A well regulated militia.

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by Grugore, Oct 20, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Grugore

    Grugore Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    28
    There are those, mostly liberals, who believe that gun ownership should be restricted to militias; as per their interpretation of the Second Amendment. I would have no problem with this. I would simply join a militia. I would encourage every patriot to do the same. This would be a good thing, in my opinion. We would no longer be individual gun owners. We would be a trained group of gun owners. Something that would, no doubt, give liberals nightmares.
     
  2. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are already a part of the militia of which the founding fathers were speaking you don't have to "join" anything.
     
  3. Hotdogr

    Hotdogr Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    11,021
    Likes Received:
    5,248
    Trophy Points:
    113

    A: Every citizen is a member of the militia, by birth.
    B: Every male, on his 18th birthday, must by law, sign up for the organized militia (selective service)
     
  4. Bluesguy

    Bluesguy Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2010
    Messages:
    153,325
    Likes Received:
    38,994
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    B. That is not the militia, that is for the federal military. Two different entities.
     
  5. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There are those, mostly liberals, who believe that gun ownership should be restricted to militias;


    Nope. Only that the Second AMENDMENT applies to guns within the scope of a "well regulated militia".

    That's entirely different from saying that "only militias should have guns".

    The Constitution simply does not protect gun ownership other than as required for a "well regulated militia".

    I'm a gun owner and my "rights" are granted by my state
     
  6. Grugore

    Grugore Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2014
    Messages:
    660
    Likes Received:
    103
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Since militia members are not provided with weapons, bringing their own, that is not a proper interpretation. It says the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms... It couldn't be any clearer.
     
  7. Lesh

    Lesh Banned

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2015
    Messages:
    42,206
    Likes Received:
    14,119
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It says " a well regulated militia being necessary"...and since that doesn't exist..The Constitution doesn't protect gun rights
     
  8. Thehumankind

    Thehumankind Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2013
    Messages:
    4,478
    Likes Received:
    342
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    What is this well regulated militia for?
     
  9. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,254
    Likes Received:
    20,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    saying one has to be in a formal militia to keep and bear arms is akin to saying you have to work for the press to have freedom of speech

    - - - Updated - - -

    That's rather silly. Every bill of right amendment is a negative restriction on government action-reiterating the fact that the government was NEVER GIVEN any power in the area to act. So even if the bill of rights did not exist, the federal government never had the proper power to regulate what sort of arms individual citizens can keep and bear in their own sovereign states. Indeed, the first 100 years of jurisprudence held that the federal government had no power over individual private citizens. This changed when FDR decided to rape the bill of rights and mutate the commerce clause
     
  10. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I have no problem with that. As long as you train and drill regularly and if you d not then your weapon is confiscated
     
  11. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The reason why the liberals think that the you have to be in a militia to bear arms is because they are uneducated on the Constitution. ;)
     
  12. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It was the OP that suggested that people join a militia. And I doubt he is a liberal
     
  13. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    Well, I think Madison made the purpose and the intent behind the 2nd amendment quite clear in the Federalist papers. People should read up on those documents so that they can be educated before they jump into such discussions and sound uneducated as to it's purpose and intent.
     
  14. tkolter

    tkolter Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2012
    Messages:
    7,134
    Likes Received:
    598
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You know historically unless otherwise excluded you would not choose to serve in a militia it was lawfully required under law, and some colonies/states also maintained a standing army as well. But I would consider the Selective Service the equivalent and would not require women to also register to be called on for military service when needed at the needs of the nation. And get rid of college exemptions, religious exemptions (they can always be medics or serve in some capacity) and require chaplains to fight like everyone else if the need comes up during their duties.
     
  15. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Actually DC V Heller made it crystal clear that the right to own a gun is an individual right. But that is not what the OP said. He said people should form militias if they want to own guns. I agree
     
  16. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,254
    Likes Received:
    20,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    In reality its because they want to ban guns and they know the second amendment prevents that. So they work backwards and try to reinterpret the second amendment to allow their bans

    - - - Updated - - -

    in some states its illegal to create, form and train a private militia. But what is true is that you can own a firearm and not be in the militia and the second amendment still protects your right. No supreme court decision has actually endorsed the Collective rights nonsense. That's a BS argument that was created by the FDR administration when the FDR administration raped the second and tenth amendments
     
  17. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    So, you think I shouldn't have a right to defend myself unless I'm a member of some militia? WTF? That is just dumb if you ask me! I can defend myself with a gun, and that is the way it should stay.
     
