I just showed my power level by responding to this picture with the following: Well if we're going by the exact legal definition word for word then as stated in U.S. Code › Title 10 › Subtitle A › Part I › Chapter 13 › § 311 it means the following:
(a) 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.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656.)
I have some additional recommended reading that pertains to this topic in case anybody's interested.
District of Columbia v. Heller:
The Second Amendment guarantees an individual's right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed.
McDonald v. City of Chicago
The Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms for self defense in one's home is fully applicable to the states through the Fourteenth Amendment. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded.
I hope that clears it up for everyone
The reply was a link https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-five-extra-words-that-can-fix-the-second-amendment/2014/04/11/f8a19578-b8fa-11e3-96ae-f2c36d2b1245_story.html
Can I get some help in breaking down this link and countering it?
The Second Amendment clearly implies that the militia is to be well-regulated. That is not the same thing as implying or stating that -gun ownership- is to be regulated.
By anti 2A logic, the 14th amendment leaves a clear precedent for denying people from voting rights for all sorts of reasons as long as those reasons don't include race or status as a former slave.
What's to counter? By posting that link, they admit that the second amendment doesn't say what they want it to say. . . and that they need to CHANGE it to remove firearms.
So - you won. I would just respond with, something along the lines of 'hey, good luck with getting those words added. Until you manage that, enjoy shutting the fuck up. Faggot'
>The big bad gun lobby ermagherd are reading private ownership into an amendment in which it doesn't exist. They are monsters.
>But watch me literally insert my own words into the amendment even though, as a barrister, I should understand that jurisprudence evolves and incorporation isn't a new thing.
There's nothing to counter. If you understand the English language it becomes pretty clear that the people hold the right to bear arms, not the militia. Smarter people than you have already had this debate three billion times.
Well regulated in 1790 terms meant "in working order" not "regulated by the government."
It meant it was the civilian's duty to keep their weapon proper stored and ammo in abundance, and to have a clear and quick way to join with other similarly armed individuals (neighbors) in the case of war/raid/riot.
>What was the Minute-Man
>Responsible for supplying your own musket and ammunition
>Civic duty to be armed and to defend your community
>Unpaid and unsupported by the Fed
All of what you said is true but don't expect them to agree with facts no matter how well documented.
To add those 5 words would require repealing the 2A, then ratifying a new amendment.
Keep in mind, the article you linked is an op-ed think piece. It's one step up from a letter to the editor. The author is butthurt because he was a dissenting minority. He also goes on about how his peers on SCOTUS misinterpreted the 11A and the 2A. Since that was the majority interpretation, it's his interpretation that's flawed.
He'll never get his 5 word modification to the 2A, because that would open the door to wholesale repeal of the entire Bill of Rights. There would be replacement Amendments for each one repealed, sure, and they would each be almost as good as what they replaced.
>"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."
>A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state
The reasoning behind the amendment.
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
The important part.
Here. This is for you.
Legalism aside, that change would void the whole purpose of the 2A. It currently provides for private citizens to grab their sks and go fight whoever needs fighting. That alteration would limit the "militia" to anyone currently serving in a "militia."
Considering that most "militias" are on terrorism watch-lists, I'm curious what groups he means. Certainly not the national guard, which is a military force and not a militia.
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
stop getting your panties all wet about this. the 2nd will be history by the end of this decade.
inb4 b-b-b-but muh freedumbs
should have fought for it after 911 when they started to take away our freedoms you useless assholes
Wait. If the 'organized' class of militia is the nat guard, then wouldn't that be the 'well regulated' militia?
So 2A only protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms in the context of being in the national guard.
>should have fought for it after 911 when they started to take away our freedoms you useless assholes
I'm inclined to agree with you, even with the first thing you said unfortunately.
However, I'm equally distressed at the misunderstanding out there of what the second amendment actually says.
In modern language it reads something like, "A properly functioning population capable of military service is necessary for a state to be free. People can have and carry around guns without undue restrictions."
