RE: Well regulated? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message


cloudboy -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 9:20:16 PM)

quote:

But the poster claimed the 2nd Amendment provided for community opposition to government without establishing the point.


Under the Patriot Act, that might be considered "terrorism."

Here's another tidbit, consider this question asked of potential immigrants before they can receive a green card:

Do you intend to engage in the United States in:

b. any activity a purpose of which is opposition to, or the control or overthrow of, the government of the United States,
by force, violence or other unlawful means? (Yes or No)


An affirmative answer here denies an applicant his chance at immigration.




GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Well regulated? (11/14/2008 9:54:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

The second amendment: 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.

Just out of curiosity...

What do you folks see as "well regulated"? What regulation does this call for or imply?


I am going back to the beginning here...
This is so simple to Me and everyone is making it much more complicated that it needs to be.  However, I will say that your question has been asked and answered several times.  Once, straight out by T, and other times by several others who just got more complicated.
 
Well regulated means, quite simply, trained, armed and ready to defend.
 
That part of the second amendment has nothing to do with individual citizens and their right to bear arms.  It is important to remember that the Constitution and/or the Framers of the document did not grant the right to bear arms to the citizenry.  It was automatically acknowledged as an innate right.  It didn't even come into play that "oh, by the way, we will let y'all keep your guns and such."  With that in mind, here is a translation:
 
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State,

"Dudes, we are now a country and, as such, we need to have a standing army that will be well equipped with arms and trained to fight, (comma)
 
Comma!   (Put a "because" in front of the first clause and change the word "being" to "is" and see if that helps you.
 
Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, (comma!)

 
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
 
Dudes!  We know that might make you a little nervous.  (Hell, we're a little nervous too!), so we absolutely promise that we will never take away your right to have those guns.  Because, ya never know!  We could screw up and you can always call us to account by being on an equal footing when it comes to shootin' power!
 
You have to look at it in context of the entire effort and what it means as regards the power of the people and the power of the states vs. the potential tyrannical and oppressive power of a central federal government.
 
Seriously...that is all there is to it!  Nothing about regulations, or tests or licenses. *K*I*S*S*




jlf1961 -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 4:19:43 AM)

Perhaps, it would be best to look at the constitution in general, and specifically the area dealing with the power of the states and federal government.

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility. Article I, Sec 10, paragraph 1

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay. Article I, sec. 10, paragraph 3.


Now, these two paragraphs were the direct cause of the second Amendment.

As we all know, prior to the Revolution, each colony had, by royal decree an established militia, which were used to deal with renegade Indians (i.e Native Americans trying to kick the invaders out) and called up during the French and Indian War.

When the Revolution began, it was the militias that actually began the fighting, remember Lexington and Concord? 

While men like George Washington and other soldiers who had served in the Royal Colonial Army had a low opinion of militias, the militia force was the first to fight.

However, George Washington and the 'regular' army officers neglected to remember one very simple fact, the militia did not fight against an enemy in the standard "line up in formation, march toward the enemy and trade musket fire" warfare.

The militia learned to fight using the same tactics used against them by INDIANS, hence the effectiveness of men like the 'Swamp Fox' of the Carolina Colonies.

Militiamen fighting independently fought in ways that, as Lord Cornwallis put it, "Are not civilized, do not follow the rules of war, and in many cases, even more barbaric than the natives of this continent." (he was just upset because the militia in the Carolina colonies, fighting independent of direct Army command, where winning pitched battles by firing from behind trees, rocks, creek beds, and any other cover they could find, and even wore clothing that blended into the landscape)

Amendment II 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.

