, not a day!).

I didn't go to Bible school... just law school.  So I can't comment.

[David Jacobs]

Dave Jacobs is on the right track, but his conclusion is just off the mark. The Second Amendment was clearly intended to protect the rights of businesses such as XE, formerly Blackwater, to form private militia groups without facing scrutiny from angry liberals who didn't think of the idea first and now feel locked out of the market. Such businesses are well regulated by the US tax code and corporate law, and unassailable under the protection of our wise founding fathers.

Interesting.

I'm sure you agree that the tax code is entirely unenforceable anyway given that the 16th amendment was never properly ratified.

[MardiGras Bandit]

Theoretically yes. However, in practical terms the Federal government has been robbing the American people by gun point for years.

It makes you wonder why Bill Clinton tried so hard to protect Al Qaeda. Perhaps so 9/11 could happen, causing our brave and well regulated militia corporations would be tied up fighting over seas, and thus unavailable to protect us from the IRS? The Democrats have done everything they could to extend the wars, both by creating the perception of failure and quagmire and attacking militias with their unconstitutional rhetoric. Certainly they have succeeded in smearing the good name of the 2nd Amendment, and the Republicans have been no better, being almost entirely concerned with protecting their constituent individual rights to hunt.

Surely we haven't seen this great of a threat to the Second Amendment since the fine Pinkerton militia ceased to exist. It is widely know that their absence caused a great regression in this nation toward union backed communism.

[AZChokester]

Hey, if the Constitution was so good, why did they need to ammend it so much?  Huh!?

[ChokingHazard]

How did you get "regulated by the government" from the word "regulated"?  The verb "to regulate" does not imply that the entity doing so is the government.  Your body regulates your internal temperature and osmotic propertes.  Bioreactors regulate how much oxygen a vat of yeast is getting.  None of these forms of "regulation" are mandated by the government (yet). 

[ChokingHazard]

Also, I suggest that everyone fill their car up with oil (way past the top of that etching on the dipstick... fill that fucker with oil and don't stop it's coming out of the top and/or oozing out of the side). only under these conditions will your car be a well oiled machine.

[ground control]

Section 13. 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 be governed by, the civil power.

Madison and Mason... Virginia Declaration of Rights...