None of this, "the militia is the coast guard", "well regulared means government oversight", "bear arms doesn't mean open carry" bullshit.
And why pick the patriot act anyway? There's been lots of violations of the bill of rights already going clear back to before the civil war.
It's going to get progressively worse until it snaps and resets, like always throughout all of history. That's a long way off though. In the meantime I'll be practicing at the range and writing angry letters to people like the forever alone gun whacking grouch that I am.
FOR THE LAST FUCKING TIME
THE MILITIA IS NOT THE PEOPLE
IT'S THE POLICE, ARMED FORCES, AND GOVT TROOPS/ENFORCERS
THE PEOPLE OWN ARMS TO DEFEND THEMSELVES SHOULD THE MILITIA BE CALLED OUT AGAINST THEM
BY ARMING THEMSELVES THEY REGULATE (RESTRICT) THE MILITIA
Just because some fuckhead decided to re-define the word annd pass a law about it doesn't change the meaning that the Founding Fathers used.
By that logic any usage of the word "gay" in 19th century literature should be re-defined to mean homosexual instead of "carefree"
That's how we define the word now after all! So clearly we must re-intepret all past documents with the word gay in it to use our modern 21st century definition. Right?
Wrong, and same with militia. The cunt who made up his own meaning in 1903 has nothing to do with the defintion used at the time of the Amendment's writing.
That act has about as much relevance to the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, as submarines to do space travel.
A well regulated militia, shall not be infringed
being necessary to the security of a free state, shall not be infringed
the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed
1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
>Dick championed the Militia Act of 1903, which became known as the Dick Act. This law repealed the Militia Acts of 1792 and organized the militia into two groups: the Reserve Militia, which included all able-bodied men between ages 17 and 45, and the Organized Militia, which included state militia (National Guard) units receiving federal support.
I think it has a bit more importance than you give it credit for.
A well-regulated yet effective militia cannot exist unless the people are armed with military-equivalent semi-auto rifles. It was not written to define that only a militia can own firearms, the forming of a militia is dependent upon the citizen already owning a rifle before invasion or civil unrest happens.
Because if China launched a massive-scale land invasion on the west coast, there's no way we could effectively fight back with bolt action .22lr's and break open single barrel shotguns.
OP needs to actually think and be able to effectively respond to anti-gunners rather than parrot what others tell him
>explaining how citizens are reserve militia and therefore covered by the 2A
The people don't need to be militia to be covered by the 2A.. The militia and the people are two separate clauses.
According to Samuel Johnson's dictionary, regulate means:
>1. To adjust by rule or method
>2. To direct.
Johnson defines militia as:
>The trainbands; the standing force of a nation.
Hence, a well regulated militia is well directed trainbands.
You should say that your points (a) through (b) 1-2 already counter everything the opinion letter says. The WP fuddy duddy conveniently leaves out the militia act (s) to justify his stance. If he addressed that information it would be a lot harder for him to jump through the mental hoops that led him to conclude gems like the city of Chicago should be able to ban handguns while the rest of the state should have the ability not to and that one had to actively serve in a state Milita to have the right to own a firearm, which goes against the entire concept of the unorganized militia.
It's the difference between the dependent and independent clause of a sentence.
Because a well-regulated militia is important to protect the state, the right of people to own and carry weapons must not be infringed. <--- for people who can't understand English
And this follows the Militia Act that shows that most people are part of the unorganized militia that can be called upon in times of war. The militia comes from the people.
And even in that sentence structure, it says that only the militia has to be well-regulated, not the people nor the right and the weapons that they can own. It even specifically says that the right to keep and bear arms are not to be infringed, which is totally separate from militia regulation.
Anti-gunners are some of the dumbest people in the planet.
>THE MILITIA IS NOT THE PEOPLE
Militia is the people. This has been the case since the Renaissance. Militia are basically townsmen reservists called up to fight when professional military can't be assed to fight for you.
So that is a stupid argument. Under law, EVERYONE is militia.