At this point, in 1791 our founding fathers wrote the above amendment, along with nine others that directly addressed problems that contributed to the revolution in the first place.
Remember, the red coats marching from Boston to Lexington and Concord were doing so to seize weapons, ALL weapons.
Since that time, gun control laws have been passed, that limited the scope of the types of weapons a person could own, but not limiting gun ownership except based on criminal history.
In the modern United States, one cannot own an automatic weapons unless the person has a special license, openly carrying a firearm is limited to outside the city limits, and concealed carrying of firearms is limited by license.
Speaking from the prospective of being ex military, I fail to see the necessity for a weapon that can put 500 to 1000 rounds a minute down range except in a strictly fire suppression role.  The truth of the matter is that on full auto, more rounds are wasted than actually hit a target, and using a fully automatic weapon to hunt is rather foolish, unless you want nothing left.
Now, as for state militias carrying weapons of their own choosing, most hunting rifles are 5.56 or 7.62 caliber, with various other calibers taking up the rest. 

As in the Revolutionary War, and even in the Civil War, militiamen called up for service often took the weapons of dead enemy troops and discarded their own if they saw an advantage.  American militiamen using Kentucky long rifles were the exception....
Should the need arise to fight another revolution on American soil, I would venture to guess that the regular army would be facing a guerrilla war, and the regular army would only consist of those who felt the government was right.






OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 6:12:59 AM)

I see the answers and unsure why you have not. I gave the intents presented by Jefferson and Madison, as well as the obsolute definition of well regulated as it applies to armed forces. I then supported those with further quotes from Jefferson that state the belief the citizenry should be armed as a check against tyranny.

You believe the point to be narrow, when it is very wide. Armed rebellion is one of the things that the second amendments allows preparation for, in the event the government uses a standing army to impose tyranny. The part that is not easy is taking that step, or what comes after rebellion.

Live well,
Orion


quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Ya know, I started asking about the Second Amendment.

No one can stick to that point. Instead, we keep moving toward armed rebellion, as ridiculous as that scenario would be.

OK, y'all watch far too many movies.

So what happens then? Soon as you shoot, everything's rosy? Or you and your posse will set into place supergovernment?

Bull has it right. When you honestly sit back and think it through, it's not so easy--as he put it, a mind fuck.






OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 6:27:23 AM)

Hi Tim,

Thomas Jefferson seems to disagree with you:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
Live well,
Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

cl,

I can't see any justification for arguing the Second Amendment is an "overthrow the government just in case" clause.

Surely the absurdity of this can't escape you.

But let's go back to the language.....

How is the invitation to overthrow the government "well regulated"?




cloudboy -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 6:46:36 AM)

quote:

Well regulated means, quite simply, trained, armed and ready to defend.


I would argue that "well regulated" is intentionally vague. Next, the real problem for those advocating absolute gun rights is the word "militia." In other words, one could read the second amendment and conclude that the second part of it is inapplicable to anyone not in a well-regulated militia.

I might also point out that there is nothing "quite simply" as to what "trained" and "ready to defend" mean.

In terms of actual history, the Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that gun rights are not absolute, they are conditional. On the other hand regulatory rights are not absolute, and gun regulations must be narrowly tailored with a rational basis in public policy.

Next, as far as history goes, there are scant if any examples to demonstrate how an armed population prevents tyranny and promotes civility.

As for the US, I always wonder how Christians can comport gun rights with "thou shall not kill."




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 6:48:44 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: OrionTheWolf

Hi Tim,

Thomas Jefferson seems to disagree with you:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
Live well,
Orion

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

cl,

I can't see any justification for arguing the Second Amendment is an "overthrow the government just in case" clause.

Surely the absurdity of this can't escape you.

But let's go back to the language.....

How is the invitation to overthrow the government "well regulated"?

quote:

Hi Tim,

Thomas Jefferson seems to disagree with you:
The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson
Live well,
Orion
Hi Orion,

Old Tom also preferred newspapers to government. He's full of such sayings. But if that's the intent of the Amendment, why not say so?

Much has been made of "original intent," and then jumps to conventional talking points. Let's consider original intent, then. A "well regulated" militia, key to a Free state. At this time, we had no standing army. Washington sent the militia to quell the Whiskey Rebellion because he had nothing else. The Amendment seems to recognize, then, that a Free state needs the ability to defend itself, and at the time, that meant the militia. However, as the need for a stronger central government quickly became evident, so too did the need for a standing army, leaving that crucial role for the militia secondary.

