you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So I'm not sure of your opinion by this... do you agree with the sentiment that it was meant to protect State's rights to form militias and not an individual's right to have a gun not being in said militia?
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
That’s just the thing, though, it does not say “the right of the militia”, it states “the right of the people”. You can see why there has been so much debate. I like to believe that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the government and extend the rights of “the people”. Again, I hate getting into this debate as it really is opinion driven. Currently the Supreme Court recognizes “the right of the people”...
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
There's no debate on whether the states or the fed can put severe limitations on weapons. They can ban certain types of weapons, types of ammo, and theoretically the number that you can own (although that hasn't been tested to my knowledge). DC v Heller was landmark in that it ruled for Heller that banning handguns and requiring a trigger lock and unloaded rifles and shotguns in the home was unconstitutional. DC's argument was centered around "well regulated militia". This is relatively settled case law (for at least a generation I would think). However, Scalia even offered his opinion that limitations are absolutely constitutional. It's just that DC went too far.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
That’s just the thing, though, it does not say “the right of the militia”, it states “the right of the people”. You can see why there has been so much debate. I like to believe that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the government and extend the rights of “the people”. Again, I hate getting into this debate as it really is opinion driven. Currently the Supreme Court recognizes “the right of the people”...
Don't hate the debate! This is where the meat of everything lies! This place would suck if we all agreed.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
That’s just the thing, though, it does not say “the right of the militia”, it states “the right of the people”. You can see why there has been so much debate. I like to believe that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the government and extend the rights of “the people”. Again, I hate getting into this debate as it really is opinion driven. Currently the Supreme Court recognizes “the right of the people”...
Don't hate the debate! This is where the meat of everything lies! This place would suck if we all agreed.
I agree, but I don’t want this to get steered into a 2nd Amendment debate. The government has the right to set limits and they have. For me, the troublesome area lies in trying to mass confiscate personal property, more of a 4th and 5th Amendment issue. I do not see any way of mass confiscation working without major violations in these two areas.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
That’s just the thing, though, it does not say “the right of the militia”, it states “the right of the people”. You can see why there has been so much debate. I like to believe that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the government and extend the rights of “the people”. Again, I hate getting into this debate as it really is opinion driven. Currently the Supreme Court recognizes “the right of the people”...
Don't hate the debate! This is where the meat of everything lies! This place would suck if we all agreed.
I agree, but I don’t want this to get steered into a 2nd Amendment debate. The government has the right to set limits and they have. For me, the troublesome area lies in trying to mass confiscate personal property, more of a 4th and 15th Amendment issue. I do not see any way of mass confiscation working without major violations in these two areas.
I agree it's definitely a 4th Amendment issue, if you're talking about the confiscation or forced buy back of assault weapons.
I"m not sure what you're connecting on the 15th though. That gave African-Americans the right to vote and congress the right to enforce.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
That’s just the thing, though, it does not say “the right of the militia”, it states “the right of the people”. You can see why there has been so much debate. I like to believe that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the government and extend the rights of “the people”. Again, I hate getting into this debate as it really is opinion driven. Currently the Supreme Court recognizes “the right of the people”...
Don't hate the debate! This is where the meat of everything lies! This place would suck if we all agreed.
I agree, but I don’t want this to get steered into a 2nd Amendment debate. The government has the right to set limits and they have. For me, the troublesome area lies in trying to mass confiscate personal property, more of a 4th and 15th Amendment issue. I do not see any way of mass confiscation working without major violations in these two areas.
I agree it's definitely a 4th Amendment issue, if you're talking about the confiscation or forced buy back of assault weapons.
I"m not sure what you're connecting on the 15th though. That gave African-Americans the right to vote and congress the right to enforce.
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
That’s just the thing, though, it does not say “the right of the militia”, it states “the right of the people”. You can see why there has been so much debate. I like to believe that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the government and extend the rights of “the people”. Again, I hate getting into this debate as it really is opinion driven. Currently the Supreme Court recognizes “the right of the people”...
