The need for a civilian militia....

No it wasn't a mischaracterization, the 1st sentence was clearly a question regarding your reasoning on what in your mind does the 2nd Am protect? The 2nd sentence was obviously a guess related to the first. There was no attempt to mischaracterize. But you didn't answer the question. What does the 2nd A protect, and does your explanation fit within the context of the Bill of Rights, which was a set of Constitutional amendments designed to protect the rights of the people?

 

The problem with a civilian Militia, is who decides when it is needed?

 

He has publicly stated that limiting or restricting gun ownership, use in any way, including military grade weapons violates the 1st amendment. He opposes criminal and mental health checks. He opposes making it illegal to own and use silencers. He wants to make it legal to own and use any types of guns or weapons you want and make it illegal to regulate guns in any way shape or form.

 

who sets them now, the Constitution doesn't say everyone has a right to bare arms to protect their homes and family except those we deem to have mental issues or those with a criminal past.. if the law doesn't work for the least among us, it will eventually work for no one, as those in power come up with more and more excuses to take away those rights

.

 

Link....How does the 1st amendment apply? It is already legal to own silencers....

????

 

It's in the part of the constitution known as "The Turner Diaries".....

 

If you may have some privy to what he actually thinks, maybe you can share it with us.

But your claim is not supported by what is in his opinion.

 

Anyone else see GC with a quote of me saying what he claimed I did?

Me neither.

Nuff said.

 

I thought the left liked "consensus".

 

Many states have laws against owning silencers.

 

Yes, but silencers are not protected under the 2nd. I fail to see any connection with the 1st at all. My point, poorly made, was that silencers are already legal under federal law and can be bought in most states.

 

According to many 2nd amendment activists, the amendment prohibits the government from regulating gun ownership ot anything that has to do with guns in any way shape or form.

So requiring background checks to see if you have a history of mental illness or violent crimes, outlawing machine guns and other military grade weapons, and other sensible gun laws are unconstitutional according to them.

 

That is not constitutional law nor the intent of the founders....simply wishful thinking

 

It goes well beyond the Federalist papers, as the Founders themselves privately owned firearms. I'm in total agreement with you don't get me wrong. Just saying, the proof is in their own actions and its very sad that this conversation about the militia component keeps rearing its ugly head...

The gun grabbers have run out of excuses and simply try to rewrite history these days to push their insidious agenda...

 

According to many 1st amendment activists, the amendment prohibits the government from having anything that has to do with religion in any way shape or form.

So requiring local governments to make sure there isn't even a sniff of religion is constitutional according to them.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking.

 

"The second ammendment states that gun ownership shall not be infringed upon because of the need of a civilian militia in America's defense."

Yes it does. But it's always up for debate because of the unanswered question: What is a well organized civilian militia? For example if a few racist, redneck, shotgun-carrying bubbas form a group and organize themselves, is that a "well organized civilian militia"?

 

But there is the misinterpretation of the amendment. It doesn't say "the right of the militia. . ." it says "the right of the PEOPLE". This is part of the reason that the Supreme Court ruled that the operative clause stands independent of the justification clause. The right of the people to keep and bear arms is protected, regardless of current militia service. The implied reasoning for this is so that they will be available and ready to join the state militia, if one is organized.

 

It is a progressive tactic to do so. Change the words of the conversation and you win. There is no such thing as an 'assault weapon' yet they rallied support behind it. They fooled people, but not for long. Luckily no regulation was passed nationally and little was done in state legislature.

You are correct and I forgot to mention that, sorry.

 

There is a huge problem when people refer to "original intent" as opposed to "original ideology" when they refer to the US Constitution. For example the 9th Amendment protects the unenumerated Rights of the Person but the "original intent" was that it only protected those Rights of (wealthy land-owning) WASP males in the United States. Had it applied to "all persons" then the institution of slavery would not have existed nor would the Native-Americans be driven from their lands by "white" settlers during the 19th Century.

When we address a "militia" it is (was) based first and foremost on the Right of Self-Defense of the Person. Each person could work together with other persons starting at the family level to provide for their mutual self-defense. Families could unite and provide for the mutual self-defense of their community. Communities could unite to provide for the mutual self-defense of their state. "Well regulated" simply refers to the fact that these are coordinated and structured efforts of mutual self-defense as opposed to uncoordinated individuals all acting on their own to provide for their individual self-defense.

 

oh, argumentum ad absurdum? No one who argues in favor of original intent argues for it in the stupidly narrow intent that you view it.

I believe in representing another's arguments as accurately as possible before criticizing it - you haven't done that here. This is the same kind of critique of originalism that says that the Founders only had flintlock muskets in mind .

Roughly speaking, yes. "Well-regulated" roughly means "well-oiled" or "in good working order." It hardly means "well restricted by the state", it would be idiotic to view it as such in the context.

 

Actually I pointed out that "original intent" cannot be used per se which would also argue that the framers of the US Constitution didn't limit "arms" to meaning flintlock muskets or black powder weapons because that is basically all they protected at the time. On the flip side we can't use the 2nd Amendment to imply that we have a protected freedom to own personal nuclear weapons either.

What we do know and accept is that based upon compelling arguments our government has always had the authority, and must have the authority, based upon compelling arguments to limit our Freedom to Exercise an Inalienable Rights and that would include pragmatic limitations upon our Freedom the Exercise our Inalienable Right of Self-Defense protected by the 2nd Amendment. It should also be noted that such limitations should also be restricted to the least possible infringement necessary based upon the compelling argument.

It is reasonable, based upon a compelling argument, to prohibit the personal ownership of nuclear weapons. It is reasonable to require the licensing of the person and the registration of fully automatic firearms. It is reasonable to require licensing and even registration of firearms carried in public as those represent a threat to the "public safety" that or government has authority to address. I can provide compelling arguments related to all of this.

On the other hand it is unreasonable to require licensing of the individual to be licensed or to require registration of personal firearms that are retained in the home. So long as the firearms don't leave the home they represent no threat to the "public safety" that the government has responsibilities related to. The government is NOT responsible for our "personal safety" nor should it be.

We should reference the 10th Amendment related to this as well. Just because all States have State Constitutional provisions related to organization of the "militia" doesn't imply that a person doesn't have the Right of Self-Defense against acts of aggression. Being "well armed" provides the best personal defense against "acts of aggression" by other members of society. There's an old saying about "showing up with a knife at a gun fight" that some people fail to understand.