Sue me...

[danny76]

How do you define "well-regulated militia"? I have some friends. We are armed. We have a rank structure, rules of safety, rules of engagement, etc. Are we not well-regulated? Are we not a militia?

You may well be considered a militia. What purpose do you serve? Neighbourhood defence? If so then I would suggestt my comment didnt apply to you. However I would justifiably surmise that most U.S gun owners are not part of an organised group with rank structures and safety rules. Isn't the essence if the 'organised militia' to make the government toe the line?

[Megalodon]

What I don't understand is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms only as part of a "well regulated militia' it does not say 'everyone has the right to own high capacity assault rifles for home defence'. Just saying.

If I could I would have an arsenal, not saying guns should be banned, simply the meaning of the 2nd has been bastardised to accomodate gun owners.

Yep

If you look up what the fore fathers said: If you are in the/a militia you can have the weapons of the time. You are also regulated, practiced and report to a commander.  

Those days have long passed and today's militia is the States National Guard. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says you can have it for personal protection.

[Serenity]

Yep

If you look up what the fore fathers said: If you are in the/a militia you can have the weapons of the time. You are also regulated, practiced and report to a commander.  

Those days have long passed and today's militia is the States National Guard. There is nothing in the 2nd amendment that says you can have it for personal protection.

There is nothing which says you can't, and the National Guard reports to the government, which defeats the idea behind the second ammendment's militia concept.

[Megalodon]

There is nothing which says you can't, and the National Guard reports to the government, which defeats the idea behind the second ammendment's militia concept.

 The reason the Government is in control of the militia <NG> is because when called upon they <the people> didn't come.

Being in the militia allows you to own a tank then or a f14 or a carrier vessel, you can not.

Guns are left on the table to appease the American public and their right to "rise against tyrannical government". I suppose if you were in Washington and saw 300 million guns headed you way you might listen....Or call the Militia?.

[Serenity]

 The reason the Government is in control of the militia <NG> is because when called upon they <the people> didn't come.

Being in the militia allows you to own a tank then or a f14 or a carrier vessel, you can not.

Guns are left on the table to appease the American public and their right to "rise against tyrannical government". I suppose if you were in Washington and saw 300 million guns headed you way you might listen....Or call the Militia?.

So what do you propose to do, [disclaimer: This is not what I claim is happening, I'm speaking in the context implied by the document] if the U.S. government exceeds it's mandate and begins to take on an air of tyranny? Do you think the national guard will split from the government and intercede on your behalf? Look at history, and the many countries in which a similar thing has happened. How often does the government's own military step in to defend the citizens?

A government cannot keep itself in check any more than drug addict can be trusted to punish himself for his crimes. This applies to any governing body in general.

[Stalwart]

If the U.S. government exceeds it's mandate and begins to take on an air of tyranny?

Here's where a raised eyebrow emoticon would be perfect.

[Megalodon]

So what do you propose to do, [disclaimer: This is not what I claim is happening, I'm speaking in the context implied by the document] if the U.S. government exceeds it's mandate and begins to take on an air of tyranny? Do you think the national guard will split from the government and intercede on your behalf? Look at history, and the many countries in which a similar thing has happened. How often does the government's own military step in to defend the citizens?

A government cannot keep itself in check any more than drug addict can be trusted to punish himself for his crimes. This applies to any governing body in general.

what do you mean IF? I would like my money to build bridges HERE.. at home... in America ...etc
Nope look at Kent state and others
Not often
I agree

Do you think the people can take on the Government now? When the Document was written they sure could.
The essence of the Document has been trumped long ago but we still cling to the gun part <cowboys> and the Gov lets us.
Its not like we are all revolutionist's now... are we?.

Btw the document is very specific and very clear as to what it says and the way it is to be brought to bear <there is mention of what is suppose to happen and no mention of whats not to happen>...... the difference is mans own freedom and his idea of protection <rock> and what constitutes that.

We are left clinging to the last remnants of the old document and being told what we can and can't have from it.. as according to it.. we should, as the militia, be allowed the weapons of the time.
..Mans own freedoms <god given rights> and what the document says <you have it for> are where this lays now. We would like to keep the most powerful things we can even though it pales in comparison to what the REAL militia has.




 

[MarineUS]

what do you mean IF? I would like my money to build bridges HERE.. at home... in America ...etc
Nope look at Kent state and others
Not often
I agree

Do you think the people can take on the Government now? When the Document was written they sure could.
The essence of the Document has been trumped long ago but we still cling to the gun part <cowboys> and the Gov lets us.
Its not like we are all revolutionist's now... are we?.

