Billy the Great Khan
Uwaa OmO
You said registration didn't lead to confiscation. In CA registered guns were confiscated/ That is the polar opposite of your claim.
But writing regulations establishing the organization and training of the militia can not ever make the militia actually be -well regulated-.
Well regulated as used to describe troops or military operations has a narrow meaning and it only pertains to the battle readiness condition, deportment and skill of the corps in question. That meaning is, properly functioning and in operational order and condition. The term 'well regulated' is really an accolade given to troops that demonstrate highly refined skills in military arts and readiness . . .
Read the Federalist No29 for contextual use, telling us that while having a "well regulated militia" is certainly a maxim of this republic, actually demanding (obliging) the entire mass of the citizenry to undergo the training and practice needed to attain that "degree of perfection" would be impossible:
- "The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss."
Interestingly, "well regulated" has a direct antonym that has just chugged along for centuries completely immune from the political agenda driven redefining suffered by ''well regulated''. The uncontested definition of this antonym places it as a descriptor of substandard military readiness and order and this definition has remained unchanged for 300+ years . . .
- "For this reason I shall examine, by what has passed of late years in these nations, whether experience have convinced us, that officers bred in foreign wars, be so far preferable to others who have been under no other discipline than that of an ordinary and ill-regulated militia..." -- Andrew Fletcher, A DISCOURSE OF GOVERNMENT With relation to MILITIA'S, 1698
. . . and is still used in modern times:
- "Acute viral hepatitis and cholera were the two major diseases that Russian medical personnel had to contend with. Both are endemic to squalid living conditions and confined living space found in ill-regulated field camps and deployment areas." -- Viral Hepatitis and the Russian War in Chechnya, Foreign Military Studies Office, United States Army Medical Journal, May/June 1997
Because the proposed amendments came from the states and the states lumped themes with similar objects (intents) together in their bills of rights. Most of the states had a provision that had the intent of binding government in the area of military affairs in multiple ways, these provisions were three pronged. a) The citizens retained a right to bear arms, b) standing armies in time of peace were not to be maintained and c), the military should always be subordinate to the civil authority.
None of these directives were deemed interdependent and in fact, the standing army provision is merely a declaration of inactive principle since the states would be forbidden to keep troops and a state constitutional provision would carry no weight against the federal government. Here are some example state provisions in force then:
1776 North Carolina: That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State; and as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by the civil power. . . .
1777 Vermont: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State—andas standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to and governed by the civil power.
1780 Massachusetts: The people have a right to keep and to bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in an exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it.
1790 Pennsylvania: That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination, to, and governed by, the civil power.
Again, the framers were very accustomed to inactive declarations of principle in constitutional provisions; nobody believed these provisions really forbade the forming and maintaining of a standing army; these were state constitutional provisions with zero effect beyond the state line. They were merely stating an ideal . . .
The declaration, "[a] well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is inextricably meshed (philosophically) with, "as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up." To the framers each represented the same sentiment . . .
The declaratory clause only re-affirms what once was a universally understood and accepted maxim; that the armed citizenry dispenses with the need for a standing army (in times of peace) and those armed citizens stand as a barrier to foreign invasion and domestic tyranny (thus ensuring the free state). So without a doubt the inactive, dependent declaratory clause is only a statement of why the AMENDMENT exists and as such it does not create, qualify, condition, modify or constrain the pre-existing right, it only tells us why the fully retained right is being forever shielded from government interference.
It was clear in the beginning and thereafter for a long time. What happened is the 1st and 3rd Circuits went off the rails ignoring the clear determinations demanded by SCOTUS in Miller and birthed the bastard "state's right" and "militia right" perverted interpretations of the 2nd Amendment in 1942.
Heller only invalidated Tot and Cases and their illegitimate progeny in the lower federal courts and state courts. Heller did not disturb any Supreme Court precedent because SCOTUS has NEVER embraced the "state's right" and/or "militia right" idiocy.
The wording of the Amendment is immaterial to the existence or scope of the citizen's right to arms.
The principle that the right exists and is possessed by the citizen without any reference to the words of the Amendment was quite well settled by SCOTUS long ago (Scalia's completely unnecessary and dangerous textual analysis in Heller notwithstanding).
