to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia.

So now lets hear your debate.

Shuddup man, you wanna be on a watch list or sumpin?

Quoted: Shuddup man, you wanna be on a watch list or sumpin?

Yea really........... Shuddup

According to original intent, "regulated" means disciplined.

Regulated meant standardized.  You can read all about it in the papers from the first session of congress.  Much of the debate and opinion letters from the President and his cabinet dealt with that very issue.

Give us a hard one.

Quoted: According to original intent, "regulated" means disciplined.

Exactly, couldn't have said it better.

-Storm

Try again, kiddo.  The founders were very explicit in their writings that well-regulated meant "in good working order."  

The current definition does not apply.

Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate.

OK...I'll play this game.  Point out the part that says government in there?  I don't see where it says "A well government regulated militia..." of course that would not sound right, because the context and grammer used do not match it.  If it was meant to be that it was giving a right to the government, then without undue modification technically you should be able to insert the word "government" and have it look basically the same, with the same flow of words and meaning.

-Ben

.  I am already on their watch list.  I got there because I looked at how the haji in UK made their bombs. lol

Seriously,  I agree that the 2nd is an indivdual right or else it would not have been placed in the Bill of Rights. But I think the regulation was that every house hold was required to have weapons available that were comtemporary with the military arms of the day.

Quoted: According to original intent, "regulated" means disciplined.

Or to put it more accurately...

"To make uniform, methodical, orderly, etc."

ETA: From Websters New World College Dictionary.

Quoted: Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate. OK...I'll play this game.  Point out the part that says government in there?  I don't see where it says "A well government regulated militia..." of course that would not sound right, because the context and grammer used do not match it.  If it was meant to be that it was giving a right to the government, then without undue modification technically you should be able to insert the word "government" and have it look basically the same, with the same flow of words and meaning. -Ben

Ben,

It doesn't mention government in any of the other amendment either so that has to be inferred.

Quoted: Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia.

Where the hell does it say that????  It doesn't even imply it.

It says a "well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state", it doesn't say "a government regulated militia....", nor does it say "The right of the government to regulate the militia shall not be infringed".

It doesn't say it.  

It doesn't imply it.

It doesn't even come close.

Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate.

Actually you wrote it wrong.

"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."

Ok, so lets disect this.

The first part of this sentance is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

What this is saying is that since you HAVE to have a Militia to gaurantee that the state has teh ability to protect its self from a tyranical government. Because the writers of the constitution had just got done fighting as a militia against a tyranical government.

Now this is the very important and trickiest part of this sentance. Watch the wording VERY carfully.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Now, the most key part of this entire sentance is one word, the PEOPLE. NOT the government, NOT the military, NOT the politicians, but THE PEOPLE. That means everyone.

"the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You must seporate the terms militia and people in your minds. The militia is a military force while the people are exactly that, the citizens of the country. So to guard against the militia becomming over bearing, everyone must be armed to keep them in line.

If the above isn't enough, then let us refer to basic English.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,  - this is known as a subordinate clause.  Alone, it is an incomplete thought, an incomplete sentence.  It is subordinate to...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. - this is the ordinate clause.  It is a complete thought, it is a complete sentence and able to stand on its own with nothing additional.

"The people" it refers to are us.  Not states - states are not guaranteed rights - a state is not an entity in that meaning.

200 years of dumbing down meaning and gov't not toeing the line does not change what the founders wrote and signed.

We are granted the right of self defense (i.e. keep and bear arms) by our creator.  The Amendments merely serve as notice that they are guaranteed to us.  Our gov't has broken its guarantee.

Okay guys I am just having some fun here.

"A well regulated militia being necessary for a free state, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

As we all know a militia of that time was all able body free males ages 16 to 50+/-.  The Bill of Rights applys to the Federal Government.  It tells them what they can and can not do.  The Constitution specifically states that it applys to the FEDERAL goverment.