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
That’s just the thing, though, it does not say “the right of the militia”, it states “the right of the people”. You can see why there has been so much debate. I like to believe that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the government and extend the rights of “the people”. Again, I hate getting into this debate as it really is opinion driven. Currently the Supreme Court recognizes “the right of the people”...
But for the people to have that right it needs to be lawful.
2a tells us it's for the purpose of a militia and to keep us secure as a nation.
To me it's always seemed to be overwhelmingly influenced by the time in which it was written, when the founders were concerned of European invasion and our military wasn't an international power and could barely be trusted to keep the country safe.Too bad Scalia didn't see it that way in a 5-4 party line "vote."
The 1st amendment states Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of people to peacefully assemble, yet plenty of laws exist to restrict that right.
It seems to me the right to own an assault weapon would be comparable to that. If so, how would the govt enforce a assault weapon ban?
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
said:
you guys should check section 8 of Article 1 then couple that with the 2nd....
my research shows "well regulated" was a common term in use long before andcwell after the writing of our founding document. Most uses refer to it as well organized or in good working order, calibrated correctly. ..
enjoined with Militia, well I think you get the picture.
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
mi·li·tia
/məˈliSHə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
would be up to each state in how said militia was organized.
others argue that each states national gaurd is that militia. a well trained and organized civilian population to be used for state ordered purposes and could be called up for national service....
Right, and some states have even gone so far as to declare every citizen within the state as part of the state’s militia. At the time, I definitely do not think the framers of the constitution intended to take firearms away from the non-military citizens. That would have created a whole new war!
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
That’s just the thing, though, it does not say “the right of the militia”, it states “the right of the people”. You can see why there has been so much debate. I like to believe that the Constitution was written to limit the power of the government and extend the rights of “the people”. Again, I hate getting into this debate as it really is opinion driven. Currently the Supreme Court recognizes “the right of the people”...
But for the people to have that right it needs to be lawful.
2a tells us it's for the purpose of a militia and to keep us secure as a nation.
To me it's always seemed to be overwhelmingly influenced by the time in which it was written, when the founders were concerned of European invasion and our military wasn't an international power and could barely be trusted to keep the country safe.Too bad Scalia didn't see it that way in a 5-4 party line "vote."
The 1st amendment states Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of people to peacefully assemble, yet plenty of laws exist to restrict that right.
It seems to me the right to own an assault weapon would be comparable to that. If so, how would the govt enforce a assault weapon ban?
Even if that were the case, do you really think the government at the time wanted all citizens (outside of the “militia”) to be unarmed? I don’t. There are a lot of laws restricting certain weapons as well, but now “assault weapons” are one of, if not THE most owned firearms out there. I could see a possible path to writing a ban for further creation or distribution of them (not that they would not still get created, just unlawfully at that point), but trying to mass confiscate the millions of them already out there is not feasible in my opinion. I will definitely not vote for a candidate pushing mandatory “buy backs” or confiscation of any kind. O’Rourke is delusional if he thinks he will accomplish anything of the sort.
I agree Beto was out of his mind for saying that, but remember he has been spending alot of time in his hometown under a river of blood.
Back to "the govt at the time" I think if we closely examine the stats I posted earlier about the war of 1812, its extremely easy to figure out what the framers were thinking regarding available numbers of military, militia and threats to national security.
If the purpose of 2a was to expand individual rights why was the purpose explicitly stated to "being necessary to the security of a free State."
When I read that it screams to me Mother England.
Its alot more plausible than Scalias comma theory. The framers could have left all the commas and qualifying words out and simply state all people have an inherent right to bear arms. But they did not do that.
Further, legend has it Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson noticed a misprint with the commas at the 11th hour, too late to do anything as incorrect versions had already been advanced to the states.
I agree Beto was out of his mind for saying that, but remember he has been spending alot of time in his hometown under a river of blood.
Back to "the govt at the time" I think if we closely examine the stats I posted earlier about the war of 1812, its extremely easy to figure out what the framers were thinking regarding available numbers of military, militia and threats to national security.
If the purpose of 2a was to expand individual rights why was the purpose explicitly stated to "being necessary to the security of a free State."
