In another of Heller’s odd intellectual moves, Scalia read the Second Amendment backwards, and in the process effectively erased the text’s preamble. To justify this unusual reading strategy, an interpretive approach that Stevens reminded his colleagues on the bench had never been done in the court’s history, Scalia cited legal treatises written decades after the adoption of the Second Amendment. Once again, to obtain his preferred result Scalia rummaged among sources written a half a century after the adoption of the Second Amendment to find evidence of the text’s original meaning.
Such a move only makes sense if one believes that nothing significant happened in American legal history between the adoption of the Second Amendment and the Civil War, a view most historians would find bizarre and erroneous. Curiously, Justice Scalia did not turn to a legal source more readily available that was written at the same time as the Second Amendment. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and co-author of The Federalist, had ruled on this issue in 1790s.
Jay wrote: “A preamble cannot annul enacting clauses; but when it evinces the intention of the legislature and the design of the act, it enables us, in cases of two constructions, to adopt the one most consonant to their intention and design.”
In essence, when two possible readings of a constitutional text are possible, the preamble ought to serve as the tie breaker. Scalia disregarded this Founding era rule and applied a different rule that gained prominence decades later so that he could advance his gun rights vision.
Justices Gorsuch and Barrett have staked their reputations on their commitment to apply originalist methods in a neutral manner and let the evidence dictate the outcome. Will they follow through on that promise in Corlett?
Research and scholarship published in the decade after Heller will force them to put their earlier promises to the test. It now seems clear that if they apply originalism in a neutral fashion they will have to choose between Heller’s methodology and Heller’s conclusions.
— Saul Cornell in Barrett and Gorsuch Have to Choose Between Originalism and Expanding Gun Rights
I agree with this. However everyone should be aware of this: Florida is against us when we protest for our 2A rights. The governor just signed a law where if we protest for our 2A rights, and if 3 people out of thousands break a law, we can be guilty by association. So if three Antifa break windows during a Pro-2A rally, everyone Pro-2A can be jailed and tried and convicted. And this is a governor thinking about running for president if Trump lets him! Florida doesn’t care about your 2A rights. Kiss your 2A rights goodbye people because in Florida you wont be able to assemble for your 2A rights. The governor made sure you are screwed. Vote these traitors out.
“I agree with this”, “this” being a cherry-picked and historically ignorant argument that the 2A doesn’t mean what the 2A means. That originalism dictates the author’s preferred outcome. Then proceeds to rant on a state-level issue.
“however…”
For more context, just replace all words with “I act like a patriot, and own guns, but I’m really not going to do shit and complaining is easy”.
Sums it up a little easier.
You are propagating a misleading INTERPRETATION of one provision of a VERY complicated and poorly written law… The courts will sort this one out but if you are merely “protesting” you have nothing to worry about… The concern you mention is that IF one bad actor creates a situation during a peaceful 2A rally that some “Liberal” Prosecutor could use this law to punish everyone attending the rally… This is just ONE interpretation that does not take into consideration the “intent” clause… I would suggest you take the time to READ the law before you start repeating a line of BS being pushed by the ACLU and leftist “news” organizations… Let the courts do their job and you stick to yours…
“Florida is against us when we protest for our 2A rights.”
What’s this ‘us’ crap, Leftist?
Lol. Loyalists.
Pay attention to the things this ‘WhyNot’ says.
He-she (other) is no friend of the 2A…
Pay attention to the things this ‘WhyNot’ says.
Yeah, its “I agree with this” statement followed by its second attack on DeSantis in as many days pretty much defines what IT is…
ctrl v
Obviously cornell is a wishful thinking pervert who enjoys the stench of Jim Crow Gun Control.
On the other hand…This FL law that throws the innocent in with the guilty sounds far fetched. It’s along the lines of being in a bank during a holdup and everyone is charged with robbery. In any such scenario somebody is getting sued into oblivion.
nice try bud. I’ve read the anti-riot laws and I’m fine with them. Good try though leftist shill. Roll on down the road
Do you even live in Florida we have a good Governor who agrees with the 2nd amendment , you sound like a lefty trole you are just talking shit you know nothing about
Okay. Sounds good.
For us to be well-regulated we should have full access to all the arms of the armies of the world. Otherwise we’re not operating to fullest capacity.
Originalism = taking modern popular meanings and laying them over 200+ year old documents.
Just when I think lefties can’t fall any further down the rabbit hole of ‘tardation. But it isn’t ‘tardation, is it? It’s intentional and deliberate. If you can’t beat the Constitution re-write it slowly by repeating the same nonsense over and over always citing your peers are sources until you manufacture consensus. Helps to have all the information gatekeepers on TV, screen, online, directing every major corporation and agency all in your back pocket promoting the same agenda.
Why won’t you rednecks just stay home, cut your dicks off and accrue debt shopping online? That’s all that’s wanted of you.
Nailed it.
Well, maybe. In another long-standing analysis/interpretation, ‘well regulated’ simply meant a militia that was ultimately under control and direction of the government when organized in times of war. In other words, like all ‘government authorities’ and I mean ALL of them, everywhere, regardless of their political toxicity or venue4, never want the risks of large groups of armed citizens left to their own discretion and decisions which invariably deteriorate into some variation of mob rule, vigilantism, or all-out scorched Earth tribalism. Localization of rule over one unified armed force was the established mandate to preclude any potential for splinter dissent and eventual insurrection, mutiny, or threat to the reigning leadership. It’s the nature of the soci0-cultural human beast.
As for the interpretation of ‘types of arms’ the ‘People’ SHALL NOT (period-no qualifiers) be infringed from having, any distortion of the reality that the Founder’s placed absolutely no restriction on having firearms in the context of the primary reason for guaranteeing by ‘Law of The Land’ the absolute right to bear arms, was for nothing more than to defend and defeat a forceful government Tyranny against the people where there can never be an intentional disadvantage inherent or limitation to defend oneself and the land in such an event, is at best an absurdity of pragmatic logic. and at worst a glowing revelation of the true communist agenda of disarming the public for Totalitarian resistance-free control.
And as for the silly Leftist argument of modern weapons today being too dangerous by comparison to the muskets back then, it is like saying you can’t have a personal vehicle today because it goes farther and faster and carries more ‘load’ than the wagons did back then.
The 2nd/A was terse in its phraseology because unlike today, where nobody really knows many details of any significant history, the people in America knew exactly what the Framers meant by the 2nd and didn’t need it explained to them because they were living it! So only the salient points needed precise enumeration in their syntax of the day, which was your already established ‘natural right’ to have firearms without restrictions or limitations was now a guarantee by Law. And this was reinforced by the mention of the necessity of a Militia, to be comprised of the already well-armed people, in the case of war, as well.
After decades of being a student of all this collective social conflict in a terminally poisoned political system that is rapidly evolving into the old prophecy that great empires have a delineated term limit before they break down and expire, there are a couple things that too many seem to be missing.
Like There shouldn[‘t even be any debate on the Constitution! All discussion and arguments were already done before it was signed into law? And since then, for almost 200 years every expert from linguists to political historians to legal scholars have analyzed and scrutinized and dissected the 2nd/A until nothing was left. Except…the same old 2nd Amendment.
I agree with someone else here that this entire fallacy of SCOTUS hearings on original Amendments to Constitutional Law that should not even be debated as to substance and definition, but only to address the actual violations of the Constitution and Deprivations of rights issues which are already statutory criminal offenses. But they do it because the SCOTUS has succumbed to that pernicious judiciary afflictionl called agenda based Bench legislation. Or legislating from the Court by Judges who think they’re lawmakers, instead of violation interpreters.
I agree that we’ve been almost completely brainwashed by a generational effort of insidious Marxist indoctrination that is now blinding us to what desperately needs to be done to save the Republic.
So we are all caught up in this subconsciously directed deception and feeding into it instead of starving it to death?
It’s time for a strategic fall back, reqroup, regroup, and three pronged attack from the right flank…
1. It is imperative that we all proactively support the effort to make future election fraud virtually impossible to happen. Why would anyone NOT want that…unless you had a plan to perpetrate election frauds?
2. Support all PRO Gun organizations like GOA NRA-ILA, 2nd/A Foundation and others who have filed class action lawsuits against new gun laws or administrative fiat mandates restricting or criminalizing gun items, parts, or accessories which were never illegal before. This is a below radar slippery slow that completely disarms us without even making illegal laws!
3. And this is a big one because it’s the one they’ve brainwashed us into not even knowing that it exists! But it’s the best way to get the politicians and the corrupted courts to quit fucking with our rights by not only making them in fear of what they want to make us fear by criminalizing gun ownership with illegal laws? We gotta flip the switch on them.
We can do it with USCC (18) 241-242 It is a serious felony to deprive anybody of their civil or Constitutional Rights! EVEN UNDER THE COLOR OF LAW! Yes, I know some of you are snickering. How can you arrest and prosecute a cohort in the justice system or a legislator with making anti-gun laws that deprive you of your right when politically affiliated Federal Attornies or AGs are the ones you need to do the charging in the first place?
It’s time to ‘make it’ happen with PPP (Political People Power). We already have a steady increase of ‘Constitutional Sherrifs’ by Sherrif Mack coming aboard to guarantee your Constitutional laws, and Not enforce Unconstitutional gun laws. And some States making State Sanctuary laws to Not enforce Unconstitutional gun laws? It’s time to support the ramping up of this momentum.
They mocked us as conspiracy theorists with all the warnings we were saying about a Marxist takeover starting with the disarmament of the populate. Now even Democrats see it’s true, even though too many of them don’t care or are in denial of the future.
“We always miss the things we lost the most…when it’s too late to ever get them back again.” –Klipangle
This is a part of the Big Lie theory
BOOM. Beautiful Shire-Man, absolutely spot on.
The left and their MSM quislings have built an industry of making crap up, passing it through a ‘fact check’ and then using it to cite themselves as a ‘credible source’. Anyone else been following the Project Veritas v. New York Times lawsuit? In their motion to dismiss the lawsuit the NYTs tried to cite a series of Wikipedia article that quotes the NYTs as proof of their own validity. The judge over this case was not at all amused and smack down the Times’s motion to dismiss rather resoundingly.
This is basically the same kind of stuff you are talking about. One slimy lefist hand trying to whip away the sh*t coating the other.
James Madison in Federalist 46 expressed the most compelling reason for the 2nd Amendment. A “well-regulated” militia composed entirely of the common people is the best defense a free state can field against federal tyranny (paraphrased). In the 18th century, “well-regulated” did not mean bound by federal law. The term frequently appeared in descriptions of clocks that kept accurate time. The term as used meant functional and deadly.
No no no, you see—originalism must dictate the preferred policy outcomes of the socialists. Otherwise you’re a white supremacist bigot and obviously unfit to exist in 2021.
/sarc off/
Citing actual historical references such as the Federalist Papers is a righteous battle. Thank you for sharing. I’m a gross amateur on the historical document front…I need to read more. All the knowledge is out there, and average joes like me are too busy with dumb stuff to read it.
Thank you for that, Toklat. The Federal Papers (and to a degree, the AntiFederalist Papers as well) are the proper lens with which to understand the Founders’ intent for the Constitution.
Few people are aware that our nation’s first Chief Justice wrote five of the FPs.
You really should look up the meaning of ‘regulated’ in Websters of 1828, you will find the first definition is “adjusted by rule”.
Strangely, Websters does not mention anything about clocks.
And Congress is the rule making body as specified in the United States Constitution.