My take on 'well regulated':


The word 'regulated' didn't always mean 'under control by a higher power or authority'.  It meant 'practiced' or 'adjusted'  (to 'regulate' a shotgun at 25 feet, for instance, was to make the lines of fire from each of the barrels intersect at that distance).

So 'well regulated' didn't neccessarily mean 'under control of the government'.  

Quoted: Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate. Actually you wrote it wrong. "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." Ok, so lets disect this. The first part of this sentance is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," What this is saying is that since you HAVE to have a Militia to gaurantee that the state has teh ability to protect its self from a tyranical government. Because the writers of the constitution had just got done fighting as a militia against a tyranical government. Now this is the very important and trickiest part of this sentance. Watch the wording VERY carfully. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, the most key part of this entire sentance is one word, the PEOPLE. NOT the government, NOT the military, NOT the politicians, but THE PEOPLE. That means everyone. "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You must seporate the terms militia and people in your minds. The militia is a military force while the people are exactly that, the citizens of the country. So to guard against the militia becomming over bearing, everyone must be armed to keep them in line.

Interesting take on that.  I have always understood it to mean that "the people"  are the militia.

In your understanding, the FF put in the first part to explain why we have to have a militia, and the second part to explain how we will keep them under control.  

The power of the sword, say the minority of Pennsylvania, is in the hands of Congress. My friends and countrymen, it is not so, for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. 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...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it ever will remain, in the hands of the people. -- Tench Coxe in the Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

The object is that every man be armed.
-Patrick Henry

Original intent was "equipped", not regulated in the modern sense.

When was the last time you heard the state or armed services cowering in fear of the militia ? but that was the very intent of the second amendment, to keep the government in fear of the People.

Only you can prevent tyranny

The second amendment was Thomas Jefferson's brainchild.

My sigline explains further as to his intention for the RKBA.

HS1

It is the "right" of the people, not the "rights".  It says nothing of the Government regulating it, it simply says "well regulated".  It also says it is "neccesary" and that it "shall not" be "infringed".  I am guessing you already know what "shall not" means, so I will go straight to "infringed".

Infringed means just a little bit, a small amount.  So "shall not be infringed" means that you can't even fuck with the right a little bit.  It is absolute and constant.  In other words (and these are mine that I will make up as I type)

"Seeing how it is absoulutely imperative for our safety and security that the citizens of this Nation be armed, the right of everyday normal Americans to keep firearms is an absolute right and you better not even think about fucking with that right or you will be removed from office one way or another"

I think the Founding Fathers did a much better and more eloquent job with fewer words, but it pretty much means the same thing.  It is not about hunting or target shooting.  It is about defending our Country from all enemies Foreign and Domestic.

Quoted: Quoted: According to original intent, "regulated" means disciplined. Or to put it more accurately... "To make uniform, methodical, orderly, etc." ETA: From Websters New World College Dictionary.

geez policeman, you just got your ass handed to you twice before I even had to scroll.

shouldn't you be out shooting dogs or something anot here 'ing?

It is not 'FOR THE SECURITY' it is 'TO THE SECURITY'!  Damn, man.

See sigline.

What are the first three words of the United States Constitution?

We the people

What does the Second Amendment say?

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.

I think that is pretty clear.  Each and every US citizen is guaranteed his right to keep and bear arms.  It has nothing to do with the militia,  it is saying the militia is a reason to support people's right in addition to regulating,  arming,  and training a militia.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate. OK...I'll play this game.  Point out the part that says government in there?  I don't see where it says "A well government regulated militia..." of course that would not sound right, because the context and grammer used do not match it.  If it was meant to be that it was giving a right to the government, then without undue modification technically you should be able to insert the word "government" and have it look basically the same, with the same flow of words and meaning. -Ben Ben, It doesn't mention government in any of the other amendment either so that has to be inferred.

Actually, in the historical context the first 10 amendments are individual libertys, so it is inferred, even if you where to remove the phrase "people", that it would be granting a protection/right to the people. Same as the other 10 amendments original amendments.

-Ben

Too many people (including a good many on this board) don't seem to grasp the concept that the government's only authorized powers are those delegated to it by the people in the constitution.