People are quick to label any restriction on this Amendment as "tyranny." Why? We restrict Free Speech, for example---we have libel laws, harassment laws, national security laws, and assurances that the ums won't wake up to profanity on the airwaves. We see these, generally, as reasonable. We also have reasonable restrictions on owning firearms--background checks, for example, and not allowing ums to carry firearms in school.

But if the strict Libertarians among us want to allow motorists to carry semi-automatic weapons in their cars, for one extreme illustrative example, that's a danger to the rest of us. Look at the hot-heads who have already shown they can't be trusted with a firearm. Do we just ignore that? And what does it mean to have police if the citizenry far outarms the police force? We are left with anarchy, and if that's the intent of Jefferson and his pals, why form a government at all?

Civilization is a compromise. To enjoy its benefits, we give up unadulterated freedom, for the good of all--and ourselves.

Living a well regulated life,

Tim




celticlord2112 -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 7:26:55 AM)

quote:

But if that's the intent of the Amendment, why not say so?

"The intent" is, I think, a stumbling block here.

We must remember that the framers of the Constitution were not merely educated, philosophic, civic minded individuals, but were also in large measure exceptionally articulate.  They knew how to use words for maximum effect.  They knew how to encompass broad themes and ideas within a few words, making every word meaningful, every sentence multi-dimensional.

We see this in the Preamble, in the three words "We the People...."--at once establishing the community and liberty and supremacy of the people of the United States, declaring for all time that the right to rule emanates from the people, not from God, or any other source.

We see this in the Bill of Rights, with its negative constructions binding Congress and the government from a variety of actions and legislative stances--in every case reaffirming the guiding principle that rights naturally exist, that rights are an attribute of man, and that government's Prime Directive is to secure the exercise of those rights to the individual man.

I do not consider the Second Amendment to have a singular "intent".  Rather, the language is purposefully expansive, as is appropriate to the very broad definition of defense and security.  Just as today's National Guard serves in crises as diverse as natural disasters, public riots, and actual war in foreign lands, the thrust of the Second Amendment is likewise multipurpose.  If there must be a singular "intent" to the Second Amendment, it is that the people of these United States be safe in their homes, safe in their persons, safe in their communities, safe from any and all dangers, including the dangers of tyrannical, oppressive government.

Thus it is that the Second Amendment declares the virtue of trained militia, serving the community, while at the same time declaring the virtue of empowering the individual citizen with the capacity to stand with or against that militia as his conscience dictates.




tweedydaddy -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 7:29:35 AM)

I seem to recall the US as having a proper army. 




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 7:36:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: tweedydaddy

I seem to recall the US as having a proper army.

From the Military Dictionary---

"Prior to and during the founding of the United States, military forces were supplied by untrained militia commanded by the states. When the Continental Congress first ordered a Continental Army to be formed, it was to be made up of militia from the states. That army, under the command of General George Washington, won the Revolutionary War, but afterwards was disbanded.

However, it soon became obvious that a standing army and navy were required. The United States Navy began when Congress ordered several frigates in 1794, and a standing army was created, however it was still only minimal and it relied mostly on contributions from state militia in times of war."

The Bill of Rights was an outcome of the 1787–1788 debate on ratification of the Constitution. So no standing army.





jlf1961 -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 8:23:37 AM)

Besides, who needs an armed rebellion in the face of US Tyranny?

The entire problem could easily be solved by the cooks who work for all the agencies and political offices in washington to simply dose all prepared food with laxatives....

Granted, the result would be little different than what is coming out of washington at this time, the primary difference is that we can see the manure produced by our government.

Besides, considering how little politicians can agree on anything, they will be arguing over who gets to go to the bathroom first.




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 8:35:42 AM)

Plenty of manure to go around, j.

As long as "debates" and "discussions" devolve to cheap shots, glib clichés, and sound bites, with the purpose not to understand but to win, keep the boots handy, even outside Washington.