As a poster said above, “citing actual historic references is righteous”
People complicate it too much, trying to get to the answer they want. Whatever you think of the first part, it doesn’t change the second part “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” The grammar also isn’t that hard, if you look at the phrasing in any other context. As an example:
“A well balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.”
Who has the right to keep and eat food? The people (as clearly stated), or “a well balanced breakfast”? Regardless of what you think of the first part (maybe you even disagree with the necessity of a well balanced breakfast, or wish to debate what constitutes a well balanced breakfast), it doesn’t change the declaration that the people have a right to keep and eat food. Same with arms.
Also, people who deny the obvious meaning of the 2nd amendment as an individual right choose to simply ignore the context of the bill of rights. All of the bill of rights focuses on rights of the people, protecting them from infringement by the government, as was the whole point of it.
It seems silly that such a document would attempt to randomly slip in a “right” of the government to keep or bear arms. Especially when no government in the history of man ever felt they needed to give themselves the right to have arms, nor the need for the government to protect itself from itself by saying that it cannot infringe on its own right to keep and bear arms. The idea that the 2nd amendment was talking about a government body is silly any way you look at it.
“Whatever you think of the first part, it doesn’t change the second part”
You really don’t know what a preamble is, do you? Let us share together the definition of preamble from the Webster’s dictionary of 1828:
PRE’AMBLE, noun [Latin proe, before, and ambulo, to go.]
1. Something previous; introduction to a discourse or writing.
2. The introductory part of a statute, which states the reasons and intent of the law.
Oh look, the preamble “states the reasons and intent of the law”
So in order to understand the intent of the second part, one must consider the first part.
Appreciate you stating the obvious I guess. So now you know (or can debate) WHY “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” But how does that preamble change the meaning of “shall not be infringed” to “may be infringed”?
Disagreeing on a pre-amble doesn’t change the declarative statement, and definitely doesn’t make it mean the opposite of what it says.
Can see you dodged the food analogy too. Disagreeing with the preamble there also does not mean that “a well balanced breakfast” has the right to keep and eat food either, nor does it mean that the people don’t have the right to keep and eat food.
Miner, you’re a perfect example of “there are none so blind as those who will not see.”
So what laws in particular are meant to aid me with maintaining a well regulated digestive system?
I suggest you read anything from that time period. Words we still use today often had different meanings and if interpreted in modern terms would make no sense in context of the story. The word gay for example.
“So what laws in particular are meant to aid me with maintaining a well regulated digestive system?“
I cannot believe I actually have to point this out.
“Food And Drug Law: An Overview
Food production has been regulated in the United States since the mid–1800s. But it was not until 1906, when both the Food and Drug Act (21 U.S.C. 1 et seq.) and the Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601 et seq.) were enacted, that the government took major steps to protect consumers. The Food and Drug Act prohibited interstate commerce in misbranded and adulterated foods, drinks, and drugs. While it has since been repealed, new laws regulate a wide range of consumer products.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is one of the oldest consumer protection agencies in this country.”
You know, there’s a great segment this morning on NPR’s ‘The People’s Pharmacy’ regarding vaccine development, some good basic information that it seems many on this list might benefit from hearing.
Minor IQ,
I thought about suggesting that, to avoid further embarrassing yourself, you learn the difference between a “prefatory clause” (intended to be explanatory of purpose) and a “limiting clause” (intended to limit the scope or effect of a provision). And probably completely unaware of the historical definition of “milia” (which is STILL federal law, today).
But then I realized that you are incapable of embarrassment. Sorry, my bad.
You really are an insufferable person.
But, he IS right… even if he uses a couple of words you might need to look up, so what?
But the constitution was written 40 years before that. How do we know a definition written in the following century still meant what it meant back then?
How about going back and understanding why the first ten amendments, known as “the Bill of Rights”, were added to the constitution.
They are to guarantee the government does not infringe on those individual rights of the citizens. They do not “give” those rights, the people already have those rights.
The second amendment is the only one that expressly states, “shall not be infringed”, and expressly states, “right of the people”.
Modern “reinterpretation” of the Bill of Rights is a blatant attempt to marginalize those rights so the government can ignore anything that gets in the way of accomplishing their goal of the day. In today’s world those goals are to destroy America.
The reason for the existence of the second amendment is becoming more apparent every day.
Be Prepared !!!
Always find it interesting that “militia” is not defined within the Constitution itself…something anti-constitutionalists believe is defined by the word itself. To discover any definition of “militia” one must turn first to the writings of the founders. Then one turns to the US Code to see a definition there. And that definition must scare the crap out of anti-gunners.
That a militia exists is codified in the base constitution itself. The definition of “militia” was a creation of Congress (essentially adopting the understanding of the founders). Hint: “the militia” are not the standing army of the US (although members of “the militia” may volunteer to be members of the standing army). The FF understood the militia to be distinct from the national army.
Thus, the argument that the militia is a creature made up of no people is specious, not to say ignorant. The preamble to the Second Amendment is circular: the militia is understood to be “people”, and that ingredient is described as “the people”. Disarming “the people” neuters the idea of militia, thus, in order to have a militia (which implies armed people) “the people” referenced in the preamble to the Second Amendment are the very members of the militia, an armed force requiring armaments.
Fascinating legal discussions.
And you know, United States code states that the militia includes anyone who has declared their intention to become a citizen of the United States, so those crossing the border to seek asylum are granted all of the Second Amendment rights as American citizens.
Well, since you seem to be attempting to be rational, today, Minor IQ, perhaps you can explain away the NUMEROUS references, in the Federalist Papers as well as the notes and recorded discussion of the Convention itself, the recognition that a major purpose of the “militia” was to protect against OUR OWN government becoming as oppressive as the English Crown, eh???
Or, perhaps you’re the same Leftist moron you always are, and are just engaging in verbal emesis and word salad. No, leftist idiot, you do NOT get to pick and choose what part of Leftist authoritarianism applies to you – once your Leftist masters are in charge, your gun will be taken, too. The “Revolution” will come for you, too, Robespierre. But you’re too stupid to realize that.
“NUMEROUS references, in the Federalist Papers as well as the notes and recorded discussion of the Convention itself, the recognition that a major purpose of the “militia” was to protect against OUR OWN government“
I would be very interested in whatever specific references you might have to offer!
MinorIQ,
I presume, since you have access to this site, you also have access to common search engines, or maybe even (GASP) an actual copy of the Federalist Papers, the notes of the Constitutional Convention, the (effectively concurrent) adoption of various state constitutions (Virginia, Vermont, New Hampshire being excellent examples).
I don’t do free research for morons.
only if they have crossed at a legal point of entry, claimed asylum, and have had their intent to claim asylum not immediately deemed spurious by CBP (meaning they will get their day in immigration court to plead their case). Then yes, they theoretically could, but they will be in a CBP holding facility so its sort of moot. Even for those that are out thanks to Biden’s catch and release it becomes a bit complicated due to the way the resident alien questions are posed on a 4473, because if they are awaiting their court date (and it hasn’t already passed with them not showing, making them an illegal resident), its very likely they won’t have an issued alien admission number yet.
Even so, they will be If they have entered illegally, surreptitiously, or have skipped their immigration court date, or have been caught after the fact residing as an illegal alien, then they cannot make any legitimate claim to have any intention to become a US citizen.
As for the point that LampofDiogenes makes; the fact that there was considerable resistance to having a standing federal army outside of times of war (and for a time there wasn’t one), and the fact that state and local militias (generally referred to as the regular militia for the state militia, and the irregular militia for the local and general armed populace) were seen as a hedge against the potential of the Continental Congress attempting tyrannical control over the colonies as the British had.
The fact is, the even during the revolutionary war the Continental Congress had difficulty in raising men, arms, and material because the states were more interested in fielding the aforementioned for themselves because they feared that centralizing such power in a combined federalized or centralized body would simply result in trading one tyranny for another. That fear didn’t disappear after the revolution was one. As a matter of fact is was a pretty commonly repeated fear the Anti-Federalists expressed all the time. It was actually that fear, along with other reservations by the Anti-Federalists, the resulted in the BOR at all. It was supposed to be a sort of compromise or hedge against the things the Anti-Federalists were concerned about materializing.
Hey disposal guy, I certainly appreciate you taking the time for a reason and informative post.
I’m considering what you have here.
Where the author went wrong is apparently in his interpretation of what a “militia” is. Sure, the preamble should be used to clarify what the rest says when there is question. But the people who wrote the constitution and the BoR had written extensively on the fact that the militia is not a standing government army. The “militia” is the whole of the people, or every able bodied male, depending on who you read.
So yes, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and and the well-regulated militia to justify that is the whole of the people or every able bodied male. If you look at other acts from the period, every male was expected to provide their own musket, powder, and bullets when called to duty. If you didn’t have it when you were called, you got it ASAP.
In essence, every male, or every person, should have arms fit for military duty on hand and ready to go. THAT’S what the 2A says.
AND!! That would STILL be a damn fine idea!
Ok, do there are two possible readings…
What is the other one? I only know of one.
In an episode of ‘Star Trek The Next Generation’ (second season, if I recall), a visiting medical officer mispronounced Data’s name (the ship’s android). He corrected her, to which she said:
“Data (day-tah), Data (dah-tah), what’s the difference?…”
The android looked at her, raised an eyebrow, and replied,
“One is my name; the other is not.”
****
So if anyone attempts to reason that there are two interpretations of the 2A, one of them is what the Founders intended. The other is not.
I think about that scene sometimes when I people confuse magazines with clips or AR15’s with assault rifles. Truthfully though, there are so many things like this in life it could drive a person to drink.
it could drive a person to drink.
Normally my Harley does that…
Hence my epithet for all the H.D.’s I’ve owned…
Hardley Doesitrun
My Buells, however, never gave me any heartache. And every Buell that I roadraced was consummately sublime.
How are there two possible readings of “shall not be infringed?” There is no tie to be broken since there is only one way to read that.
When the lefties are losing the argument, they always try to argue the definition of simple words and phrases. What does is mean?
There is the correct way and then there is the other way.
“There is the correct way and then there is the other way.”
Excellent summarization.
“How are there two possible readings of “shall not be infringed?” ”
One “reading” is that “A well regulated militia…” is a subordinate clause (which can be eliminated without changing the main clause), meaning first the militia must exist, then, in order to exist, firearms restrictions on “the people” (members of a militia must be people) are not permitted.
Another reading is that the only reason for the Second Amendment is so that militia can be effective, people are to be issued arms only for purposes of the militia when called by Congress. Afterward, the militia members return their arms to the individual state militia commanders.
Ultimately, the argument is to be reduced to the conclusion that the need for militia staffed by ordinary citizens is long gone, and thus the Second is moot (a conclusion that must be reached in order to avoid a constitutional amendment)
Sam, that is EXACTLY the “long game” strategy of the “reasonable gun safety” zealots. They know, ultimately, that no matter how badly they get their black-robed tyrants to step on the plain meaning of the Second, it ultimately protects individual ownership of firearms – an idea they purely despise.
Let me consider this again. Does 2A finish with “shall not be infringed”, or with “shall be infringed”? Let us all go back and look, I believe that will answer all this discussion quite clearly.
“Afterward, the militia members return their arms to the individual state militia commanders.“
And those arms are kept in Armories all across America even to this day, in large and small towns, and urban and rural areas you’ll find these armories, now known as ‘National Guard armories’.
I’m really impressed by the architecture of the militia armories built during reconstruction, friggin medieval castles built to hold off the hordes of domestic enemies.
A National Guard Armory is where arms are kept for the “Organized Militia”.
Than there is the “Unorganized Militia”.
The unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. – 10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes
Where are the arms of the Unorganized Militia kept?
