The Democratic Candidates

mickeyrat

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.

Lerxst1992

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

cincybearcat

mickeyrat 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 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?

mickeyrat

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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....

PJPOWER

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

I think a lot of the issue is that the term “militia” has been changed so many times that either could make a case as to “the true meaning”.  I’ll leave that responsibility to the Supreme Court to decide.  
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99
-Yet another article.  There are soooooooo many.

mrussel1

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

I think a lot of the issue is that the term “militia” has been changed so many times that either could make a case as to “the true meaning”.  I’ll leave that responsibility to the Supreme Court to decide.  
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99
-Yet another article.  There are soooooooo many.

PJPOWER

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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!

PJPOWER

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.

I think a lot of the issue is that the term “militia” has been changed so many times that either could make a case as to “the true meaning”.  I’ll leave that responsibility to the Supreme Court to decide.  
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/amendment-ii/interps/99
-Yet another article.  There are soooooooo many.

Exactly, lol

Lerxst1992

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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.

PJPOWER

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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”...

mrussel1

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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.  

mrussel1

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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.  

PJPOWER

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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.  

Edit: 5th, not 15th

mrussel1

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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.  

PJPOWER

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

mrussel1 said:

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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.  

I don’t know why I typed 15th...5th (on the subject of due process and using a registration to confiscate ) is more like it, lol
https://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/privacy-and-property-rights/

mickeyrat

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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”...

limit the federal government.....

ikiT

impeach the prep school puke

Lerxst1992

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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?

Lerxst1992

^ The War of 1812 should have taught Scalia alot more about the Second Amendment than his preposterous "two comma" theory in Heller.

I'll cite  this from its Wikipedia -

• U.S. Army:
  • 7,000 (at war's start)
  • 35,800 (at war's end)
  • Rangers: 3,049
• Militia: 458,463

PJPOWER

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

Lerxst1992 said:

PJPOWER said:

mickeyrat said:

Lerxst1992 said:

mickeyrat 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.

 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

1. 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.