When I read that it screams to me Mother England.
Its alot more plausible than Scalias comma theory. The framers could have left all the commas and qualifying words out and simply state all people have an inherent right to bear arms. But they did not do that.
Further, legend has it Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson noticed a misprint with the commas at the 11th hour, too late to do anything as incorrect versions had already been advanced to the states.
The thing is, even if the intent was for only militia men to be armed, the individual states decided who was and was not considered “militia”. I mentioned that some states have recently declared or threatened to declare every citizen within that state as being members of the “militia”. Even if the Supreme Court decides that the 2nd Amendment only applies to “militia”, what are states that support armed citizen going to do...? They are going to declare that all citizens are members of their state militia. The definition of “militia” has changed numerous times throughout history. No wonder it cannot be agreed upon today. I’ve never heard of that Thomas Jefferson legend. Truthfully, in 1812, the government was probably more concerned about having enough people armed than worrying that too many were. They wanted to be able to call on as many armed people as possible to provide defense at a moments notice. Anyways, for what it’s worth, this has been an enjoyable debate. It’s nice to not get interrupted constantly by the usual one liner catch phrase dumbasses (you know who you are). I better go get some actual work done now, though
ROFL. I miss that certain someone wanting Euro style govt in the US.
I very much agree with "They wanted to be able to call on as many armed people as possible to provide defense at a moments notice" regarding the War of 1812.
Our founders were understandably worried about Europe. Our country was not the military force it is in modern times. It relied on the militia for security. That's the way it was for the US 1790 to 1812.
For Scalia to completely nullify all those words because of commas and ignore the big influences at the time the amendment was written is a significant miscarriage of Justice.
While Biden collected 31% of Democratic primary voters in the poll released Tuesday, Warren was closing in on the top spot with 25%. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the only other candidate in double digits, came in third with 14% in the poll that was conducted shortly after the Dems' third debate in Houston last week.
Rounding out the top five was South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 7% and California Senator Kamala Harris with 5%. And although Buttigieg didn't lose ground, Harris fell back 8 points since a similar NBC/WSJ poll conducted after the first Democratic debate in late June.
Among those polled, about 70% of Democratic primary voters said they are enthusiastic about or comfortable with Warren, compared to about 64% who had similar thoughts about Biden. That's a significant decrease for Biden, however, as he had 73% of likely voters who said they were enthusiastic or comfortable with him in March, according to the poll.
Also, about 62% polled said they were enthusiastic about or comfortable with Sanders, as some 37% said they had some reservations about him or were uncomfortable with him. That uneasiness with Sanders is higher compared to 35% for Biden and 21% for Warren.
The poll also shows that among likely voters' combined first and second choice for president, Warren was at 45% (a 13-point increase since the NBC/WSJ July poll), compared to Biden at 41% and Sanders with 29%. Buttigieg came in fourth with 19%. Meanwhile, Harris came in fifth with 14%, a 14-point decrease since the July poll.
While Biden collected 31% of Democratic primary voters in the poll released Tuesday, Warren was closing in on the top spot with 25%. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the only other candidate in double digits, came in third with 14% in the poll that was conducted shortly after the Dems' third debate in Houston last week.
Rounding out the top five was South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 7% and California Senator Kamala Harris with 5%. And although Buttigieg didn't lose ground, Harris fell back 8 points since a similar NBC/WSJ poll conducted after the first Democratic debate in late June.
Among those polled, about 70% of Democratic primary voters said they are enthusiastic about or comfortable with Warren, compared to about 64% who had similar thoughts about Biden. That's a significant decrease for Biden, however, as he had 73% of likely voters who said they were enthusiastic or comfortable with him in March, according to the poll.
Also, about 62% polled said they were enthusiastic about or comfortable with Sanders, as some 37% said they had some reservations about him or were uncomfortable with him. That uneasiness with Sanders is higher compared to 35% for Biden and 21% for Warren.
The poll also shows that among likely voters' combined first and second choice for president, Warren was at 45% (a 13-point increase since the NBC/WSJ July poll), compared to Biden at 41% and Sanders with 29%. Buttigieg came in fourth with 19%. Meanwhile, Harris came in fifth with 14%, a 14-point decrease since the July poll.
