Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the OP is an avowed Trump supporter I don't see this post from the OP to be a sincere question. He is questioning the constitutional right of all people being armed in order to encourage poster support for allowing all people to be armed. The constitution clearly doesn't prohibit all people being armed. I call TROLLING.
You are correct. The language more than implies the right of people to keep their guns for participation in organized and trained militiae and nothing else. What's more, the premise that militias are necessary to keep the country free is anachronistic and even preposterous in this day and age and the entire second amendment is therefore moot.
At the time the 2nd was written, the general population of the United States WAS the militia. We won our independence by joe average citizen grabbing their hunting rifles and going out to stand up against the redcoats with them. Therefore Well regulated Militia = joe average American citizen I.E. you and me.
And I vehemently disagree with the rest of your statement. Look at the chaos this current regime has thrust upon us. We need our second amendment rights to protect ourselves from a corrupt government more now than we ever have before.
regulate (v.)
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule, straight piece of wood" (from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule").
Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
At the time the 2nd was written, the general population of the United States WAS the militia. We won our independence by joe average citizen grabbing their hunting rifles and going out to stand up against the redcoats with them. Therefore Well regulated Militia = joe average American citizen I.E. you and me.
And I vehemently disagree with the rest of your statement. Look at the chaos this current regime has thrust upon us. We need our second amendment rights to protect ourselves from a corrupt government more now than we ever have before.
The United States is still a very young country compared to Europe. Who knows if what Ben Franklin said when asked "What kind of government do we have?" His answer was "A Republic...if you can keep it.".
regulate (v.)
early 15c., "adjust by rule, control," from Late Latin regulatus, past participle of regulare "to control by rule, direct," from Latin regula "rule, straight piece of wood" (from PIE root *reg- "move in a straight line," with derivatives meaning "to direct in a straight line," thus "to lead, rule").
Meaning "to govern by restriction" is from 1620s. Related: Regulated; regulating.
~
PIE refers to Proto-Indo-European
If you want to know the intended meaning of "well regulated militia", google the Militia Acts of 1792 as passed by Congress.
For decades the 2nd amendment has been argued over and over.
Right here on this forum I have asked before, that someone explain why the "people" have the right to bear arms.
I don't recall anyone answering that question.
It has always been my feeling that the mention of" a well regulated militia", followed by "the people's right to bear arms, has been misinterpreted, even by the courts.
If the people mentioned in the 2nd were the general public, then why was the word "militia" put into the amendment?"
I believe the framers of the constitution were issuing and order that people who make up a militia are the one's who's right to bear arm shall not be infringed.
Why would the framers want the general population armed?
So, please explain why the word "militia" was put into the amendment, if it wasn't the people who make up a militia who have the right to bear arms.
A "well regulated militia" would be a group of people well trained and regulated, should the need arise to have to use them once again to defend the country.
This certainly doesn't mean every Joe Blow from Alamo would be entitled to have a weapon.
Since you want a definitive answer, I recommend consulting better sources than random people in an internet forum. Start with a Wikipedia article, which will list other sources to consult for a deeper dive.
But basically, if the courts interpret a law a certain way, that stands as law. That is how judicial review works.
How so? Be specific. Give specific examples that would legitimately support your little claim.
The people have the right to have guns so they can overthrow the government when necessary. The radical democrats seem to want to push us in that direction.
i am an American with no use for guns..made it 65 years so far
Complements you on your post .
But no pun and no Disrespect. So you let others fight and protect your family
IE Police and Military. AUX PD/Sheriff Honest Armed Citizen
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How so? Be specific. Give specific examples that would legitimately support your little claim.