The 2nd's only "action", like the other provisions of the Bill of Rights that secures an inherent, pre-existing right of the citizen, is to redundantly forbid the federal government from exercising powers it was never granted.
Since the right was fully retained by the citizen and thus does not flow from the Amendment, it is illegitimate to give the words, upon which the right does not depend, conditional, qualifying or outwardly restraining qualities no matter what one believes modern reconstruction of the phrases or redefinition of the words now demands.
Good Luck
New member
LOL You are truly a typical brain dead liberal pustule. "Voluntary"? Your type wouldn't know truth if it bit you. Since when is "turn in your 'assault' rifles or go to jail" a "voluntary" response by the people?
FACT is that those firearms which were required to be registered were subsequently confiscated. They were turned in under threat, and the citizens were not compensated for the state taking possession fo their personal property. That is pretty much the definition of confiscation, you mindless twit.
Now, what guarantee can you show that registration will NOT result in confiscation? Do you have some historical precedent you can show? No, it seems historical precedents are all against your "don't worry, it can't happen here" bullshit.
Remember post Katrina, when law enforcement and stupid soldiers were sent out to confiscate firearms? How do you think they knew where those firearms were? Because they were REGISTERED you ignorant pustule. Or are you going to claim that when the officers and/or soldiers showed up on people's doorsteps, the people "voluntarily" surrendered their firearms?
Good Luck
New member
Outstanding!
When will these big mommy government libral twits realize that the central intent of the BOR was to forever prevent government from interfering with rights which are inherent (ie: inalienable) to the human condition. Rights perceived that no man, nor government has the just authority to remove. From speech to press to religion, to being secure from unreasonable searches, to being safe from having to quarter soldiers, to the right to keep and bear arms, the amendments do NOT grant our rights, but rather PROTECT those rights from government incursion.
The BOR was written to state definitively that THESE ARE OUR RIGHTS, and no bunch of tyrants, nor even ignorant whiny jackasses who never got over being weaned from mommy's teats, have the authority to usurp our rights.
Rationalist
Hail Voltaire
I'm tired of this liberal bullshit about the 2nd amendment not protecting individual rights.
Come on, libs. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, work for its repeal. Lying about it won't get you anywhere.
Come on, libs. If you don't like the 2nd amendment, work for its repeal. Lying about it won't get you anywhere.
DamnYankee
Loyal to the end
What's your point?
SmarterthanYou
rebel
zappa, please do not be this obtuse. cali residents were required by law to register certain weapons. a short period of time after that, another law was passed banning those weapons and those weapons that were registered were confiscated. How are you led to believe then, that registration does not lead to confiscation?
Bfgrn
New member
Maybe their surname is Militia? Not to be confused with what we hear from the gun clingers...minutia
SmarterthanYou
rebel
"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
W
WinterBorn
Guest
The 2nd Amendment speaks of the right of the people. We "gun clingers" value our rights and freedoms.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
“Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped.” — Alexander Hamilton, fatally shot on July 11, 1804.
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Are you saying the right of all American citizens to keep and bear arms does not derive from the second amendment?
christiefan915
Catalyst
Why don't you admit the only response you can muster up is argumentum ad nauseam, and be done with it?
Schadenfreude
patriot and widower
that is the right to keep and bear arms
Bfgrn
New member
Well, at least we are making progress. You admit to who and what you are...LOL
Correct.
The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers the people possess and lent to government. All not conferred is retained by the people and that includes the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, free of any conditioning or qualification. No power was ever granted to government to impact the personal arms of the private citizen so none exists -- the people retained all aspects of the right to arms . . . There was nothing for the government to "give back" or grant to the citizen via the 2nd Amendment because the government can not give what it never had.
The Supreme Court has affirmed this principle multiple times over the last 135 years for the citizen's right to keep and bear arms. Presser is typical:
"[T]he right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence"
PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U. S. 252 (1886)
PRESSER V. ILLINOIS, 116 U. S. 252 (1886)
G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Does this mean that all those paeans of praise to the second amendment I've seen for years are completely misplaced?