Answer: The people keep them and bear them.
Good point, Ragnar!
But in any case, the Constitution gives Congress the authority to “organize, arm and discipline” the militia, both organized and unorganized.
So therefore, Congress has the authority to prescribe and enforce discipline of the armed citizens who make up the unorganized militia.
Just remember that Leftists azz-F’d the BOR to claim that it was just dandy to kill a million babies a year.
To them, the 2A wording is whatever they want it to say.
Looks like they want a civil war.
Fine with me.
Not a baby until actually born.
According to the religious, just a ‘lump of clay’ until God breathes the breath of life into them and gives them a living soul. According to Genesis…
Dayum, MinorIQ, you are as ignorant of the Bible and basic biology as you are of the Constitution, aren’t you???
Yes, most Jewish exegesis does discuss the “breath of life”. The Catholic Church, having come along some 3,000 years later (and still well before modern science) did extensive research and philosophical analysis, and determined that life begins at conception (there are literally hundreds of books and treatises on the subject).
Y’all might want to update yourself from 3000 B.C. And learn some biology – a BABY is alive, from conception. Demonstrably “conscious” (i.e., responds conciously to external stimuli) from AT LEAST 20 weeks, and probably earlier.
I could have a reasonable discussion with someone who wanted to debate a “balancing of rights” test about when an abortion is permissible. An ignorant @$$hole who asserts (based on an outdated and WHOLLY inaccurate biblical exegesis) that life doesn’t begin until actual birth isn’t worth my time.
Are you for real, or are you just a caricature of a “Progressive”???? I am hoping you are some kind of parody, and not as pig-ignorant as your commentary suggests. If you are parody, it is too subtle to be effective; if you are for real, you are too ignorant to be allowed to vote.
“An ignorant @$$hole who asserts (based on an outdated and WHOLLY inaccurate biblical exegesis)“
Nope, I did not assert any such thing, I merely pointed out what some religionists believe based upon their holy Bible (the fact that God does not grant a living soul to a human until he gives them the ‘breath of life’).
None of that hokum has much basis in reality, including the twists and turns performed by the professional apologists of the Catholic Church. They’ve also somehow managed to make it OK to spend hundreds of millions of dollars to hide the continued activities of the pedophiles within their ranks so I don’t grant much merit to anything they come up with.
FINALLY, against all hope, Miner comes through with a position I can agree with!!
Good on ya, Miner!
Yes, the Catholic Church has protected, and continues to protect, pedophiles – to protect their own power. And I can say that, having been a Catholic up until the Pope decided that it wasn’t the business of the Church to police its priests (at least when they diddle little boys).
OTOH, the position you cited NEVER represented the position or doctrine of the Catholic Church (it was Jewish in origin, and was far from a universal position, even among the Jews), so you cited it as evidence of . . . what, exactly???????
Because I disagree with the Catholic Church on the issue of its duty to protect its flock (or, more to the point, “these, the least among us”), does NOT mean I reject its teachings on abortion. However, I agree with its teaching on abortion because I have some knowledge of science (unlike Nancy Pelosi, et al.) – and the teachings of the Church on this subject comport with science – to an even greater extent than they did when adopted.
See, if you could be rational, from time to time, I could agree with you at least OCCASIONALLY. But, when you DO speak rationally, I will acknowledge it.
Dan, could we please drop Slate as a source? Even PBS pretends to be more honest.
I think their dishonesty is the point here. Although presenting these with a bit of context would be handy sometimes…
Academia is garbage. These same people don’t believe in the Constitution, this is just another leftist clown impugning the founding fathers with bizarre and perverted interpretations of our founding documents. Leftists defecate on the Constitution. Leftist academics are cold, calculating and power hungry. The second amendment is the guarantee of freedom and liberty, which is anathema to communism. Remember that Pol Pot was a professor who had absolutely no compunction with murdering two million people and had no regrets about doing it and actually wanted to do more of it.
These same academics believe that the Constitution is a ‘living document’ that can be reinterpreted as society changes. But look at the right to carry movement. Only a small sliver of states cling to their old gun control. The vast majority of the society is embracing the individual right to keep and bear arms, so by their own logic it shouldn’t matter what the founding fathers’ original intent was anyway. If the 2A didn’t mean to be an individual right then it must be now or the Constitution is a dead document.
Of course academics tend to be logically challenged.
Don’t care what Politicians enact, Presidents decree or Courts edict. My Rights…All Rights begin and end at the point of a firearm. As was established by the Founding Patriots who fought and died to remove a Tyrannical Government from American Soil. Tyranny knows many faces and resides within many of Power. Each Citizen may choose how they wish to live or die. Standing Against Tyranny even in the Face of Death or Kneeling to Tyranny for life Under the Boot. I Choose to Stand.
Darkman…….If our founding fathers came back now, I think there would be a shortage of rope and many “agencies and departments ” eliminated. We are supposed to have a minimalist government with a minimum amount of power. They would be appalled. We have the tyrannical government that the second amendment was designed for.
From the DOI outlining one of the 27 original grievances against King George III (paraphrased from memory, so ‘scuzzi if not perfectly verbatim):
“…he has erected a multitude of offices, and sent hither swarms of officers to harass the People and eat out their substance…”
The Liberty Song – John Dickinson, 1768
Swarms of placemen and pensioners soon will appear
Like locusts deforming the charms of the year;
Suns vainly will rise, showers vainly descend,
If we are to drudge for what others shall spend.
Why don’t you busy yourself with finding yet another freedom rally to run away from like a coward, and let the real patriots have a discussion.
Okay, Hail, please start a discussion worthy of TTAG and let’s discuss. What’s that?…after a full year of me asking you to start a real discussion, you still have nothing up your sleeve except chasing people around with weak insults?
Hmm. Well, every village needs its idiot, I suppose, and we no longer have the classic trolls (names withheld to avoid Dan’s filters, lol) to amuse us, so…
…in the famous words of Geoff The Great, “Dance, troll, I command you!”
Two simple facts; First, the Constitution enumerated the power of the federal government to raise armies and maintain a navy in Article 1, Section 8. Second, there’s no debate that every one of the other amendments in the Bill of Rights are limits on the power of the federal government. It would seem very odd that the founding fathers would repeat themselves by reiterating a federal power in the 2nd Amendment of the Bill of Rights and place such strong language as ‘Shall not be infringed’ when they actually meant that it was the people that shouldn’t infringe on government power.
A complete retard could figure this out.
Gov. Le Petomane,
Someone who wants to be extremely technical can argue that the U.S. Constitution only gives the federal government power to equip (provide firearms to) an army and not the militia. Note that an army and a militia are not the same thing even though they attempt effect the same outcome.
And then that same technical person can go on to claim that the Founding Fathers added the Second Amendment to correct that “oversight” (of failing to give government the power to arm the militia).
And yet such a person would still be totally off the mark with that line of thinking because they are completely disregarding the operative clause of the Second Amendment (right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed).
That would also pivot on the assumption that the founding fathers were running out of paper and ink and therefore were unable to write another draft of the Constitution to clarify their error. It would still enumerate a federal power in a document for limiting federal powers. They’d have a better argument that the founding fathers were deliberately ambiguous just to give us something to argue about.
But that isn’t remotely true: Article I Section 8 explicitly DOES grant Congress the power “To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia”.
Incomplete recitation of the clause: “Clause 16
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
“To provide for” means to pay for and to provide rules for the militia. The Fed only gets to govern those portions of the militia employed by the Fed. Otherwise militias and their training is of State concern only. Further, at that time, when the central government was badly underfunded, the states themselves provided the training, but usually required by law that every able bodied man provide his own firearm and a specified amount of powder and ball.
Consequently, a correct interpretation of the preamble is straightforward. Having a militia is a good thing. In order to have a militia, it must be armed. In order to be armed, The People have to have an unfettered right to keep and bear arms.
You should read the WHOLE paragraph… What you see as a “Well regulated Militia” fits the very definition of the “National Guard” which does NOT include ALL the people (who are no longer considered a part of the “Militia”) whose rights to keep and bear arms is also recognized by the Constitution…
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may
be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the
officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
“Someone who wants to be extremely technical can argue that the U.S. Constitution only gives the federal government power to equip (provide firearms to) an army and not the militia.”
Militia clause – “Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia,…”
“The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia“
Correct, Congress buys the arms and they are stored in what we now call the National Guard Armories all across America.
It isn’t it encouraging to know the Constitution gives Congress the authority to discipline all you militia members, huzzah!
It is interesting, all you folks are stating the correct words but you’re not acknowledging their plain meaning…
That only makes since if you believe Biden when he publicly suggests that “We The People” means ‘government’.
“A complete retard could figure this out.”
Apparently not – we have our own resident complete retard, MinorIQ, who still is unable to grasp the obvious.
I guess that’s where they get the premise of “buying back” firearms. Make up any laws or rules on the fly to suit your own purposes.
My rights exist in spite of government, before “it” existed, my rights predate the governments formation. The bill of rights restrains government from impinging on my pre-existing rights, that existed before government, and still exist now, I choose to keep my birthright.
Mark B,
Building upon your sentiment:
The primary purpose of righteous government is to DEFEND rights, not interfere with them. Of course many/most governments do NOT have righteous intentions and they joyfully trample on the rights of their citizens as necessary to advance the goals of the Ruling Class.
YES !
Exactly, Mark. and put in place for enforcement against those who would choose to violate those rights instead of defending them were federal statutory consequences for NOT adhering to their Constitutional oaths to do just that and ‘only’ that.
It was called USCC 18- 241-242. A serious Felony for ANY and ALL deprivation of Constitutional and Bill of Rights violations. Even under cover of other laws! Punishable by life imprisonment in some cases. Like if the applicant for the illegal authoritative required ‘permission’ to purchase a firearm because she was in fear of her life by a dangerous stalker for an Unconstitutional waiting period during which the predator killed her, therefore depriving her of means to adequately protect herself, the ‘owners’ of the waiting period mandate should be charged, arrested, prosecuted, and imprisoned. As well as for any other gun law(s) or fiat administrative mandates!
Biden is trying this month, just to protect any of our 2nd/A rights, but insteat wants to accomplish more illegal gun registration by executive order with so-called perfectly legal ‘ghost guns’ (he really should be impeached for this if the RINOS had any balls and if the Senate was not under control of the Marxist Left) being mandated through ATF arbitrary and capricious, and illegally interpolated enforcement whims, who also should be CRIMINALLY indicted.
So why isn’t this happening? It’s not happening-except in the rare civil rights violations involving racism when ‘they’ want to make an example out of a particularly polictical racist police arrest or incident for later plea bargaining leverage because of the last couple of generations of steady degenerating Justice Department corruption which cleverly obfuscated and re-interpolated the perception of the law to Where the status quo ‘remedy’ for such rights violation was subtly transmuted to instead ‘filing a civil suit . And these would simply be dismissed or bought off with settlements paid with YOUR tax dollars to add insult to injury.
Otherwise, the Justice system–which realized the full extent of their corruption–also clearly understood that most of them would be imprisoned if the ‘law’ was followed correctly and justly determined.
But just look at the recent egregious mockery of the injustice aspect by the appointment of Merrick as AG, a known Anti-2nd/A proponant, and the new ATF director, also an accomplished and dangerously determined anit-gun driven enforcement authority? Violations of our rights continue like an abusive bully who can’t stop bitch-slapping everybody in the school yard who says, ‘Hey, he was just keeping them in line for public safety and prevention of hurting themselves?
