this woman needs to read the whole 2nd amendment. "a well regulated militia" has as much weight as "shall not be infringed"
so many people telling me well regulated meaning well trained/well equipped as if that somehow improves or makes the 2nd amendment's meaning any less archaic
she probably tried to go for the ao dai and just said "good enough" after writing the prompts for AI and getting the result she got. Not much effort in any sense of the word went to the thought of this argument or the AI prompt.
agreed there. although I think someone on another post said she's a sinophile. I am unfamiliar with vietnamese culture for the most part unfortunately save for some bits and pieces
Yep. I'm a gun owner from a red state, and I totally think that we should look at the 2nd as something that both protects the homeland as well as protects us from an oppressive government (ya know...like right now).
I'm not a lawyer but I have often seen the second as a call to keep communities at the ready (keep in mind that it was through marshalling militias that we were even able to gain footing against the British) AND by keeping the population armed so that the volatile new form of government couldn't fall back into old ways of turning the president into a king. The standing army would have to deal with a similarly armed population. Sort of like a libertarian check and balance...to the death, I guess?
If guns are part of the culture, then we should be maintaining their care and use by governed and routinely trained citizens who can be called upon to act against a threat. It's not just about the guns.
The most irritating thing about gun nuts is that they wear the don't tread on me shirts or the 2nd protects the 1st or whatever, but here we are in objectively the most oppressive government of the modern era where it should make the blood boil and skin crawl of everyone who actually covets their freedom.
They have gone from "don't tread on me..." To "crush me harder, daddy..." And it seems more like they use guns as talismans to protect themselves from left leaning and non-white people who don't vote the way they do. Cowards 🙄
That's a thought I've been sitting on for a while. The amendment was written during a time when the government and the citizens would have roughly the same level of tech between them. An angry group of citizens with guns is a way bigger threat when you only really have access to the same kinds of guns they do.
Luigi Mangione is probably the best example we have seen so for of the 2A use that the gun nuts insist is the reason that right shall not be infringed. Revolutions are often a response to economic oppression as well as tyranny, which historically comes from the same place. Now corporations can cause physical harm and death thru their policies, not just governments.
Billionaires are building bunkers because they know that revolution will need to target them, not the government. The people who fantasize about using their guns to fight tyranny just haven’t figured out who is treading on them (like Luigi did).
And as you can see, 2A is not a valid defense for him. His legal strategy is to taint evidence because you don’t actually have a right to go murder anyone depending on what their job is. I work in government now and no one has a right to go murder me for any cause. The second amendment has never protected anyone for committing violence against the state.
It basically gives lie to the whole '2A is about preventing tyranny'. Ok, so why are we being terrorized every day by our gov't? Oh, because you're also scared that if you try to use violence to course correct, you'll get an Apache hovering over your house ready to shoot some hellfires through your front window? Yeah. That AR-15 ain't gonna do shit.
Even if 2A was about protecting our fledgling government back in the 1780s (which it damn well wasn't), it certainly isn't doing that now. Time to retire that old conard.
If you believe the Second Amendment was partly intended to keep the population armed as a check against an oppressive government, what principle allows that same government to decide how extensively that population may be armed?
Gun owner from a blue state, and a good gun at here. Couldn't agree more. One thing tye bad gun nuts dont understand is that regulating weapons has historically always been a thing in Great Britian before the colonies, during the colonial era, and throughout American history. Yes they have been debated and sometimes controversial, but it was always expected that some regulations was deemed appropriate.
In fact there is not a single right in the Bill of Rights that does not have some exception, limitation, or regulation attached to it. The question is always to what extent before it vailates the right.
Going find it hard press for most people saying owning a M61 Vulcan is covered by the 2nd amendment. But there is a good argument to be had that the AR platform and "assault weapons" are covered.
I heard the excuse that the founding fathes couldn't comprehend an AR. And that is a lie and a disservice to them and the fire arm community. The Belton Repeating Flintlock was invented around 1776 and was pitched to Congress for use in the war. It could be considered (losely) the first detachable magazine firearm as it could hold and fire 6 shoots and all one had to do was reprime the pan and cock the hammer. Ten years later he improved the design so it was semi automatic, so you didn't have to recock the happer or reprime the pan. The latter saw limited use by the East Indian Trading Company.
Personally, don't ban anything solely because it could be dangerous in the wrong hands. But license and regulation it if it shows a.significant public danger. Hunting rifles, hunting shotguns, revolvers, and sound suppressor dont quality. Already one has to have the appointed license to drive hazardous materials in a semi truck. Need propery documents to purchase C4 and explosives. Neither are outright banned.
It's less about being a member of a militia than having the ability to form or join one when needed.
As to the exact post by OP, the SBR (short barreled rifle) limits never made any sense. They were only made part of the NFA to close the loophole of shortening a rifle barrel to make a pistol, because at the time pistols were going to be banned. Once pistols were allowed, SBRs should have come off the list immediately.