Instead, they think that the constitution is a document which was written by the government giving the people some rights...

Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate.

Actually, it doesnt say the "Government" can do anything.  It just says, "well-regulated".

Doesnt say by whom.

Ah! yes they have the right to regulate the "MILITIA", key word being "MILITIA", They do not have the right to Regulate "ARMS" as evidenced in the second part of the paragraph!!!

I could care less if they regulate their militia, they need to keep their godamned hands off my firearms!!

Interesting how gun-nuts lose their logic when it comes to the law, we know that the lawless do not obey laws,  there is no reasoning with criminals, so when the government becomes organized crime, then there is no reasoning with it, only force matters.

Quoted: Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate. Actually, it doesnt say the "Government" can do anything.  It just says, "well-regulated". Doesnt say by whom. hinking.gif

In another part of the Constitution it says the government is in charge of organizing,  arming,  and training the militia.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate. Actually you wrote it wrong. "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." Ok, so lets disect this. The first part of this sentance is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free state," What this is saying is that since you HAVE to have a Militia to gaurantee that the state has teh ability to protect its self from a tyranical government. Because the writers of the constitution had just got done fighting as a militia against a tyranical government. Now this is the very important and trickiest part of this sentance. Watch the wording VERY carfully. "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Now, the most key part of this entire sentance is one word, the PEOPLE. NOT the government, NOT the military, NOT the politicians, but THE PEOPLE. That means everyone. "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." You must seporate the terms militia and people in your minds. The militia is a military force while the people are exactly that, the citizens of the country. So to guard against the militia becomming over bearing, everyone must be armed to keep them in line. Interesting take on that.  I have always understood it to mean that "the people"  are the militia. In your understanding, the FF put in the first part to explain why we have to have a militia, and the second part to explain how we will keep them under control.

The militia is an army made of people, not nessicarly THE people, thus it can be used against the common good of THE people. Technically the british were partly militia. Believe it or not, many colonists did side with and fought along side the british. They too where also a "Militia".

That second part of your post i ENTIRLY agree with. Checks and Balances.

Quoted: In another part of the Constitution it says the government is in charge of regulating,  arming,  and training the militia.

As long as the people are armed superior to the government it doesnt matter what the government thinks.

Quoted: In another part of the Constitution it says the government is in charge of regulating,  arming,  and training the militia.

Then were the hell is my M16

You are the "people",  not the militia.  Unless you joined a militia group that was under control by the government.

Then once you joined they would be in charge of arming,  organizing,  and training you.

You just have the right to keep and bear arms as a regular citizen.


This is in response to the post above this one.

Edited due to editing.  

Quoted: You are the "people",  not the militia. You have to join the Armed Forces to be militia,  because that is how the government chose to "organize the militia" with the powers granted to them in the Constitution. You just have the right to keep and bear arms. This is in response to the post above this one.

The people did not vote on the CONstitution, they did not delegate any powers, they gave no consent.

The CONstitution was a piece a shit from the day the federalists signed it.

Quoted: Quoted: You have to join the Armed Forces to be militia,   In before the pit.

Now the BS starts to fly.

Oi, someone only read the parts of the constitution they wanted too.

Quoted: to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Okay guys.  The 2nd Amendment says the Government has the right to regulate the militia. So now lets hear your debate.

Governments have no rights, only enumerated powers granted to them by individuals.  The Constitution lists these granted powers in full.  

One little known fact is that the Constitution was not very popular among the people.  The constitutional convention in Philadelphia was hijacked by the Federalists, and they produced a document that created a relatively strong centralized government.  Instead of amendming the Articles of Confederation (which they were supposed to do), they started from scratch and laid the groundwork of the leviathian that exists today.  

Patriots (called Anti-Federalists) such as Patrick Henry led the opposition to the new constitution, but lost (except in the eyes of people-- another little known fact is that only state held a popular vote on ratifaction, and it was defeated by a 9:1 margin there) .  However, there was such discontent among the populace that they were able to add on a Bill of Rights.  Men like Henry, Mason, and Jefferson believed that the gov't would eventually assume powers it did not have and infringe upon individual Rights, so the states submitted their suggestions for the Bill of Rights to Congress, where many of them were adopted.  The Bill of Rights was the price the Federalists paid to get their new government.