So pretty soon, girls and boys, we got to make the move from talking about currently meaningless historic debates in the present libertarian emergency and man up and go balls to the wall in this political nuclear war and go full blown proactive to change the power balance in the House and Senate by seriously spending time, funds, and physical effort getting out the vote NOT in 2024, but way before that in the coming Mid terms for our U,S. representatives. Otherwise…
‘Time flies and Liberty dies…sooner that a blink of your eyes!
“The primary purpose of righteous government is to DEFEND rights,…”
Not so. The primary purpose of government is to make people do right. Society, and thus government, have a duty, a responsibility, to ensure everyone has a risk-free life, complete with no inconveniences or dangers. The nation is too big for everyone to see to themselves. People form societies so that the people can live in comfort and safety, undisturbed by hardship and inequality/iniquity. The reason people form societies and governments is to ensure life is good for everyone; everyone according to his/her/its wants and needs, from anyone who has something already. Governments are founded to ensure everyone has some, before anyone has more. According to western world calendars, we are in the 21st century. I should be able to go to the grocery store without fear that some calamity will end my life, or make me permanently disabled.
Workers of the world, Untie !
Free the Internet !
Free the Whales !
Free Willie !
Free Willie’s willie !
Viva Zatata !
Viva Max !
Viva Las Vegas !
+1 You Sir are 100% correct in your interpretation of what our Founding Fathers stated in the 2A and Bill of Rights
“A preamble cannot annul enacting clauses; but …” — Saul Cornell
Inserting the word, “but,” means that everything after it nullifies everything before it.
Thus, applying that simple fact to Mr. Cornell’s statement:
“A preamble cannot annul enacting clauses, but [it can annul enacting clauses] …”
So, Saul, which is it?
Sam Cornell didn’t write that, Chief Justice John Jay of the United States Supreme Court did, perhaps a close reading of the article would prove informative:
Jay wrote: “A preamble cannot annul enacting clauses; but when it evinces the intention of the legislature and the design of the act, it enables us, in cases of two constructions, to adopt the one most consonant to their intention and design.”
Just so, here we have a Founding Father and first Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court stating the importance of the preamble in conveying the meaning of that which follows.
You know, the preamble that requires that the militia be “adjusted by rule”.
No, Heller explicitly states that “well regulated” within the meaning of the preamble means “well trained.” The preamble here does not limit the ri8ght, it simply expresses that having a militia is a good thing, and in o9rder to have a militia and a well ordered society, the right of The People (in their individual capacities) “shall not be infringed. You are making the mistake of using the preamble to interpret the operative clause rather than as simp0ly informing its purpose and intent. Moreover, as perhaps you recall, the Supreme Court was unanimous in its conclusion that the 2d guarantees an individual right, not a collective right to form a militia. Cornell ignores that as well, as it runs counter to his preferred construction.
Thanks for demonstrating, unequivocally, that you are not arguing in good faith, MinorIQ. In context, Cornell was citing Jay as PROOF of his argument (which is ahistorical nonsense; examine ALL of the Federalist Papers, and the contemporaneous notes of the Convention), and then YOU went an inserted YOUR assertion of what was meant by “well regulated” – which is COMPLETELY at odds with said contemporaneous writings.
So, Minor Annoyance again proves himself a dishonest liar. Gee, what a shock. Not.
Blah blah blah…my bottom line is I will not comply.
I agree
Love the linguistic acrobatics with people who don’t understand/ignore the simple phrase ‘shall not be infringed’.
No matter your ‘understanding’ of the 2nd, infringements have occurred and no matter the somersaults your making with attempts at confusion, it still does nothing to address this simple direction which has been dutifully ignored by the ‘actual meaning’ fools.
“Love the linguistic acrobatics with people who don’t understand/ignore the simple phrase ‘shall not be infringed’.“
Love the linguistic acrobatics with people who don’t understand/ignore the simple Preamble ‘A well regulated militia’.
Minor IQ,
No need to post your “L”, Dude; we all know your pulling Constitutional exegesis outta your @$$hole. Just take the “L” and move on.
Or, if you ACTUALLY desire knowledge, check out the STILL-EXISTING definition of “milia”, and what the difference is between a prefatory clause and a limiting clause. Or, just continue to be a disingenuous, lying @$$hole, as you always are. We ignore you, either way.
‘Militia’ – “a body of citizens organized for military service” are the people.
That was an easy one though.
I await your answer for how every right in the bill of rights are for ‘the people’ and ‘individual rights’. Yet somehow you come to the (convenient) conclusion that the second somehow is not.
Please enlighten…..
First, there is no “ambiguity” in “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It’s about as far from ambiguity as you can get. Second, there is nothing in the militia clause that is at odds with the common man having ready access to military-grade weaponry. It is the militia that is well-regulated, not access to weapons.
We know that was their intent because that is precisely what they went on to do in the Militia Act of 1792. Men were ordered to register for militia service and present themselves for training at prescribed intervals. This was the “well-regulated” militia. Their weapons were another matter – the only regulations were that they were to provide themselves with military-grade weapons, with a minimum quantity of ammunition, with officers to obtain swords, etc. It was presumed in the Act that these ordinary citizens should be able to acquire such weapons in much the same way they could avail themselves of a knapsack.
“It is the militia that is well-regulated, not access to weapons.“
Exactly, and it is Congress that sets the regulations for the militia.
But NOT the regulation for the ownership (keeping) and carrying (bearing) of arms. The Fed can set the rules for the militia, and control it when in federal service, but that has nothing to do with The People when they are not so engaged. Again, you confuse the statement of general purpose as a guide to the interpretation of an unambiguous operative clause. The preamble merely states that BECAUSE we need a militia, the people shall have an uninfringed right in their individual capacities to keep and bear arms.
Thanks for your reply, very reasonable.
But I would point out, under the militia clause, Congress is responsible for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.
Organizing includes appointing the leadership structure and composition of the militia.
Congress buys the arms, they are kept in what we now call ‘National Guard Armories’.
And the Constitution gives Congress the power to discipline the militia, that is, the armed citizens. That’s the meaning of ‘well regulated militia’.
Miner49er, let’s dissect your falsehoods:
Please cite your source document where it says “Congress is responsible for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.”
Next, Congress does NOT appoint the National Guard or Militia Officers, or as you stated “leadership structure and composition of the militia”. This is reserved to the individual states.
As I have already stated, the arms kept in the National Guard armories are specifically for the Organized Militia, aka, the National Guard. Those arms have nothing to do with the unorganized militia made up of the people that keep and bear their own arms.
Please stop repeating the same disinformation.
Ragnar:
“Please cite your source document where it says “Congress is responsible for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia.”
That would be the militia clause of the United States Constitution.
Yes, the states are given the right to appoint the individual officers. But what I said was that the constitution gives the Congress the authority to organize the militia, setting up the leadership structure is not the same as appointing individual officers.
Congress has the authority to organize, or to put it in the correct lingo, to establish the table of organization and equipment that the militia, both organized and unorganized, must follow.
To take it one step further, that means that Congress can pass a law regulating what training is required for service in the militia or the magazine capacity of the militia’s weapons.
“First, there is no “ambiguity” in “the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”. It’s about as far from ambiguity as you can get.”
Your argument only works if you ignore the preamble which defines and limits that which follows: “A well regulated militia… “
You can leave off the preamble whenever you post a comment if you like, but it’s still right there in the United States Constitution for all to see.
Apparently you didn’t read the comment. I dealt with clearly with the preamble and what it meant at the time, what it continues to mean today. Article I allows congress to regulate the militia. The 2nd Amendment makes clear that regulation does not extend to restricting the keeping and bearing of arms. Seems simple enough to me.
He read the comment, he’s the resident troll who tries to get people to respond to his inane babbling.
Living in his parents basement he craves attention.
There’s always one on any forum.
He’s the guy that will leave here and go on the Honda forum and write about how Honda’s suck and Toyota’s rule.
Miner49er you have been acknowledged, I’ll let the others insult you.
Miner49er:
Do you think citizens should have the right to bear arms?
Sometimes you say stuff that halfass makes sense then other times you sound like you’d join up with a dictator.
Opossum, I am all for private firearms ownership. But I think there should be age and training restrictions on the open or concealed carrying of weapons.
I think training should be free and widely available, not necessarily mandatory but if you want to carry a weapon you must have the training and demonstrate proficiency.
Just as in combat arms in the military, I think conscientious objectors should be able to opt out of the training and also not exercise the carrying of weapons.
The militia is made up of the people however not every action of the people is ordained of the militia. We’re individuals.
The preamble does not LIMIT the operative clause, it merely explains its purpose.
‘ explains its purpose’
That is the very definition of limiting, giving exact details on the intent and purpose of that which follows.
Yep, MinorIQ, and that is exactly what it does – it explains that the Founders intended the Bill of Rights to prevent federal intrusion on the INHERENT RIGHT of the militia (the ENTIRE BODY of the populace) to keep and bear arms. Please, take your sophistry elsewhere.
The United States Constitution was written in plain language, so the People who consented to be governed by it, could easily understand it, without the benefit of a law degree.
The purpose of the 2nd Amendment is two-fold, one is to protect individuals and the state from those who would do them harm, Criminals, Native Americans and Foreign Invaders. The second purpose and arguably the most important is to give the people an effective means to preserve all their Rights, when faced with a Tyrannical Government that ignores the Constitution and the Rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights, like we have today.
What the Nation lacks is criminal penalties for Politicians and Political Officer holders who violate their oaths and infringe on the Rights of Citizens.
I don’t need 9 Lawyers in Black Dresses to tell me what the Constitution means or what my God Given Rights are, NO THANKS. I know that “Keep” means to own have and possess and that “Bear” means to hold, have, carry and use. The Supremo El Courto usually either gets everything Wrong or at best does it half-assed, like saying that “A Little Slavery” is O.K. but a lot is wrong, etc.. They could shut down all Federal and State Infringements of the Constitution in one opinion, but they won’t, as that would be easy and make sense. F-ing Idiots.
The more time these Elites spend in the Hamptons, Martha’s Vineyard and the Sag Harbor, and the less time on the bench, the better, as these courts always seem to to do more harm than good.
They like to say that the 2nd Amendment is a “collective” right fulfilled by the state militia/ national guard. If this were the case, however, the 2nd Amendment would be an unnecessary redundancy.
Two paragraphs in Article 3 (Powers of Congress) of the Constitution outlines Congress’ relation to the Militia. For those paragraphs to be valid, the states must already have the right to assemble militias for their own security. Given that such a state’s right was already given to exist, it would have been unnecessary to add it again when they met to add the Bill of Rights to the document.
Still the idiots go on and on and on about the preface’s “a well-regulated militia” without understanding what the term “well-regulated” meant in the 18th century; it simply meant properly equipped, nothing more.
“A [properly equipped] militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Now doesnt that make sense whereas this makes no sense:
“A [government limited] militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
It is very interesting how you change the words of the constitution to suit your perspective.
I have not changed the words at all. In the first example I replaced the 18th century term with its 21st century meaning for the purposes of illustrating its intent, that is originalism. In the 2nd instance I replaced the 18th century term with the 21st century concept that the left ascribes to the word “regulated.” I did this to illustrate the falsity of the argument.
You know, in those days the word regulated meant adjusted by rules.
It is equally interesting that you continue to try to assert that a prefatory (“explanatory”, for your limited intellectual abilites) clause supersedes the functional clause . . . and all of the contemporaneous writings, and the Militia Act of 1792, and common sense. But there is apparently no depth of stupid to which Minor IQ will not sink.