GoddessDustyGold -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 6:01:05 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy

quote:

Well regulated means, quite simply, trained, armed and ready to defend.


I would argue that "well regulated" is intentionally vague. Next, the real problem for those advocating absolute gun rights is the word "militia." In other words, one could read the second amendment and conclude that the second part of it is inapplicable to anyone not in a well-regulated militia.

I might also point out that there is nothing "quite simply" as to what "trained" and "ready to defend" mean.

In terms of actual history, the Second Amendment has been interpreted to mean that gun rights are not absolute, they are conditional. On the other hand regulatory rights are not absolute, and gun regulations must be narrowly tailored with a rational basis in public policy.

Next, as far as history goes, there are scant if any examples to demonstrate how an armed population prevents tyranny and promotes civility.


Please see CL's post #108.  I cannot explain it better than he has.


quote:

As for the US, I always wonder how Christians can comport gun rights with "thou shall not kill."


The actual translation is Thou shalt not "murder".  There is a difference.
If I am defending Myself/My family/My community from any danger and/or defending My rights against a tyrannical government, that does not come under the heading of murder.
I do not necessarily believe in being the agressor (i.e. I won't start it).   But I sure as hell will defend to the living end.  And once something has been started, anything after that is fair game and I would consider it a reasonable defense. 
Justifiable killing as opposed to unjustifiable murder.




Jeffff -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 6:21:45 PM)

Fast response.

Regardless of your stance on  gun ownership I would like to make one rather simple point.

If the nd amendment of the Bil of Rights of this country can be changed or altered or interpreted in a vastly different way, what about the other 9?

It is a slippery slope

Jeff




OrionTheWolf -> RE: Well regulated? (11/15/2008 7:50:58 PM)

Hi Tim,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

Hi Orion,

Old Tom also preferred newspapers to government. He's full of such sayings. But if that's the intent of the Amendment, why not say so?

Much has been made of "original intent," and then jumps to conventional talking points. Let's consider original intent, then. A "well regulated" militia, key to a Free state. At this time, we had no standing army. Washington sent the militia to quell the Whiskey Rebellion because he had nothing else. The Amendment seems to recognize, then, that a Free state needs the ability to defend itself, and at the time, that meant the militia. However, as the need for a stronger central government quickly became evident, so too did the need for a standing army, leaving that crucial role for the militia secondary.


You are correct that the one of the two roles of a militia was protection, and the creation of a standing army makes it less of a priority but in my opinion severely increases the priority of the second role, which is to protect against tyranny of government.

quote:


People are quick to label any restriction on this Amendment as "tyranny." Why? We restrict Free Speech, for example---we have libel laws, harassment laws, national security laws, and assurances that the ums won't wake up to profanity on the airwaves. We see these, generally, as reasonable. We also have reasonable restrictions on owning firearms--background checks, for example, and not allowing ums to carry firearms in school.


I feel it is because that weapons ownership was consider a right that all citizens in good standing had. The Bill of Rights just affirms this. There are also plenty of gun restriction laws in the various states. I have no problem with people labeling it tyranny, even if I do not label it such.

quote:


But if the strict Libertarians among us want to allow motorists to carry semi-automatic weapons in their cars, for one extreme illustrative example, that's a danger to the rest of us. Look at the hot-heads who have already shown they can't be trusted with a firearm. Do we just ignore that? And what does it mean to have police if the citizenry far outarms the police force? We are left with anarchy, and if that's the intent of Jefferson and his pals, why form a government at all?


How is carrying a weapon in a car dangerous to everyone? They are already operating something that is more deadly than a gun. How can you use an excuse of another person's bad nehavior to infringe upon the rights of someone that is acting properly? How are we left with anarchy? Sorry Tim but that anarchy statement is not in line with your normal discussion behavior and is ludicrous.

quote:


Civilization is a compromise. To enjoy its benefits, we give up unadulterated freedom, for the good of all--and ourselves.

Living a well regulated life,

Tim


Sorry but I believe civilization taken too far infringes too much upon the rights of an individual. These are the things the framers of the Constitution were trying to prevent.