The BOR does not list all of our Rights.  It even says this in the 9th amendment.  It merely enumerates some of our Rights.  Note there is no Right to breathe, or Right to walk down the street without getting mugged in the Bill of Rights, but we have those Rights nonetheless.

Back to the second amendment, it states very clearly that the "Right of the people ..... shall not be infringed".  The "people" in the 2nd amendment does not refer just to the military or the police, any more than the "people" in the 1st amendment refers just to librarians, or the "people" in the 4th amendment refers just to lawyers.  The "people" in all of these instances refers to individuals.  

As for the "well regulated militia", it's important to define those terms.  "Militia" basically meant any able-bodied male.  (I believe the Militia Act of 1792 actually codefied the term to mean between the ages on 18-45).  "Well regulated" means prepared.  Uniforms, working firearms, sufficient number of cartridges, supplies, training, etc....  The word "regulated" in those days had nothing to do with the size of the firearm, or how many bullets it could hold, or where you were "allowed" to carry it.  

Some still insist that the 2nd only gives the military and police the "right" (sic) to bear arms.  This is absurd since ample military and police powers are expressely enumerated in the sections of the Constitution dealing with the powers of the Legislative and Executive branches.  It makes no sense that the Founders would re-list these powers under a section of articles dealing with individual Rights.

Finally, free individuals have the Right to keep and bear arms.  Period.  Even if there were no Bill of Rights, we would still have that Right.  Just as we would have the Right to own property, travel freely, and speak our minds.  Those Rights may be illegally infringed by tyrannical regimes, but they still exist nonetheless.  

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to join the Armed Forces to be militia,   In before the pit.   Now the BS starts to fly. Oi, someone only read the parts of the constitution they wanted too.

Sorry was a mistake.

I edited my post.  The militia is just organized citizens under training,  arming, and control by the government and called upon if they are needed.

Quoted: Too many people (including a good many on this board) don't seem to grasp the concept that the government's only authorized powers are those delegated to it by the people in the constitution. Instead, they think that the constitution is a document which was written by the government giving the people some rights...

Well stated.  

I'm seeing more and more folks (even on so-called conservative boards) refer to the government having the "right" to do something.  They simply do not understand the social compact theory of government.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: You have to join the Armed Forces to be militia,   In before the pit.   Now the BS starts to fly. Oi, someone only read the parts of the constitution they wanted too. Sorry was a mistake. I edited my post.  The militia is just organized citizens under training,  arming, and control by the government and called upon if they are needed.

There you go =)

Quoted: geez policeman, you just got your ass handed to you twice before I even had to scroll. shouldn't you be out shooting dogs or something anot here 'ing?

Well you know its kind of funny.  I am here actually playing devil's advocate and getting some really good feedback when all of a sudden some A$$hat has to go and make comments like this.  Why don't you quit sniffin glue and pay attention to the adults and learn something for a change.  Because it really looks as if your the only one here.  Everyone else had sometype of original response and some of them have been very well thought out.

Quoted: The people did not vote on the CONstitution.

They did in Rhode Island, and 90% of the people voted against it.  

They eventually ratified after an embargo was placed against them by the newly-formed federal government.

Quoted: When was the last time you heard the state or armed services cowering in fear of the militia ? but that was the very intent of the second amendment, to keep the government in fear of the People. Only you can prevent tyranny

Good to see that AWRM is back.

Isnt there 2 types of Militias?  The "Organized Militia" run by the government and then the "UnOrganized Militia" that is comprised of all  free able body males..( M.Act.1792) who are all citizens and not run by the government?

Forgive my ignorance or what ever you want to call it.....Would it be correct to say: The branches of the govenment may have certian powers over the militia but only the organized militia not the unorganized militia comprised of the people?