@Lamp
Ooooo…
Mmmmmm…
(Silence, moronic brain stumped)
Geeeeeze…
Aaaaaa…
(More Silence… Hamster stops moving)
yeaaaaahhhhh
(D o n ‘ t know what to say, call Soros for help?)
Your mama Lamp!
To self; Miner49er’s best comeback ever!
Yes, MinorIQ, that was, indeed, your best comeback ever. And acknowledging it is either a terrific self-own, or an example of your total lack of self-awareness.
Thanks for playing. I enjoy punting your worthless @$$ around when you post nonsense (which is basically every time you post).
It seems that Lamprey and Fake Miner are having such a nice conversation getting to know one another.
It is interesting to consider that perhaps Lamprey is actually externalizing the voices he hears in his head.
Sorry, Brodirt, what makes sense in one person’s mind could easily be nonsense in another’s, right? But lets defer, here to a really sharp minded fucker by the name of Mark Twain, I believe, who said “…It ain’t that people don’t know so much. It’s just that so much of what people know…just ain’t so!”
You and Miner are both incorrect. Miner thinks the original Militias now have been replaced by The National Guard and their uninfringeable weaponry is safely contained in strategic armories, but not for private citizen use and you think the original Militias just had to possess a musket ball and powder and good walking boots and they’re good to go with no tactical warfare trainining and no organization under any formal chain of command military authority and supervision because they ‘dint need no stanking sod buster telling them what to do and how to git er dunn?’
As I said above or below here somewhere already, to explain the real reason why militias can’t be left to their own subjective strategic nterpretations of warfare when defending a country or state from invading armies, which is only repeating succinctly in pragmatic applications what has been well established through case law precendents and Federal and State law scenarios, as well as extensive historical and analytical scholership on the subject to discern the proper understanding of vernacular and colloquial language nuances of the time, and the conclusion is…wait for it, Ta DAH! That ‘Well Regulated’ simply meant that the local area ‘Militia’ Units would be organized under some form of military sanctioned authority by Law–Constitutional ‘Law of The Land’ by the way, and Not subject to equivocation because it IS, after all, clearly enumerated in the 2nd/A.
‘Regulated’ was the preferred defining nomenclature of the day instead of what we might refer to today as ‘government oversight commission, Bureaucratic Administrative Control Agency, Dept of… the Army, Navy, etc.
One is also obligated to consider the circumstances and rationale motivations of the times. Which were significantly different, but not to a point of dismissing the Lawful Application, of the Constitutional specifics, to benefit some oppositional political agenda today.
That’s not to say that ‘training’ and equipping wasn’t a significant part of organizing a Militia for war, but it certainly wasn’t the most important thing? Directed Organizational Control and discipline known back then as being ‘well regulated’ was the Primary ingredient in turning a Militia constituency into a viable Army.
So it would absurdly stupid to make a Law of The Land only about being ‘properly equipped’?
Especially in light of the fact that there was not even a very good chance of being ‘properly equipped’ or well trained back then due to the stark paucity of powders, ball, and limited scope of rifles available and no such thing as Ft. Benning or Polk for any advanced infantry training that essentially precluded any feasible notion of ever being ‘properly equipped’ in the first place? But it would esssentially imperative for the government and State Authorities to certainly, as a primary priority to want to ‘regulate’ control over any larger organized armed force in the form of a Militia, which is defined as a reactive Civilian citizen army used in the event of an extremely exigent national or state warfare or catastrophic emergency, before they started serious training and gunning up of such a group.
Since the Founders at the end of the Great American Secession War (Revolution was not the proper term) did not have a good taste in their mouths for ‘Professional Standing Armies’ due to all the worldly exposure of the dangers of such, both internally in the form of potential Coups (which is why the C-in-Chief when they did create a full-time professional standing Army would always be the current POTUS himself), and externally cost-prohibitive establishment of a National Military. Wars and Armies cost money. The Greatness of America wasn’t so good after the war and in fact was in dept because of it, which was a large problem for years afterward.
So their thinking at the time for the exact verbiage in the phrasing of the 2nd/A included “…Well Regulated Militia, necessary to the security of the state…” to most likely currently assuage the people’s fear of not being able to win another war without a conventional professional Standing American Army. So this highly debated preface/preamble simply was an afterthought to the whole, sole point and purpose of the 2nd/A. to simply re-enforce the extended value of the 2nd/A. Which always was and always will be–at least the way the Founders guaranteed it- the absolute right of the People to keep and bear arms…
Which was manifested in the formal Constitutional Supreme Law-of-The-Land guaranteed for life protection of your inalienable Natural born god given the indisputable uninfringeable human INDIVIDUAL right to keep and protect yourself with any weapon known as a Firearm. NO Qualifiers, or restrictions.
I’ll have to re-check, but I still think some of the ‘well regulated’ Militia regulations created for Militia organizing back in the day are still in effect detailing the purpose of missions and Authority chain of command. And yes, I know a couple of States call their National Guard Units their ‘militia’ sometimes but they are not. If they still reserve a right to have a State Militia, they are separate because the National Guard is actually part of the U.S. Armed Forces Reserve. This is not the type of ‘Reserve’ status that full-time active-duty soldiers have when discharged from the Military, which used to be for 6 years after the Viet Nam War because they could be called up at any time in the six years as the military would prefer to first call experienced combat vets back who they wouldn’t need to train in case of a world war instead of raw draftees.
The National Guard is NOT a militia. It is a ‘part-time’ Active duty professional military Armed Forces with career grade MOS ratings and training. They go to the same camps and training as full-time soldiers And completely and thoroughly ‘Regulated’ by direct supervision and authority from the Pentagon with The only difference being their mission status that full-time soldiers can be deployed are stationed anywhere in the world but National Guard is stationed primarily and diversely but not exclusively to individual States in the ‘National’ Homeland. They can be and have been deployed for undetermined extended terms of full time active duty in recent overseas war zones.
They do act as an emergency force, however, in respective states. Their ‘Well Regulated’ status is under both the state Governor and/or the Federal government authority.
There’s an interesting integration of this coming up in Texas at the moment where the Tx Governor is thinking about activating his state’s Guard to help enforce the serious immigration problem on their border. This might clash with the Biden administration’s non-intervention intentions at the border and be interesting to watch what actually happens…?
So, then, Mr. or Ms. Minor49er, The National Guard cannot be equated to act as a replacement for a Militia today. Because there still are separate militia laws on the books today and the U.S army or any branch of it like the National Guard are not part of it.
Today we might not really need the type of Militia of the revolutionary war days, but that doesn’t mean A State or even the federal government can’t call one up. In one way this is what a draft for war is. But instead of a stand alone Militia Army, the civilians get conscripted into the established Standing U.S. Army.
Nicely done response, however…..
Too long, detailed, explanatory for today’s superficial society. If it can’t be stated in a 20sec sound byte, it isn’t important.
Far too many people look at the founding from the perspective of today, not from the perspective of the founders. They take today’s world as the base reference point, and force the past to conform. (we would never allow “that” today, so the founders must have seen the world as we see it)
The writer of this article is simply another overeducated doofus, who has no common sense, and is most likely really simple minded.
I can’t, in good conscience, even agree that he has made any kind of point.
As a typical liberal, he’s like a pigeon playing chess, he struts all over the board, knocks the pieces over, then declares victory and shits on you before flying off.
Having a serious discussion about his premise is as pointless as that chess game.
I tried to point that out in my link but people would rather argue “well regulated” or “what is a militia”?
This is the writer of this article (Saul Cornell):
“Yet despite his past hostility towards the right to bear arms and his highly controversial collective rights view, the Glenn Institute named him director and wanted to set up this research center as an intellectual home for the new collective rights interpretation. In 2003, SARC was established with a $400,000 grant from an alarming source: the Joyce Foundation, one of the nation’s most prominent gun control advocacy groups.
The Joyce Foundation has long been involved in the issue of gun control. It makes yearly donations to anti-firearm groups like Handgun Free America, a group “dedicated to the ban of private handgun ownership in the U.S.” As you can see, the prerequisites for funding from Joyce are not exactly based on two-sided debate. Even more startling is that Handgun Free America received only $35,000, while Ohio State’s SARC was given over eleven times that amount!
It’s an opinion piece from someone who has always felt that people should not own guns, nothing more. He’s been writing this bunk since 1995. He gets paid by anti 2A groups.
He sells some books to Karens and the such when he needs money.
It’s pretty simple.
In order to believe that the right to keep and bear arms only applies to a “well-regulated militia”, you have to not only ignore the term “the people” in the operative clause, but also the concept that Americans have a natural right to self defense against anyone, including government.
They’re lying or stupid, in other words.
The militia is the people, indeed!
Thus, ‘well regulated militia’ means ‘well regulated people’.
It is as simple as that.
“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials.”
George Mason
what is the militia? It is the whole people
Then whose RIGHT to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed? Well it must ALSO be “the whole people”… Unless of course you have a different meaning for the words “NOT” and “INFRINGED”…
directed to miner 49er While the people can act in the collective (militia) the people are also INDIVIDUALS. Even those in the professional militaries are recognized to have INDIVIDUAL rights whenever not acting in a duty situation. (some comments get lost )
Jeebus, you MORON!!!
Did you not read your own post, before you hit “post”???
You literally destroyed your own “argument” in your own comment.
I would say, “Do better”, but I don’t think you’re capable.
Yes, I’ve always agreed that the militia is the people.
And Congress under the militia clause is given the power to discipline the militia (armed people), that’s part of the well regulated militia concept.
OH MY GAUD!!!
I’m a fricking imbecile!
Why do I continue?
I am not capable of higher thinking…
…or medium thinking…
Or……….What was I saying?
MinorIQ,
At this point, my perverse curiousity compels me to inquire if it is your contention that the operative language of the Constitution’s Article 1, drafted in 1783, somehow supersedes the clear language of the Militia Act of 1792 (almost a decade later) adopted by the same Congress created by Article 1, which REQUIRES every member of the Militia (the body of all the people) to maintain arms suitable for WARFARE? Which is, by the way, still operative federal law. Or does your inanity know no limits?
No one, not even one of as limited mental abilities as you evidence, can read the contemporaneous writings of our Founders and come to a good faith conclusion that they intended the “right to keep and bear arms” to be subject to the whims of Congress. That is absurd. It was recognized, and CONSTANTLY referred to, as an “inherent right” (or a “natural right” or a “God-given” right). The 2A was BY ITS DRAFTERS, and by numerous chroniclers of the Constitutional Convention, identified as a LIMIT on the ability of the federal government to infringe on that right.
MinorIQ, I refuse to believe (despite you attempting to prove it, on the daily) that even you are that stupid. You are arguing in bad faith, you know it, and you are hoping/assuming WE’RE all too stupid to notice you’re doing it.
I’m not. Do better, or stop posting your (idiotic) comments. No one, other than your soulmate, enuf, is stupid enough to buy your line of male bovine excrement. Take it to the Brady Bunch website.
“is your contention that the operative language of the Constitution’s Article 1, drafted in 1783, somehow supersedes the clear language of the Militia Act of 1792 (almost a decade later) adopted by the same Congress”
So do I think the language of the constitution somehow supersedes the militia act of 1792?
Yes, I think the language of the United States Constitution supersedes any act of Congress that may be in conflict with the language of the constitution, you bet your sweet ass I do!
And I’m surprised that you think that an act of Congress somehow invalidates the language of the constitution, weird.
Besides, the militia act of 1792 is no longer in effect, you need to get with the 20th century version.
Yes, MinorIQ (you’ve gone back to being irrational), the Constitution DOES supersede federal law . . . including that part that the “right of the people to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED” – doesn’t even say, “except to the extent necessary to organize and train the militia”, does it???