Btw the document is very specific and very clear as to what it says and the way it is to be brought to bear <there is mention of what is suppose to happen and no mention of whats not to happen>...... the difference is mans own freedom and his idea of protection <rock> and what constitutes that.

We are left clinging to the last remnants of the old document and being told what we can and can't have from it.. as according to it.. we should, as the militia, be allowed the weapons of the time.
..Mans own freedoms <god given rights> and what the document says <you have it for> are where this lays now. We would like to keep the most powerful things we can even though it pales in comparison to what the REAL militia has.




 

The REAL "militia" isn't a bunch of robots either. You don't think they'd just walk away from the unmanned drones and let Uncle Sam have them if Uncle Sam suddenly became ill and thought everyone in his yard was hostile do you?

"be allowed the weapons of the time. " - This always makes me sick inside. Does that mean magazines and the internet are not covered by the first amendment?

And everyone talking about a militia and reporting - if that was the case every gun owner would just claim to be in a militia. A group of friends could just pretend to have one formed.

Do you train? - "We go shooting every two weeks when we get paid."

Do you have a Chain of Command? - "We're a free-form, rank-free militia. All men are equal but each one does his own part. Johnny over there keeps tabs on the local terrain, Jake keeps a count of the weapons and ammo, David here draws up tactics, and I just shoot what seems to be hostile if we're in a bad way."

Meh. This is a pointless argument.

Take my "guns" and I'll go down with a weapon in one hand and a flag in the other.

[guncrasher]

...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...

It kind of makes me upset to think that we have people that will "support" our military men and women while at the same time think that these same people will take our freedoms away.  that is being a hypocrite. 

during the jun 4th "incident' in china they brought troops from other provinces because they were afraid local military might be "sympathetic" to the students.  are we really that different?

midway

[Slash27]

What I don't understand is that the constitution protects the right to bear arms only as part of a "well regulated militia' it does not say 'everyone has the right to own high capacity assault rifles for home defence'. Just saying.

If I could I would have an arsenal, not saying guns should be banned, simply the meaning of the 2nd amendment has been bastardised to accomodate gun owners.

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
         ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Pretty easy to understand.

[Megalodon]

The part I do not get... you/we rely upon the document when it was written for the right to bear arms, but the rules required by the document during the same time period are insignificant

For Johnny, Jake and David
http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

[Megalodon]

"Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people."
         ---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

Pretty easy to understand.

 Certainly this was a sentiment but so was this:

"Certain I am that it would be cheaper to keep 50,000 or 100,000 in constant pay than to depend upon one half the number and supply the other half occasionally by militia.

The time the latter are in pay before and after they are in camp, assembling and marching, the waste of ammunition, the consumption of stores which they must be furnished with or sent home, added to the other inci-dental expenses consequent upon their coming and conduct in camp, surpass all idea and destroy every kind of regularity and economy which you could establish among fixed and settled troops and will in my opinion prove, if the scheme is adhered to, the ruin of our cause . For if I was called upon to declare upon oath whether the militia have been more serviceable or hurtful, I should subscribe to the latter.

That an annual army raised on the spur of the occasion, besides being unqualified for the end designed, is ten times more expensive . The only things that counted for efficiency were length of service and military experience of the officers."

George Washington A W. C. Serial 25, Part I,

[Stalwart]

The part I do not get... you/we rely upon the document when it was written for the right to bear arms

Maybe you do.  I don't need a piece of paper to tell me I can defend my life and family with deadly force of any kind.

[dunnrite]

Since we're doing quotes

"The Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense... And ... these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

-Supreme Court of the United States, U.S. v. Miller (1939).


"Constitutional rights may not be infringed simply because the majority of the people choose that they be."

- Supreme Court of the United States, Westbrook v. Mihaly 2 C3d 756


"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."

-Title 10, Section 311 of the U.S. Code.


"The states cannot, even laying the Constitutional provision out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to general government."

-Supreme Court of the United States, Presser v. Illinois (1886).


"... 'the people' seems to have been a term of art employed in select parts of the Constitution. The Preamble declares that the Constitution is ordained, and established by 'the people of the the U.S.' The Second Amendment protects the right of the people to keep and bear Arms ...."

-Supreme Court of the United States., U.S. v. Uerdugo-Uriquidez (1990).


"... to prohibit a citizen from wearing or carrying a war arm ... is an unwarranted restriction upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege."

-Wilson v. State, 33 Ark. 557, 560, 34 Am. Rep. 52 (1878)


"All laws which are repugnant to the constitution are null and void."

-Marbury vs. Madison, 5 US (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 176, (1803)


"The rights of the Second Amendment should be as zealously guarded as the other individual liberties enshrined in the bill of rights."

-U.S. v. Emerson, U.S. federal court, Northern District of Texas, 1999