So the argument must be that Well-Regulated Militia is the only part of the amendment that says it needs regulation and that it is separate from the rights of the people.
The militia comes from the people, so your entire argument is dicks.
Your argument should be logical. As detailed above, regulating the militia has absolutely nothing to do with the rights of the people.
>Militia is the people.
Well, let me rephrase here.
The Militia is not the people, but rather, the Militia is FORMED FROM the people.
This is a massive distinction.
Civilians who do not form militias are not combatants of any form and not liable to the laws of war. They still remain as the "people" even if they are not militia.
Civilians that do organize as militias are liable to the laws of war. They are both militia and people.
>I hope that clears it up for everyone
The various militia acts were made after the US constitution was ratified. Unless you have a time travel device the two things are not relevant to one another.
If you are comfortable with the US constitution being amended through the side door, you cannot complain when a law passes that defines "arms" as pellet guns and slingshots.
>If you are comfortable with the US constitution being amended through the side door
Nobody is -- the militia is wholly unrelated to the 2A anyway. It's not the militia which retains the right to keep and bear arms, it's the people.
At this point in time, it doesn't really matter what people want or vote for (you think voting matters?)
As soon as the Government deems it necessary, they'll end the 2nd.
So after reading the federalist papers, I have decided that there are two militias:
- The incorporated militia (literally the national guard)
- The unincorporated militia (literally everyone not employed by the goverment)
The founding fathers were rightfully afraid of the influence of force from the militia and militaries/standing armies. They sought to keep force out of the hands of the central goverment, and they did so by having the incorporated militias controlled by governors.
They (but not Hamilton, the dumb cunt) realized that an incorporated militia was just a standing army, and it was incredibly wasteful/stupid/burdensome to require, and force, every man to train to achieve and maintain military competency of the day.
While not explicitly stated, the obvious solution to their concerns were:
- Have a somewhat weak military to defend against foreign military
- Have the incorporated militia to defend against foreign or domestic military
- Have the unincorporated militia defend against the incorporated militia
According to how the founding fathers intended, the national guard is undoubtedly the militia. And the people were guaranteed the right to keep and bear would not be infringed for two reasons:
1. to be able to be part of the militia (national guard).
2. to be able to be part of the real militia (everyone not part of the goverment) in case the militia or military or goverment ever got out of line.
The national guard is 'the' militia. We are guaranteed that the goverment won't infringe on our rights so that we can either join the militia and/or oppose the militia, military, and/or goverment.
The reasoning is irrelevant, the people will always have the right to revolt and the right to the means to do so.
>The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males
so fucking easy to see it's disturbing that so many gun enthusiasts can't understand that gun control was always part of the second amendment
Circle the words "the people" and ask what they think that means.
Overuse of commas is present throughout the Constitution, something they did back then to be fancy I guess. But if you remove two commas its this
First a statement
>A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state
Separate with one comma, then the law being established
>the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
If you translate that into modern English
>A well armed populace is necessary to guarantee a free nation, so the right if every citizen to own and carry weapons is not to be restricted.
Also I wouldn't get into too much of an argument because its what one idiot decides vs what the supreme court has decided. They've studies it and ruled over and over that it means that the people are indeed the ones guaranteed the right, not a militia (which would be sexist, ageist, and ableist to begin with)
Biden does. He recently disarmed the coast guard and replaced all their weapons with double barrel shotguns. As for the air force... let's just say the A-10 aint doing so well with shotguns attached to the wings.
It all depends on how you want to interpret it.
Unfortunately, I believe in the judicial system. Legislation should be vague enough for courts to rule on how they should be interpreted from time to time.
That way, you don't need parliment to be continually changing laws. When an archaic intrepretation starts pissing people off, they take it to courts, and courts say "X means Y now because a majority of the people believe it that"
And if the judiciary system and the legislative system are at odds, well, that means a failsafe somewhere is working and the people's voices are being heard.
And if they are workign together, well, then you're fucked.