The Militia Act (and, yes, it has been “updated”, but reread the current version, and tell me where it differs in pertinent part from the version of 1792) expressed the intention and understanding of Congress, at a time subsequent to the adoption of the Constitution and the 2nd, and it shows that THEY understood that the “militia” was the “body of the people”. Sure, Congress can call up the militia (subject, in the case of the unorganized militia, to consent of the governor of my state) – and I’ll show up, with my weapons closest to being suitable for military use (the best I can do, legally). Hell, I have a reproduction “Brown Bess” musket; if they’re stupid enough to specify that, I’ll haul it along. And I’ll comply with the orders of the Commander of my state militia . . . to the extent that they do not violate law or my inherent rights.
And in what way, exactly, does that support your argument that the “militia” means the state national guards (they don’t), and that gives the FEDERAL government the right to regulate ME (except when I am PROPERLY called up as part of my militia)??????? Pro tip: It doesn’t. And the extent to which one has to, not just misinterpret, but absolutely RAPE the historical record and contemporaneous writings of the drafters and the Founders is something only you, or someone equally deluded, would be capable of.
C’mon Miner, you can’t be that cognitively deranged? Well, maybe, a lot of smart people who are mind-poisoned by the Marxist delusion are. Let me try to help you, here. Situations of being ‘well regulated’ are relatively applicable and diversely interpreted, the efficacy of which are dependant upon the appropriate and pragmatic purpose.
In the case of old American Militia status and purpose, We had no serious viable standing army with any guaranteed efficacy in case of a major war with a country with a large standing army like they had in Europe.
So our government needed to use our regular citizens as a Militia standby but again, there were hardly any gun-nuts and hobbyists like there are today. And they couldn’t just let a rag-tag mob of able-bodied un-regulated people charge up on any perceived enemies, so yeah, an army has a lot of rules and yup, you guessed it, ‘Regulations’!
Just like all the unnecessary useless overly-burdensome and rights-violating laws we have today.
So if you were a civilian that got called up and weren’t subject to ‘regulation’s of your firearms because there were no gun laws beforehand because, well, it was a given and taken for granted that there simply were NOT any gun laws for a private free individual in America, then yes, as a soldier, you now would have to expect some gun regulations as an active member of an army…
If the term ‘Regulated’ was meant to apply to the possession or bearing of firearms. it would have SAID so specifically in the preamble, like it did very simply and specifically in the objective clause: “The Right of the People to keep and Bear Arms Shall Not be Infringed” But it didn’t, did it?
IT FUCKING APPLIES TO THE AUTHORITY OVER WHO RUNS AND TRAINS THE ARMY COMPILED FROM A MILITA GROUP. AS OPPOSED TO THE SPLINTERS OF LOCAL MILITIA GROUPS BECOMING AUTONOMOUS VIGILANTE GANGS UNDER LITTLE OR NO TACTICAL CONTROL OTHER THAN THEMSELVES and not having a clue about fighting in wars.
So you missed the point of Mason’s quote. (maybe on purpose?) Some were concerned that there was not a ‘Standing Militia’ like a real Standing Army and it seems like a Militia really doesn’t exist? And Mason’s Response meant that as citizens we all must do our duty IF AND WHEN THE TIME COMES And what was not said was like silent body language revealing more than the spoken word.
There was no mention or question of ‘where would the militia get their guns in the quote. Why, because it was taken for granted that most, if not all people were armed because it was a natural given right to have AND PROTECT YOURSELF WITH ANY WEAPONS AVAILABLE, especially in those times, where the personal dangers were almost, but not quite as bad as they are in today’s society. And since they had NO anti-gun laws, OR nics checks, or forms, or registrations and didn’t at all like the King’s soldiers starting door to door confiscations when conflicts heated up directly preceding the war… Having firearms was never an ownership or privacy issue. And the second Amendment just guaranteed that it never ever would be in the future. This is pretty well understood now. At least by reasonable objective people with an appreciation for true Liberty and justice and free enterprise.
So It’s probably time for most of us to move on from this forum. it was entertaining as there are a lot of intelligent comments which is unusual and too much ignorance of reality history. Besides, we all have critical duties to work on to save our gun rights like helping to support court cases and lawsuits to counter the Fiat confiscation laws Biden’s regime is hammering down on like pistol braces into SBR’s 80% gun parts kits, all being Fiat mandated into costly NFA illegally registered guns, and we must turn wasted time shooting it out with a loser anyway into time spent more valuably bugging the shit out of our legislators in a way that lets them know for sure that people who vote and get others to vote against their support of anti-gun laws will ultimately cost them their political career.
Remember, the more states that adopt Constitutional sanctuary laws (there’s already a criminal code law for it USCC 18-241-242 )and their law enforcement refuses to enforce anti-constitutional gun laws, and hopefully charges and per walks any law maker or official trying to implement them, the better chance we have of replacing criminal legislators in the Senate and Congress in the very critical next midterm elctions that all of us should be working on…
Because Leftist trolls like Miner49er here are ringers purposely fed into these forums to disrupt our efforts. I think they really know they won’t be able to cave any real Patriots into supporting gun laws of any kind, but he can succeed in just wasting our time better spent on individual proactive political efforts to remove this commie evil and take back our Libertarian Republic. So he gets a dozen of us to waste hours at banging him back which actually slows us down doing anything really important for the cause. These people do understand rights and liberty. They just don’t want YOU to have them. And no constructive discourse or education can change their psychopathic-obsessed minds.
Right Miner49er?
But since you like quotes from old-timers:
“…Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s Liberty teeth and keystone under independence. To ensure peace, security, happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable. The very atmosphere of firearms everywhere restrains evil interference. They deserve a place of honor with all that is good.”
–George Washington
Oh by the way, since you “need to get with the 20th[sic) century version” of things as well, allow me to give you a head’s up on a single facet of Americanism t may be a ball breaker for all Marxist gun disarmament effort in the future?
Unlike the people of most of the other countries that fell to Tyranny, Most generational Americans born and raised here simply have different psychological social development mentalities.
We have a real problem with the government getting into doing too much of ‘telling us what to do’. We like doing what we want, according to basic Libertarian principles in which we were Founded.
But what We really hate–probably because of our Capitalistic and hedonistic appetite for consumption, collecting, accumulation, and ownership of ‘thngs’. We simply can’t stand when somebody, especially the government, tells us what we CANNOT DO, OR HAVE!
When even the smell of extreme gun regulations and potential Confiscations was hinted at every day at every Gun store resembled Black Friday after Thanksgiving. Millions of Black rifles sold and Billions of rounds of ammo off the shelves so fast that
Telling Americans, including many gun owning Democrats, that you are going to prohibit their gun rights is like telling a Monster Crocodile he can’t Eat you Alive if he’s pissed off enough.
This nothing more then another opinion piece from over-educated anti 2A idiot.
He is an author and scholar, IOWs he hasn’t worked a real day in his life.
He has a Wikipedia page so he must be important.
Read this about this anti gun zealot:
https://www.buckeyefirearms.org/op-ed-something%E2%80%99s-fishy-john-glenn-institute
You can scroll down to about halfway if you want the real story about Saul Cornell.
In the future TTAG should do a little research if they are going to publish nonsense from
someone who gets funding from the Joyce Foundation,
one of the nation’s most prominent gun control advocacy groups.
He’s been spewing this nonsense for over 20 years, he must have another book coming out.
“In the future TTAG should do a little research if they are going to publish nonsense from
someone who gets funding from the Joyce Foundation,…”
TTAG informs us as to what the enemy is saying.
That article is fully within those lines…
I get what you are saying but to me it was a waste of time.
I had to look the guy up to find out he is rabidly anti gun.
It’s not like when I’m in public wearing a T shirt with an AR on it that says:
“I Plead the Second” and someone says “I find that offensive”.
My response is good for you and I walk away.
I don’t want to hear about their views of Gorsuch and Barrett.
I refuse to fall into the trap of “A well regulated militia”.
I’m more of the “Shall not be infringed” type.
It is key to know thy enemy but Saul Cornell is just a putz.
Basically it’s an article to show how clueless Miner49er is.
I’m sure he loved it (lots of stupid comments),
to me it’s just another anti 2A idiots opinions.
“I refuse to fall into the trap of “A well regulated militia”.
I’m more of the “Shall not be infringed” type.“
It is the United States Constitution, not a cafeteria.
“I think I’ll have some of that coconut cream pie, but none of those Brussels sprouts”
You can’t just cherry pick what part of the second amendment you like.
Actually it’s The Bill Of Rights. Only Libtards “cherry pick” it.
Coconut cream pie = My neighbors and I setting up a Kill Box, hence
“A well regulated militia”
Brussels sprouts = What happens to anyone who would try and harm us or take away our God Given Rights, hence “Shall not be infringed”.
There is no “cherry picking”, only what the 2A actually stands for.
“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.”
We have all of that covered, down to every last letter of it
Yeah! What’s wrong with you people?
I don’t know why you people will not follow the script.
ONLY leftist like me, that hate America and see everything as racist, are allowed to cherry pick information. As such I am unencumbered with actual facts.
Take for example the 1828 definition of regulated. I conveniently (lie of omission) only stated a portion of the definition, because I am a small minded liar. I did this multiple times and ignored the part that said “put in good order” because that’s what us leftist trolls are allowed.
Miner said: “It is very interesting how you change the words of the constitution to suit your perspective.”
What really is interesting with his comment is that, as a typical afflicted liberal, he accuses others of exactly what he is guilty of, something they do constantly.
We are right back to the strutting pigeon analogy in my previous post.
Of course, these liberals don’t even have the mental acuity to discern the irony in their statements.
There are no limiting words in the 2nd amendment.
It is simply a declarative statement directing the government not to infringe on our God given right of self defense. There are NO grey areas, no hidden meanings.
We don’t need to determine, as another famous liberal once said, what the meaning of “is” is…
Miner is either: Jethro Bodine or “Bubble Boy”.
He’s not a liberal, he’s a troll.
I get the feeling that somehow we pay for his access to this site.
As in the $10 a month internet for the indigent program.
Ignore him, his 6th grade education shows.
Jethro Bodine?
Thank you sir for the fine compliment!
I would be proud to be considered a Jethro Bodine, strong, pure of heart, clear of intention and unencumbered by hate or ill will for anyone.
unencumbered by hate or ill will for anyone.
Or intelligence… Are you in to your gozintas yet? You know 2 gozinta 4…. Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh,
Look Madd, I lie…ALOT!
One of my favorite lies, is the lie of omission. Look how many times I did that today.
That allows a moron like me to pretend to know what I am talking about.
I know the 2A is an individual right, but I’m a total dick that gets off on being a complete ass-clown.
I lie…ALOT! One of my favorite lies, is the lie of omission.
Yeah, I’m aware…
And unencumbered by intellect – as is obvious by (i) Jethro Bodine’s character on the show, and (ii) your posts on this blog.
MinorIQ, a new thought and a cold drink would kill you dead.
Fake Miner49er, thank you so much, I appreciate your humorous attempt at impersonating me.
I cant post when my mom is trying to watch “Sex in the City”.
With our $10 a month indigent cable I’ll have to go to the library.
I’m leaving the basement right now, moms using all the bandwidth.
I’ll be back here to be to get in the final comments in when I get there.
I know it ended yesterday but I got kicked off of the Hello Kitty Forum.
I’m a Constitutional Scholar and Hello Kitty coin purse collector.
That’s what my brain doctor says so it must be true.
Mom even helped me put up Hello Kitty wallpaper.