No real surprises. I think Biden is pretty much where he was with the last Consult poll, if not a few points higher. What is becoming increasingly clear is that Sanders is bleeding progressive support to Warren. I'm sure Sanders has a floor somewhere, which may create a ceiling for Warren. It will be interesting where the Pete, Harris, Klobuchar voters go after they start to drop out. Do they go center or left? I feel like that's where it will be decided.
This country just has to come to grips that it’s not ready to vote a woman in as president ! Warren’s problem is electability...
You know who Warren is going to appeal to? Striking GM workers. GM earned $35BB worldwide and $10BB in the US last year, in addition to spending $25BB in stock buy backs. Their CEO earned $20MM last year. And they want their employees to pay more for health care and not allow “temp” workers, who get 3 paid days off a year, to not have a path to full time work. You think “Pocohantas” is going to hurt her in Wisconsin? Somebody claimed she was cooked months ago. She’s surging and running a hell of a campaign.
While Biden collected 31% of Democratic primary voters in the poll released Tuesday, Warren was closing in on the top spot with 25%. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the only other candidate in double digits, came in third with 14% in the poll that was conducted shortly after the Dems' third debate in Houston last week.
Rounding out the top five was South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 7% and California Senator Kamala Harris with 5%. And although Buttigieg didn't lose ground, Harris fell back 8 points since a similar NBC/WSJ poll conducted after the first Democratic debate in late June.
Among those polled, about 70% of Democratic primary voters said they are enthusiastic about or comfortable with Warren, compared to about 64% who had similar thoughts about Biden. That's a significant decrease for Biden, however, as he had 73% of likely voters who said they were enthusiastic or comfortable with him in March, according to the poll.
Also, about 62% polled said they were enthusiastic about or comfortable with Sanders, as some 37% said they had some reservations about him or were uncomfortable with him. That uneasiness with Sanders is higher compared to 35% for Biden and 21% for Warren.
The poll also shows that among likely voters' combined first and second choice for president, Warren was at 45% (a 13-point increase since the NBC/WSJ July poll), compared to Biden at 41% and Sanders with 29%. Buttigieg came in fourth with 19%. Meanwhile, Harris came in fifth with 14%, a 14-point decrease since the July poll.
No real surprises. I think Biden is pretty much where he was with the last Consult poll, if not a few points higher. What is becoming increasingly clear is that Sanders is bleeding progressive support to Warren. I'm sure Sanders has a floor somewhere, which may create a ceiling for Warren. It will be interesting where the Pete, Harris, Klobuchar voters go after they start to drop out. Do they go center or left? I feel like that's where it will be decided.
I agree. But I think there is also momentum building for Warren among almost all democrats, even Biden supporters. There is a wildcard factor there I think.
This country just has to come to grips that it’s not ready to vote a woman in as president ! Warren’s problem is electability...
You know who Warren is going to appeal to? Striking GM workers. GM earned $35BB worldwide and $10BB in the US last year, in addition to spending $25BB in stock buy backs. Their CEO earned $20MM last year. And they want their employees to pay more for health care and not allow “temp” workers, who get 3 paid days off a year, to not have a path to full time work. You think “Pocohantas” is going to hurt her in Wisconsin? Somebody claimed she was cooked months ago. She’s surging and running a hell of a campaign.
Comments
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
So then, guns should only be legal when part of a military force to supplement the army under emergency conditions?
(BTW I find Betos comments very damaging to Democrats)
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99
-Yet another article. There are soooooooo many.
But the framers put the phrase in there for a reason. If they believed everyone has a right to bear arms they could have simply left it at that.
Adding well regulated and militia are significant qualifications. And they happen to be worded first, which provides emphasis.
"The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. "
Certainly an argument can be made that the innocents getting killed by crazies is not a properly functioning militia. So its time for the Court to act.