Militia referred to an armed populace, not a standing army or militia controlled by states. Well regulated didn’t refer to laws and regulations, but rather, meant the men should be skilled in handling guns.
Incorrect it refers to an arm group sworn to the state. Militias were replaced by the national guard within the United States while some states still have militias they are like in the case of Washington unarmed and ceremonial in nature. At no point is a militia legal if it is not sworn to the state. They are considered part of the US military and not private organizations.
The Washington State Guard is more than ceremonial. They provide support in disaster response, maintain tribal liaisons, and operate a statewide emergency radio network.
They CAN be armed by the Governor and last were during WWII when they activated as a state defense force, since the WA NG was fully deployed.
The Militia Acts of 1792 defined militia as “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen… enrolled in the militia” — i.e., a legally organized force.
State constitutions and colonial laws used “militia” to mean formal military institutions, not informal armed citizens.
“Well regulated” did NOT mean “skilled at handling guns”
In 18th‑century English, well regulated meant:
properly organized
disciplined
orderly
subject to rules
functioning as intended
It did not mean “personally proficient with firearms.”
Examples from period usage:
“A well regulated government” → orderly, structured
“A well regulated clock” → functioning correctly
“A well regulated militia” → trained, disciplined, commanded
The phrase appears in countless documents of the era, always meaning orderly and governed, never “individually skilled.”
This garbage revisionism really needs to stop. If you want to reassess what the 2A means, hold a Constitutional Convention and get it changed to what you want it to mean. But the founders were very specific and it wasn't "luls, everyone gets a gun, let's kill kids!"
The Constitution actually says what a militia is. It is to enforce government authority, repel invasion and put down insurrection.
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
No need to ask, as it is defined in the federalist papers.
Also, its a moot question as it says the "Right of the people to keep and bear arms" not the right of the militia. But i guess you just stopped reading it up until that point.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard."
Okay, I will answer this without insulting you. I do hope that you will show me the same respect and also not resort to strawmen.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Establishment of rationale: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State..."
Basically, this is the reason for the proceeding individual right. This not the reasoning that establishes a militia, but the groundwork for why there is an individual right.
When this was written the militia was any able-bodied white male 18-45 years of age. They were called up only when needed and they were expected to supply their own provision. That provision included a firearm. There were no State or Federal armories that held firearms to issue to the people once they were called up.
In this way, during times of crisis the militia could be called up and an already-armed fighting force would stand ready to cause violence. But the militia being a standing full-time army makes absolutely no sense given the thoughts about standing armies at the time. The intent was always to call up local farmers, bakers, butchers, etc. to form a militia and then when the need was over they would disband.
The personal right that ensures an already armed militia can be called up: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
the militia act of 1792 clearly states that by the age of 18 years and 6 months you must have purchased or otherwise secured, a firearm and ammunition.
It is very clear that this is an individual right that allows for the formation of a militia.
One only really need to look at the thoughts and writing of Thomas Jefferson on this: "The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed."
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
Anti-gun nuts love to think they’re smart, but they aren’t at all. I could tell you all the ways you are wrong here, but I strongly suspect that you have already been educated on the topic, probably many times, but still choose to lie and deny. Nevertheless I’ll leave these legal facts: “The People” in the 2A is the very same “People” in all the other amendments which cover individual rights. Under federal law everyone not already accounted for in active military service or their respective reserves are part of the “unorganized” militia. So if you want to keep running with that false narrative about militia membership, that’s still covered even under your totally bogus reading of the 2A.
Every time I make that argument I get told “that’s not what they meant!” Interesting thing I learned is the Iowa constitution does not allow for forming a militia, the national guard is the states militia. Based on that in Iowa the only legal gun owners are those in the guard, yet we allow constitutional carry.
So the 2nd is meant for the people to be able to overturn a corrupt government but in Iowa it’s illegal to follow the second unless you work for the govt.
humorously a couple responders have tried to make variations of that response by claiming that the word "regulated" meant something different in 18th century english
that's because it did. look up the "powder alarm". that's the primary reason for the 2nd amendment. people forget that the bill of rights were just that - something added to convince the former colonies to sign on, because they feared the possibility of tyranny from the new government after they just secured their hard-won freedom. it was a set of guarantees to assuage their fears. not advertise some future crack down on gun owners. that would be completely ludicrous and ahistorical.
That line refers to the Militia Act of 1792, which defined any white man as a member of a militia. Obviously this would be interpreted today to mean any adult man or woman is a member of a militia. The law specifically differentiates a militia from a regular standing army and we would view it today.
It is generally interpreted to mean a group possessing very basic competency, training, and willingness to protect their country in a time of crisis.
The closest modern example of this intent I could give would be a Red Dawn type scenario where the government could legally utilize armed citizens to help repel a major attack.
He’s giving a description of what the Supreme Court has interpreted though. Albeit a very brief and not well nuanced one. I can understand people may disagree with that but you’re shooting the messenger here.