  18. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I disagree. You should require to show you could be part of a well regulated militia if the need ever arose. We can only determine that if you drill and train on a regular basis. Otherwise you are just part of a mob
     
  19. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female

    What? Typical internut I see. Lol. I am a 5 feet 1 inch female. You don't think women should be allowed to defend themselves? What is wrong with you?

    - - - Updated - - -

    How can anyone respect these liberals anti gunners? <mod edit- Rule #2>
     
  20. Belch

    Belch Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2015
    Messages:
    16,275
    Likes Received:
    4,479
    Trophy Points:
    113
    It helps to understand the constitution first. The constitution is not between the federal government and individuals, but rather between the individual states and the then new federal government. States already had governments, but this new layer of federalist government was considered necessary just in case the british or maybe the spanish decided to take us out.

    So anyway, a lot of states were worried about their own security. They wanted to make sure that this federal government couldn't take away their ability to defend themselves against other countries or neighboring states, and most importantly against this new federal government.

    The entire bill of rights was considered extraneous unnecessary nonsense by the federalists, who said that since there was nothing in the constitution giving the federal government the power to take away guns, then why have something saying that the federal government couldn't take away guns?

    The anti-federalists demanded that before ratifying this new constitution, that there be a bill of rights that would act as double insurance against the federal government taking their right to defend themselves.

    So the "a well regulated militia" bit was included in the second amendment as a way of explaining why the federal government has absolutely no authority over the states when it comes to arms. States need to have an army to defend themselves. So really, that well regulated part is about allowing states to define what gun rights are in their own borders.

    and now we have hillary who doesn't understand anything about the constitution talking about how the federal government should be allowed to make rules concerning guns.

    Actually, she might be intelligent enough to understand, but she doesn't give a flying fudge about the constitution. And that's why no matter what happens, she will never ever ever be a real president. She refuses to abide by the constitution that grants the president authority, so she's automatically NOT a president. A monumental (*)(*)(*)(*)(*)(*)bag is all she will ever amount to.
     
  21. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    There are millions of legal gun owners in the United States, and it is quite rare that a legal gun owner shoots anyone. All of your silly gun control legislation does nothing to stop the criminals who do not follow laws. This is pretty simple stuff for anyone to understand, even a wimpy old man like yourself.

    - - - Updated - - -

    And just how old do you think I am? I'm only 38, and my hands are steady as a rock! I am in peak physical condition. :D

    - - - Updated - - -

    I see I must have hit a nerve. :) Good.
     
  22. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,254
    Likes Received:
    20,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    that is idiotic to make that claim. A well regulated militia is a government entity. The bill of rights was intended to recognize rights the founders believed were endowed to man by the creator. IN other words, rights that men have had since the beginning of history. How can you possibly claim that a right the second amendment recognized is dependent on membership in a GOVERNMENT created entity when the founders saw that right as existing long before the creation of said government

    Gun restrictionists attempts to re interpret the second amendment completely contradict the entire foundation upon which the constitution and the bill of rights is based upon. Gun restrictionists KNOW the second amendment bans their schemes so they engage in all sorts of silly machinations trying to mutate or contort the second amendment to allow their scummy restrictions to pass constitutional muster
     
  23. Turtledude

    Turtledude Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    30,254
    Likes Received:
    20,245
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My wife is 57. she has had surgery on both her hands. She routinely out shoots most police officers with a handgun. She's faster and more accurate than most I know because our monthly pistol league was held at the club that was hosting the Ohio Police Olympics in 2014. Most of the top cop shooters shot our league as a warm up for their combat pistol event on the same range that afternoon. I won, my 16 year old son was second-he crushed 40 cops. My wife beat about half of them and most of them were young enough to be her son. SO your claim about Chris is just plain ignorant. What do you know about guns? we have 80 year old men shooting in our league and they do just fine. I shoot Olympic trap with a 76 year old father of a former US Olympic team trap shooter. He still is competitive with his Daughter who won several world championship medals.
     
  24. Vegas giants

    Vegas giants Banned

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2016
    Messages:
    49,909
    Likes Received:
    5,343
    Trophy Points:
    113
    They say like highly trained gun owners....far from what Chris is.
     
  25. ChrisL

    ChrisL Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2015
    Messages:
    12,098
    Likes Received:
    3,585
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    And where did they mention that people have to be part of a militia to own a gun?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page