Edit: 5th, not 15th
I"m not sure what you're connecting on the 15th though. That gave African-Americans the right to vote and congress the right to enforce.
https://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/privacy-and-property-rights/
Not today Sir, Probably not tomorrow.............................................. bayfront arena st. pete '94
you're finally here and I'm a mess................................................... nationwide arena columbus '10
memories like fingerprints are slowly raising.................................... first niagara center buffalo '13
another man ..... moved by sleight of hand...................................... joe louis arena detroit '14
But for the people to have that right it needs to be lawful.
2a tells us it's for the purpose of a militia and to keep us secure as a nation.
To me it's always seemed to be overwhelmingly influenced by the time in which it was written, when the founders were concerned of European invasion and our military wasn't an international power and could barely be trusted to keep the country safe.Too bad Scalia didn't see it that way in a 5-4 party line "vote."
The 1st amendment states Congress shall make no law prohibiting the right of people to peacefully assemble, yet plenty of laws exist to restrict that right.
It seems to me the right to own an assault weapon would be comparable to that. If so, how would the govt enforce a assault weapon ban?
I'll cite this from its Wikipedia -
O’Rourke is delusional if he thinks he will accomplish anything of the sort.
Back to "the govt at the time" I think if we closely examine the stats I posted earlier about the war of 1812, its extremely easy to figure out what the framers were thinking regarding available numbers of military, militia and threats to national security.
If the purpose of 2a was to expand individual rights why was the purpose explicitly stated to "being necessary to the security of a free State."
When I read that it screams to me Mother England.
Its alot more plausible than Scalias comma theory. The framers could have left all the commas and qualifying words out and simply state all people have an inherent right to bear arms. But they did not do that.
Further, legend has it Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson noticed a misprint with the commas at the 11th hour, too late to do anything as incorrect versions had already been advanced to the states.
The definition of “militia” has changed numerous times throughout history. No wonder it cannot be agreed upon today.
I’ve never heard of that Thomas Jefferson legend.
Truthfully, in 1812, the government was probably more concerned about having enough people armed than worrying that too many were. They wanted to be able to call on as many armed people as possible to provide defense at a moments notice.
Anyways, for what it’s worth, this has been an enjoyable debate. It’s nice to not get interrupted constantly by the usual one liner catch phrase dumbasses (you know who you are). I better go get some actual work done now, though
I very much agree with "They wanted to be able to call on as many armed people as possible to provide defense at a moments notice" regarding the War of 1812.
Our founders were understandably worried about Europe. Our country was not the military force it is in modern times. It relied on the militia for security. That's the way it was for the US 1790 to 1812.
For Scalia to completely nullify all those words because of commas and ignore the big influences at the time the amendment was written is a significant miscarriage of Justice.
.
Warren Closes In on Biden in New Democratic Poll
While Biden collected 31% of Democratic primary voters in the poll released Tuesday, Warren was closing in on the top spot with 25%. Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, the only other candidate in double digits, came in third with 14% in the poll that was conducted shortly after the Dems' third debate in Houston last week.
Rounding out the top five was South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg with 7% and California Senator Kamala Harris with 5%. And although Buttigieg didn't lose ground, Harris fell back 8 points since a similar NBC/WSJ poll conducted after the first Democratic debate in late June.
Among those polled, about 70% of Democratic primary voters said they are enthusiastic about or comfortable with Warren, compared to about 64% who had similar thoughts about Biden. That's a significant decrease for Biden, however, as he had 73% of likely voters who said they were enthusiastic or comfortable with him in March, according to the poll.
Also, about 62% polled said they were enthusiastic about or comfortable with Sanders, as some 37% said they had some reservations about him or were uncomfortable with him. That uneasiness with Sanders is higher compared to 35% for Biden and 21% for Warren.
The poll also shows that among likely voters' combined first and second choice for president, Warren was at 45% (a 13-point increase since the NBC/WSJ July poll), compared to Biden at 41% and Sanders with 29%. Buttigieg came in fourth with 19%. Meanwhile, Harris came in fifth with 14%, a 14-point decrease since the July poll.
https://fortune.com/2019/09/18/elizabeth-warren-joe-biden-polls/
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©