You will ALL learn about what I think I know about the constitution.
Cornell’s logic is flawed in creating a false dichotomy between originalism and gun rights. Charles Cooke of National Review put out a swift and excellent rebuttal yesterday of this clown and his bullshit.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/rewriting-heller/
Cooke is truly doing God’s work… 😉
National Review?
https://theintercept.com/2020/07/05/national-review-william-buckley-racism/
Wow, so many that are defending ‘preamble’ and ‘clause’.
Recommend you read the following and learn that in English, it’s a present participle.
https://kitetree.com/2020/06/04/the-unabridged-second-amendment/
Very interesting opinion, thanks for the link!
Your expert doesn’t mention clocks, with regard to ‘well regulated’, your expert says this:
[Schulman:] “(5) Which of the following does the phrase ‘well-regulated militia’ mean: ‘well-equipped’, ‘well-organized,’ ‘well-drilled,’ ‘well-educated,’ or ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority’?”
[Copperud:] “(5) The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”
And the United States Constitution sets that superior authority as the Congress.
Even if I accept your (tortured) interpretation of “well-regulated” (which I don’t), from whence cometh your assertion that Congress is a “superior authority” with respect to our recognized GOD-GIVEN rights (recognized throughout the DoI, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, the Federalist Papers, and the contemporaeous notes of the Constitutional Convention)??
Oh, you’re pulling s*** outta your @$$, again. I get it. You think your benevolent, beneficent, omnipresent, omniscient “gummint” IS the supreme authority. Yeah, we kinda knew that about you, MinorIQ. I’m sure there is a busy freeway near your place of residence, Minor Annoyance – why doncha turn off your mommie’s computer, climb up outta her basement, and go play bumper tag with a semi???
“from whence cometh your assertion that Congress is a “superior authority”
Perhaps you may be familiar with the Constitution of the United States of America, yes?
“Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.“
The only power reserved to the states is the “appointment of the officers and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.”
Congress organizes the militia, arms the militia and disciplines the militia.
Congress owns the militia’s weapons, and stores them in what we now call ‘national guard armories’.
As the militia is defined as the people, that means that Congress has the authority of disciplining people in the militia.
Jeebus, MinorIQ, take your “L” and move along.
The Founders were EXPLICIT that the Constitution, and the BoR, were intended to LIMIT the right of the federal government to infringe on “inherent” rights. They proved it by adopting, AFTER the Constitution and BoR were ratified (and nearly ten years after they were drafted), the Militia Acts of 1792, which are STILL valid federal law, REQUIRING every member of the militia (STILL defined as all citizens over 18) to maintain military arms.
Stop it, already. Your lies are transparent, and stupid.
The other Miner49er makes more sense. Listen to him.
“Miner49er
April 30, 2021 At 11:45
Look Madd, I lie…ALOT!
One of my favorite lies, is the lie of omission. Look how many times I did that today.
That allows a moron like me to pretend to know what I am talking about.
I know the 2A is an individual right, but I’m a total dick that gets off on being a complete ass-clown.”
The author’s, and most antigunners, interpretation of the 2A is ridiculous and the attempt to create the desired construction is the only source of there being two meanings. They want to claim well-regulated means “lots of restrictive laws” and militia mean “government troops.” Legally restricted government troops being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be restricted. In this reading the two clauses are non-sequitur — one talks of government entities, and the other of citizens. The antis get around this by saying “the people” also means government troops or the states themselves in this sentence, and only in this sentence out of all the mentions in the Constitution. The 2A becomes the one and only “group right” despite having the same wording as all the individual rights. The two clauses also contradict each other with the first saying there needs to be lots of laws, and the second says there will not be any laws.
Let’s switch to progun definitions of militia as group of armed citizens and well regulated as properly functioning or trained/drilled. A properly drilled group of armed citizens being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It’s consistent. If we try to shoe-horn in the antis’ interpretation of regulated, it still becomes the illogical “we need lots of restrictions, there will be no restrictions.”
The preamble clause doesn’t restrict the main clause. A well learned student body being necessary to a knowledgeable electorate, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed. Note that the students are a subset of all “the people”, just as militia is a subset of all citizens. The right belongs to all citizens. If a citizen is no longer a part of a student body, they don’t lose their right to books. A citizen who was never a student still has the right to books. Similarly, a citizen that is no longer part of the militia, or was never a part, still have their uninfringed right to have and carry guns.
Miner said: ” The phrase means ‘subject to regulations of a superior authority;’ this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military.”
WRONG!!
In the days of the Constitution, “well regulated” meant “well trained”, and nothing else.
You need to do more research for yourself.
“In the days of the Constitution, “well regulated” meant “well trained”, and nothing else.“
One needs to utilize an authoritative contemporaneous source in order to ascertain the ‘period correct’ definition of the term ‘regulated’.
Webster’s dictionary of 1828 defines regulated as ‘adjusted by rule’.
The Webster’s definition contains no mention of training, or for that matter, clocks. Hilarious.
And the constitution is the ‘superior authority’ that grants Congress the power to “organize, arm and discipline the militia” in the Militia Clause.
https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html
Son of a BEE!
I did it again?
Why am I such a trolling lier?
Yes LastOf, regulated in that period meant “put in good order”.
Sorry for being such a half….mmmm… quarter wit.
Fake Miner,
I appreciate your truth and setting the record straight, but,
I AM NOT A QUARTER WIT!
My mama always said I’m her “little half wit”.
MinorIQ,
You always thought you were a wit – but you’re not even half right.
That’s all fine and dandy, except there isn’t two possible meanings of the 2A. There is what it says and means, and there is what the anti-rights crowd wished it said and meant. The preamble doesn’t say that the 2A only belongs to the militia or that the 2A is only in effect when applied to a militia. It’s says because a militia is necessary, and militias are made up of the people and their OWN arms, that the people should always have a right to keep and bear the arms capable of creating an effective militia.
“It’s says because a militia is necessary, and militias are made up of the people and their OWN arms“
That is not what the Constitution of the United States of America says.
The constitution says that Congress shall have the authority to organize, arm and discipline the militia.
Congress (the government) retains the ownership of those arms and they are stored in what we now call ‘national guard armories’.
You know, all this was worked out about 100 years ago and is pretty much settled law.
What?…all of this was worked out 100 years ago?
Settled law?
For F’s sake,
IS there no end to my lying?
IS there no bridge to far?
Where are my meds?
Convincing originalists that they are wrong is not the purpose of Cornell’s writing or Miner49r’s ramblings.
Rather, in the event that the SCOTUS does not rule in favor of socialists disarming their fellow Americans, it is meant as one part of the supporting rhetoric necessary to justify packing the court with leftist ideologues.
The next argument will be: See? These so-called originalists are nothing of the sort. They are right wing ideologues who were placed on the court by extremists via acts of deception and treachery. Therefore, we are justified in rebalancing the court for “fairness.”
As my business law prof said: ‘The law is whatever the Supreme Court says it is.’.
Speculation as to what a SC Justice will or won’t do once on the Court, using clues from prior comments, rulings and leanings can be just that. Bets anyone on whether Gorsuch and Barrett base their opinions on this argument?
If Cornell is correct, he’s still wrong. Look, the English Bill of Rightd has a 2nd Amendment analog. However, in that version, there are a number of limitations on the right.
The Bill of Rights (1689), says “That the subjects which are Protestant may have arms for their defense suitable to their condition and as allowed by law.” So right off the bar, it’s a right limited to Protestant subjects only (no Catholics for sure). Then at the end it limits the right to one “as allowed by law.”
The Founders clearly knew of this language which is why, when they drafted our 2nd Amendment, the my wrote it so that it was not limited by religion or Congress.
The nonsense about John Jay is ridiculous. Jay wasn’t talking about the 2nd Amendment (it was a case called Jones v. Walker, 13 F. Cas. 1059 which was about creditors and whether their claims were ended by the American Revolution) . Even if we apply it to the 2nd, the intent of the founders becomes the question. The Founders intended for the government to be prohibited from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. It’s not an intent to limit the ownership of weapons to people participating in state organized militias.
And here I thought by “well regulated,” ol’ Madison was referring to, was caliber. Because from a Ordinance/Munitions Supply point of view, having various calibers (at that time from .32 to .76) is a logistical nightmare, just as it would be today. Which is why I’ve stockpiled 5.56 X 45, 7.62 X 51, .45 ACP, and 9 X 19mm, and the platforms which utilize said Munitions, just so I’d be “well regulated.”
In our haste to speak out and condemn Federal Overreach, we ignore, allow and tolerate (to various extents) State Overreach. Which is another reason why the 2nd Amendment is Bi-Clausal. The Citizens of the State are the Well Regulated Militia to whom Madison referred, to prevent Tyranny at the Federal level, but the “right of the people to keep and bear arms,” is the mechanism by which Madison referred to, for the purpose of combating Tyranny by State and/or Local governments.
The 14th Amendment ended the argument about whether the Constitution and Bill of Rights applied to the individual States, because it clearly stated that it does prevent the State from infringing upon the natural rights protected by the Constitution and BOR, and the ratification, of said amendment, by the majority of the States, means that We the People agreed with the concept that State government would likewise be restrained.
Every Gun Law written into the statutes, whether Local, State or Federal, infringes upon the 2nd Amendment, period.
Opinions are like Anuses, too many aren’t wiped good enough and leave skid mark underwear and literally and figuratively smell like Arse.
“Every Gun law written into the statutes, whether local, State, or Federal, infringes upon the second Amendment, Period.”
That’s absolutely Correct. And so it follows that USCC 18- 241-242 is the statutory criminal violation remedy for such infringement.
So why aren’t these criminal infringers being arrested, charged, and prosecuted as a deterrent to preclude further gun laws while we begin repealing the current Unconstitutional gun laws like the NFA Act, and the 68′ GCA, and others? And while we’re at it, We should seriously Enforce the 86′ Firearms Owners Protection Act’ which supposedly prohibits keeping a registration data base, which is exactly what 4473 dealer purchases are and ATF tracking of non-criminal firearm is?
Here’s why: Over the years They have gotten most of us sufficiently brainwashed to blank out the part of our brain computer that deals with this normal chain of logical sequential response. It’s a Marxist Totalitarian psychological tactic. Simply ignore something that interferes with your agenda completely enough, like it didn’t exist, and move on with your political power grab. Which, of course, includes eventual complete control of the Criminal Justice system until ultimately your strategy results in an indisputable and all-powerful power base.
Then you can release the violent Prison inmates you might want to use as useful idiots–especially as ‘enforcers’ like they did in Venezuela, and start making and enforcing illegal laws to disarm and control the populate, also like they do in Marxist Socialist States, and then milk your herd of Sheeple until they’re old and wasted and then turn them into ‘Soylent Green’.
Doubtless some good persons have tried to criminally charge these political Tyrannists at one time or another, but invariably failed shockingly. Envision how it would go…
Federal Prosecuter’s office attorney: ‘What can I do for you today Sherrif? (or Captain, or Chief)
“Our Department and County Attorney have a pretty good prima-facia case of a couple of our State Rep trying push for a new gun law that is obviously violating established Constitutional Precedent under USCC 18-241-242 by willfully and intentionally attempting or conspiring to deprive the citizens of their Bill of Rights guarantees?’