I believe this discussion has played itself out.

Live well,
Orion




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 12:17:03 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Jeffff

Fast response.

Regardless of your stance on  gun ownership I would like to make one rather simple point.

If the nd amendment of the Bil of Rights of this country can be changed or altered or interpreted in a vastly different way, what about the other 9?

It is a slippery slope

Jeff


Jeff,

The Constitution is a living document. Amendments can---and have---been altered, even repealed altogether.






Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 12:20:37 AM)

quote:

How can you use an excuse of another person's bad nehavior to infringe upon the rights of someone that is acting properly?


Hi Orion,

Several of our laws do exactly this. If some people didn't exhibit the bad behavior, the need for the laws wouldn't exist.

But such need clearly does exist.

Live well,

Tim




Kirata -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 12:29:19 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But if the strict Libertarians among us want to allow motorists to carry semi-automatic weapons in their cars, for one extreme illustrative example, that's a danger to the rest of us. Look at the hot-heads who have already shown they can't be trusted with a firearm. Do we just ignore that? And what does it mean to have police if the citizenry far outarms the police force? We are left with anarchy, and if that's the intent of Jefferson and his pals, why form a government at all?

Jeeez Tim, look at the louts who can't be trusted with alcohol. Shall we reinstate Prohibition too? Your argument gratuitiously lumps together responsible law-abiding citizens with criminals and idiots.
 
K.
 
 




JustDarkness -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 12:34:56 AM)

As European guy..I see the amendments often used.
I have a few questions. Are they in the normal law books? (do they conflict with soem other laws),
and Are they still of any use in this time and age ? ( I mean the situation when they were written was completely different)




Musicmystery -> RE: Well regulated? (11/16/2008 1:07:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

quote:

ORIGINAL: Musicmystery

But if the strict Libertarians among us want to allow motorists to carry semi-automatic weapons in their cars, for one extreme illustrative example, that's a danger to the rest of us. Look at the hot-heads who have already shown they can't be trusted with a firearm. Do we just ignore that? And what does it mean to have police if the citizenry far outarms the police force? We are left with anarchy, and if that's the intent of Jefferson and his pals, why form a government at all?

Jeeez Tim, look at the louts who can't be trusted with alcohol. Shall we reinstate Prohibition too? Your argument gratuitiously lumps together responsible law-abiding citizens with criminals and idiots.
 
K.
 
 


Hi Kirata,

OK. Poor choice of hypothetical.

We do, however, restrict alcohol use. Take a look at the police record in the newspaper. DWI and DWAI are the main charges law enforcement officers make day after day.

Nor am I pushing for firearm restrictions per se. I AM questioning the stance that the 2nd Amendment permits no restriction, and thus any restriction is "tyranny."

Further I'm questioning the common "look at what regulation meant at the time" justification for untrammeled access to any weaponry a citizen can afford. As noted above, if we want to look at the language and the times, and as others have noted in defense of this interpretation, the first phrase can be read as a reason for the independent clause. However, as we no longer rely on militias as our main defense, the case is weak.

I understand this is an often hotly debated topic, and sliding back to entrenched positions is to be expected. That's why I posted the thread as I did---simply asking what regulation would be permissible, as others see it.

The argument some are making, however, that the reason is so that we're ready to overthrow the government is absurd, and as yet, unsupported with anything other than beliefs and suppositions, leaving behind the language of the document entirely.

I was suggesting the absurdity of no regulation. I know others have argued in other places that an armed society is safer. I can't see how all of us carrying semi-automatic weapons ensures anything good. But that too leaves behind the language of the document itself.

We want freedoms, but we also want security. I share the woods here with hunters, and I have no problem with that, as long as we all follow sensible precautions. But I also see illegal hunting literally every day (and night), and it does little for my faith in less regulation and enforcement. And I don't see a problem with the 2nd Amendment in addressing such matters.

Live well,

Tim




Page: <<   < prev  3 4 5 [6] 7   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.078125