History 102: Which people form part of a well-regulated militia?

Right. The Supreme Court legislated and created an individual "right" to own weapons based on complete (willful) ignorance about our History. As this thread demonstrates. But the thread isn't about the activist Supreme Court. It's about the 2nd A as was intended, written and approved by the states and by Congress.

 

https://www.tiktok.com/@coloneldavidleroy/video/7177914515634392363?_t=8a4krdX82Sk&_r=1

 

I only made the observation that you try extra hard to prove how educated you are, that's not a personal attack. But, your taking it as an attack proves my point.

I've shown that you purposefully alter the meaning of a post by carefully and selectively truncating words.
Your OP clearly wants, undefined firearms <- the part you quoted

Your OP clearly wants, undefined firearms, kept from and taken from Americans that have committed no crime and have a Constitutional right to own firearms within the Federal Gun Law of 1968. <- what I wrote:

Those two quotes clearly mean entirely different things.

tisk tisk tisk, such language and, from such an educated man.

Here's what you deleted from the post I just quoted.

I guess you submit that that was true.

 

No, that is a lie. At the time of the ratification of the Constitution, the Militia was every male in the country. In other words, everybody, the people.

You are the one that is trying to manipulate and distort history for your own objectives. That is commonly called "lying".

 

I'm not talking about the Militia. I'm talking about the well regulated militia described in the 2nd A. That one was most definitely NOT every male in the country.

This is the kind of ridiculous things that people say because they don't read the OP!!!

 

I read it. I also rejected it because it is wrong.

https://constitution.org/1-Activism/mil/mil_act_1792.htm

There it is, clear as day, in black and white. The Militia Act of 1782.

You are wrong.

 

Heller v US firmly established that the "militia" wording in the 2d Amendment in no way diminishes the right of a citizen to own a firearm.

 

He cannot handle the fact that nothing in the Constitution granted the federal government any gun control power.

 

Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. The 1903 act repealed the Militia Acts of 1795 and designated the militia (per Title 10 of the U.S. Code, Section 311) as two classes: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, comprising state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.

The 2A claims "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The purpose for the declared right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms is so that the militia would be "WELL REGULATED". WELL REGULATED means proficient and able to perform their mission. (able to use weapons)

 

it also is a negative restriction on a federal government that never was given any proper power to regulate what private citizens use, keep or bear in terms of arms in their own sovereign states

 

Michigan University versus Supreme Court? Supreme Court WINS!!!!! Heller stands!!! The militia wording does not limit the right of citizens to own firearms!!!!

 

So you rejected the words written by the founders ABOUT the 2nd A. Your prerogative. But I'm not interested.

 

What makes you special? You do too.

 

Except! Antonin Scalia submited the majority opinion for the "Heller" decision. And you ... didn't, you didn't sit on the court, you didn't hear or give testimony and you didn't even participate in any way. But! Justice Scalia did, because, he actually WAS a Supreme Court Justice at the time.

Apparently you don't realize it but, once the Heller decision was made by The Justices of the Supreme Court that "Amicus Brief" wasn't even good for toilet paper.

 

gun banners who actually spend more than 5 minutes thinking about the issue know damn well that the second was intended to be a COMPLETE BAN ON THE FEDERAL government imposing ANY form of gun control over PRIVATE CITIZENS ACTING WITHIN the several states. So they must scheme and try to pretend that the second amendment doesn't say what it means. Hence we get this bullshit about well regulated and other crap that not even the FDR administration tried to use

 

No-it is you who constantly pretends that "well regulated" somehow gave the federal government powers it was not given in Article One Section Eight.

 

What is the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

 

He thinks it is to give the federal government powers over the private citizenry that the founders forgot to give it in Article One Section Eight

 

Yes. He chooses to be wrong.

 

if he chooses to be right, than his wet dream of banning all guns to private citizens is not only unconstitutional-it is essentially high treason

 

the original constitution never delegated any gun control power that the federal government could exercise over private citizens acting in a private capacity

The anti federalists were concerned that merely not giving the new federal government certain powers would not stop the new federal government from exercising such powers

thus the bill of rights was enacted and IT ONLY APPLIED TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. as to the second-the Cruikshank decision is illustrative

HOWEVER, after the civil war, Republicans realized racist democrats in the south would use the color of state law to oppress the freed slaves and since only state courts could enforce state constitutional provisions, these freed blacks would have no recourse when state government refused to guarantee their rights under state constitutions

Thus the 14th amendment was enacted and many fundamental rights recognized in the Bill of rights were now enforceable in federal courts if abrogated by racist southern state officials

for some unknown reason, the second amendment took much longer than say the first amendment to be incorporated through the 14th but finally this happened under McDonald

 

YES!!!! "Except" that... From everything ELSE (EXCEPT that) we now know that Scalia was an activist judge that decided to legislate from the bench and grant an individual "right" to own weapons which, he claims, was based on the 2nd A. When, in reality, the 2nd A does not confer, grant, affirm, ... or in any way address any such thing.

"Except" for what we know about the discussions leading to the framers enacting the 2nd A and what is ACTUALLY in the 2nd A, the individual "right" to own weapons exists thanks to Scalia's legislation.

 

What nonsense!!!! I have said no such thing.

This is what I'm talking about: you insist on responding in threads you haven't even read!

 

I don't care! That has nothing to do with this thread.

The 2nd A, as was discussed, written and approved by Congress and the states, does not address nor was it ever intended to address the issue of private citizens owning or not owning guns.

That's my whole point in a nutshell. If you can rebut that after reading the OP, go for it (don't bother if you haven't read it... and I WILL know). If not then your continuous attempts to change the subject, and to falsely ascribe to me nonsense that is not part of my arguments, give more credits to my point.

Easy as that!

 

Or, so you say.

Sure it does, you just WISH it didn't.

You only want to know and, will only allow your version of that. The "framers" wrote many times about their belief in the necessity of the right of the individual to own firearms.

What IS "actually" in the Second Amendment has been adjudicated by THE Supreme Court of The United States.

No, the individual right to own firearms exists because "the founders" wrote it into THE Bill of Rights as the Second Amendment.
"Thanks" to Supreme Court Justice Scalia and other Supreme Court Justices in The Majority decision Heller v DC the wording of the Second Amendment has been made crystal clear. The right to own firearms by INDIVIDUAL Americans independent of membership in a militia and, included in that decision they further clarified that individual Americans CAN own firearms in current use.

You can slander Justice Scalia and, will but, the functional fact is your manipulation of history to conform to your version ceased to be an academic curiosity 300 posts ago. IN These United States the law of the land is the Constitution, The Second Amendment is part of OUR Constitution, The Second Amendment as written by "the founders" and clarified by the Supreme Court is the law we live by. It's a shame you don't agree with it, but that you don't really doesn't matter.