‘Well, you know Sherrif, there’s a lot of subjective interpretation of how to apply this law because it’s confusing and often obscured by differences in State and Federal Constitutional requirements…especialliy when it involves Lawmakers actually making Laws for General Crime Prevention of the State…
“But 18-241 is pretty clear, even for non-attornies, and it does specifiy that causing
deprivation of your rights ‘Under Color of Law’ still constitutes a criminal violation?” I mean they are in furtherance of action and several other State reps are promoting the Bill, so…”
“…Well, Sherrif, It’s still a complicated issue. Have you spoken to your State’s Attorney office? ”
” Yes, and they said they’ll check into it and get back to me on it, and meanwhile directed me to contact your office?”
“Yes, that’s fine, I know your AG, I’ll get in touch with Her and get back to you when i can. Thank you for your service, and take care…”
And That’s the end of it. The Sherrif never hears from them again. Unless He or She is irritatingly persistent, and calls back at which point they’ll be directed to someone else’s ‘assistant with whom you must leave a message that will never be returned, Or willing to go all out public Media circus mode, which few, if any have the time for, where any journalists trying to get direct contact with any prosecutors will meet with the same going nowhere treatment until either the Sherrif, who is also an elected official sees the lightbulb over his head and suddenly “Gets it”. If he gives it one more kick in the ass and sends a formal letterhead request for a notification, then they might send out a terse but clear meaning reply in writing that , Due to the complications and assertions in our own preliminary investigation of your claims, at this time we have not yet reached the same evidentiary conclusions that you have proposed. We’ll notify you if any further developments evolve…
There was a recent potential 18 241 Deprivation of Rights case discussed in an Ammo land article “Home Resident Killed By Maryland police Trying to Confiscate his guns.” Good comments analyzing the truth of how badly we are getting mind-fucked and rights abused reflecting exactly the point here with why they didn’t prosecute the police and dismissed any outcry with a polite smile and a shrug.
In a recent article about the growing trend of States adapting to the Constitutional States prohibiting enforcement of any illegal gun control laws, especially by Fiat Agencies acting on Executive Orders, And some States going so far as to push for their own Laws and versions of 18 241-242 that provide for the State LEOs to arrest Federal officers trying to enforce gun laws.
Of course on many ‘second-thoughts making them aware of the grossness of corruption in this new regime–just look at the way they abuse the system to STILL try to take out Trump & Co. et al, with every dirty use of every alphabet agency they can deploy untold manpower and resources to dig up dirt from every nook and cranny of his life…just to kill his influence in the upcoming elections, the article said that the States wouldn’t go quite as far as arresting Federal agents just yet…
Oh, Really?! Well, that would be a Freudian slip. I guess that proves what we knew all along. Some people certainly are…Above The Law!
The Founders never said it would be easy being a Republic with maximum Liberty for the People, and minimum power for the government.
Some kook prog at “Slate” yaps and TTAG gives the moron additional bandwidth. Pathetic.
All you really need to know to discount this net is that he “writes”/blathers for the Wash Post.
You will note from the following that the buffoon is an established LIER. Yapping about the Jan 6 ” Insurrection” he states – ” law enforcement officers nonetheless recovered several guns at the scene of the tumult”. NO they did NOT.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/2021/01/18/militias-second-amendment-trump/
“Such a move only makes sense if one believes that nothing significant happened in American legal history between the adoption of the Second Amendment and the Civil War”
Correct. There was no amendment that altered the Second Amendment during that period. The same is true for the present day, unless one argues that the 14th, 15th and/or 19th EXPANDED the definition of “the people”.
What BS did i just read?????
“TTAG informs us as to what the enemy is saying. That article is fully within those lines…”
Well, now. Ya’ see here Geoff, ol’ buddy, ol’ pal, ol’ bean, this here’n TTAG thingamabitch is jes’ for self-assurance, for validatin’ our conclusions, gittin’ political and emotional support for our prejejessus. We ain’t got no toleratin’ for people who want to read, hear, waller in anti-2A absolutin’. This is no place for ideas, thoughts, words, attitudes that doan reinforce thus trut’. We all knows that anybody who doan think lack us ain’t worth a flyin’ flip at a rollin’ donut; wastin’ our time and brain cells.
They’s all sorts of places ya’ kin fine out what them progressin’ idiots are sayin’. No place in this here echo chamber for none of that.
Originally there NO LAWS against carrying a firearm after the War of Independence. Open Carry was the norm, while concealed carry was frowned upon.
Search for this if you think it’s the right of the Militia instead of the Right of the People to keep and beare arms..
A 2nd Amendment Grammar Lesson | The Political Hat
I wish edit worked. BEAR Arms. Stupid Keyboard!
So , the National Guard is the well regulated
militia.
We pay state taxes, some of those taxes are used to support the National Gaurd, that makes us a contributing part of the militia. Being part of the militia we have the right to be armed.
The National Guard is the ORGANIZED Militia.
We the People are the UNORGANIZED Militia.
10 U.S. Code § 246 – Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Well, the age restriction no longer matters much. Some States have their own unorganized Militia.
Wrong again, The “Well regulated militia” preamble in 18th century parlance refers to the population of citizens as a whole, not as the the Liberals would interpret it, as merely applying to an organized force such as the National Guard. Anyone who claims otherwise is not familiar with 18th century history, the Constitution, the Federalist Papers, the Anti-Federalist papers, or the Militia act which further defines it.
Read the orations of the Framers on the Second Amendment and it’s intention, and it will leave your questions to rest. We, the people ARE the militia. Arms are the last result to protect our lives, liberty and property to keep us from being enslaved by a tyrannical government.
I understand that many U.S. laws are grounded in English common law(you have to start somewhere). But, as noted in the cited article, “traveling armed was by its very nature a challenge to the King’s authority”. This is where the direct interpretation should stop, considering we are not a monarchy. We are a representative republic and references to king’s rule vs ruling by the people should be strictly scrutinized. It is of my opinion that it should be read as “preparation to challenge the government’s authority” and this simple reading would fall in line with the text of the 2nd Amendment.
If this comment section supported it this is where I would put up the “cocaine is a hell of a drug” Charlie Murphy meme.
“Well regulated” in 1776 was in regards to trained and equipped not government regulations. As civilians had access to many of the tools of war that the government of the time had it was not only the government that had the ability or remit to train and equip individuals or groups “militia”. The current definition of well regulated does not apply to the framers usage of the words. The fact that banners have to use “well regulated militia” shows they don’t want you to define using the commonly accepted definition in 1776 those two words before militia by themselves.
http://rmhcn.org/GSSF/WhoHasRights.jpg
Well now Miner49er is going to tell you about bacon and eggs. He’ll be right and you’ll be wrong, because he just is.
If I had a girlfiend like that I’d be doing time and it would be worth it.
That’s pretty funny, you reminded me of a Ray Wylie Hubbard song.
Might I suggest that the premise of this analysis is entirely in error. Should any Justice consider the 2A from a strictly originalist viewpoint, it can only lead to an expansion of gun rights.
First, let’s remember that ALL of the Amendments are not a grantor of rights, but a guarantor of rights. The rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are prohibitions against the government, not giving permission of certain rights. These rights are ordained by God for all humanity and and should not be limited by government.
So, on to Gorsuch and Barrett. They would simply find that the prefatory clause looks toward regulation and militia.
Regulation in the 21st century may mean procedural rules or guidelines but in the Founding era, they meant “in good order” and “ready for use” and “well armed” and “well organized”. These can easily be interpreted to mean that any “militia” should be ready to be called and ready means show up with your kit ready to go. Thus, a firearm.
So that brings us to militia. Simply put, the militia consisted not of the National Guard as people may assume in the 21st century. But back then (which means for our purposes, today) it means all able bodied citizens – or essentially, all law abiding citizens. Certainly back then it was defined as a male citizen and most often a white male citizen, but we have clarified over the centuries that both men and women who are adults, of any race, meet this criteria of “citizen”.
I would not be surprised if a feckless Justice would see it differently, not because it is different, but because they WANT to see it different. This is because the slide of America is consistent and ever increasing. But certainly no faithful Justice would rule against the 2A based on originalism.
People with “scholarly” aspirations tend to terribly overcomplicate things – on purpose. It is no different with the 2nd. Said people regard themselves as nobility, who much prefer the pen to the plow.
We Americans are fiercely individual and independent. It’s in our upbringing and our DNA.
Early American settlers came here with good reason – to get away from the taxation power of the nobility. The European nobility was taking away arms from us peasants way before the common use of firearms. That so we could not bring them to bear against them, and later to keep us from taking “their” game.
The “nobles” had wealth, still do. At first this enabled them to wear expensive armor and ride horses which protected them from makeshift edged arms wielded by peasants. That all changed with the invention of the longbow which could be easily mass produced, and could easily penetrate armor and bring down a horse, all from a long distance. It could also take game to the table.
The only solution for the nobility was arms confiscation, thus facilitating tyranny.
That’s one side of the argument. The other is this: Firearms are here to stay. Even more important than fighting tyranny has always been the ability of us peasants to protect ourselves, our families and our lands. And the best way to do that today, as in the early frontier days, is with firearms. There was no way that frontier states of the time would have joined the Union without the founders codifying this, and other God given rights.
This is why the 2nd was codified. It is that simple and everything else is pompous dribble.
The 2nd Amendment is pretty simple language. …the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed (regardless of the reasoning in the previous part of the sentence). If “something” shall not be infringed by a party in a contract, it means exactly that. If the said party infringes, it’s a material breach of the contract.
Couple that with the fact that just about everyone kept and bore arms in 18th Century America and it’s not too hard to understand that all gun laws are actually unconstitutional.
It’s only during the Progressive era that the 2nd Amendment’s meaning has been twisted to support gun control.
Saul Cornell is just another white liberal. Who believes that blacks are slaves. Because if they were free people. They would be able to possess firearms and, travel wherever they please with them.
He believes that only a selected, very few people. Mostly white, should be allowwd to have guns.
It should be no more complicated than:
Who makes up a militia? Normal everyday people not in regular military service.
How is a militia armed? By themselves with their own equipment using whatever they can get their hands on.
That should definitively end and answer the question. If 2A applies only to the militia, ok then that is everyone. If 2A applies to everyone, not just the militia, ok same result.
He ignores history. What must be remembered is that the same people in the same generation, revolted against the British, justified it with the Declaration of Independence, setup the government with our Constitution, then protected our rights with the Bill of Rights. The Revolutionary War was started with the militias of the time, the Minute Men, taking the guns from their homes, meeting the British with arms, and eventually, as the militias from outlying towns and even other states arrived, put the British troops and marines to flight, back to Boston. The core of the Continental Army were those militias, and involved closely with them were our Founding Fathers, notably here, Washington and Adams, our first two Presidents.
This is the sort of stuff that used to be taught in our schools. Not anymore.
So if it’s not an individual right why and only covers state militias why wasn’t it written “…the right of the states (or state) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”?
The very name of the first legislation added to The Constitution is the ultimate preamble: “The Bill of Rights.” Please don’t argue about the name, that’s what it is. George Mason referred to it as such 2 years prior to its ratification at the Constitutional Convention, so that is established.
Now let’s take that name and dissect a bit.
Webster’s defines a “right” thusly: “something to which one has a just claim: such as
a: the power or privilege to which one is justly entitled
example: voting rights”
Government has NO RIGHTS, only boundaries. To claim that ANYTHING in The Bill of RIGHTS is referring to the governmental body’s authority to establish and maintain an official government entity (i.e. militia as commonly interpreted to mean the National Guard), is an obvious distortion of intent. By definition, individuals are the only entities even capable of having RIGHTS.
Based upon this “ultimate preamble,” none of these gun-grabbing arguments hold any water. Further, if that isn’t enough, 2A also very explicitly states “the RIGHT of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” It really doesn’t get any clearer than that.
Comments are closed.