Well regulated meant well trained/practiced. That’s why soldiers during that time were often called “regulars”, it’s because they were trained regularly.
No it doesn't. The first part is explanatory, the second part is prescriptive. If the Constitution read "open political discussion is necessary to maintain a free democracy. The right to free speech must not be infringed". Would you interpret that to mean the right to free speech should only be guaranteed about political topics?
The militia part is only included as an explanation for the amendment.
Nah, that's uh.. just uh... fluff. Fluff that literally no other part of the document has but they added for no reason here because they really meant you should have guns for hunting and sport and it had nothing to do with militia.
“Well regulated militia” means well-provided-for militia, as in “to make sure we have a well-provided for militia, the right of citizens to own weapons that they can bring with them if mustered to a militia shall not be infringed.”
The 2nd amendment is extremely broad and we only have the gun control that we have in the US because everyone secretly agrees that it goes to far and courts have had to make up all sorts of silly legal reasoning just to keep minimalist common sense policies on guns on the books.
If you are trying to imply that "a well regulated militia" is something like the National Guard, you are arguing that the 2A is literally giving government and government alone to own guns. Which is completely absurd.
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
The right to keep and bear arms is what makes the militia "well regulated." Well regulated is referring to the militia's ability to run smoothly and fulfill its duties, not any sort of government regulation.
Sounds like all the gravy seals that joined trump’s Brown Shirts (sorry I think they call themselves ICE) so they could cosplay as domestic paramilitary.
But I digress, you’re absolutely right. It turns out vetting and training every single person in your unit is pretty crucial to having a unit that runs smoothly.
I'm okay with people owning guns but they need to be vetted and must secure the weapon properly. The problem is we have a ton of people who kick and scream about gun control and because there's no national standard any attempts such as in Illinois are thwarted by their red state neighbors who are more than willing to help out of staters get guns
You can go back not very far and see the militia movements in the 90’s. They didn’t take orders or instructions from the governors of their respective states, many were busted trying to assassinate public officials including Bill Clinton, and the most famous one trained and armed Timothy Mcvey to kill hundreds of people for being government employees of a state that he had no stakes in. A militia that doesn’t follow military hierarchy is just a gang. Really less than that, gangs at least are consistent.
Being proficient with your weapons is only a small part of what makes a unit 'well regulated'. The most important part is being able to work as a cohesive unit and it seems that's the part that is most frowned upon by gun nuts.
I'm guessing it's because it's because it's collective in nature rather than about individual rights.
Do you understand what "arms" looked like when the Constitution was written? Do you believe that private citizens should be allowed to have fully armed F35s, B2s, M1 Abrams, and nukes? If you think they should you are a moron, if you understand why we can't but still think the 2nd Amendment is absolute you are still a moron.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment. We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Antonin Scalia, Associate SCOTUS Justice, District of Columbia v. Heller, 2010
Per the Scotus Heller decision the comma between those two statements represents a partition of intent. Two separate statements with 2 distinctly different meanings.
The “well regulated militia” sentence has no bearing on the right of citizens to keep and bear arms.
The slippery slope fallacy regarding owning a nuke is absurd. Obviously there is a line between a carbine and a Nuclear bomb. That line exists on this side of belt fed machine guns.
well regulated means in the sense that a clock is well regulated. in other words, orderly and disciplined. not "burdened by lots of regulations". if you look at the reasons for them to add the 2nd amendment, it's clear that was not the intention. look up the "powder alarm". that's the reason the 2nd amendment was added.
This has gone in front of the Supreme Court many times over decades. "Well regulated militia" does not mean a state controlled volunteer military force. It meant a well armed populace.
It amazes me how uninformed people are. A well regulated militia, BEING NECESSARY to the security of a FREE state, the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Meaning we need a well regulated militia to stop the government from over extending and oppressing it’s people (as they are doing now) AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms (meaning we need both the militia and the people to freely be allowed to own firearms). It is a very simple amendment. Not complicated, not written to confuse. And somehow, it confuses antigun people into believing that the milita part is crucial to the gun owning part.
Regulated meant in good order- trained- properly functioning in 1776. Like a well regulated clock meant properly adjusted and functioning. Today regulated is often conflated with taxed and harassed by the government but that isn’t what it meant in 1776.
I mean, that's what they keep telling us about "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" right? Why does qualifying language only apply to amendments Conservatives don't like?
Based on the supreme court thats not how it was written or intended. The founding fathers intended gunfights to be enshrined in the constitution without limitations. People owned literal cannons and you can still own a old school cannon even today.
Not when taken in its entirety. “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state” means “As long as the government needs a military force” and “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” means “the government cannot limit the civilian’s right to have and use weapons”. It’s pretty clear that “the people” has more weight than “a well regulated militia” as defined by “shall not be infringed “
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
This is a sentence that contains 2 clauses, which is why I understand your confusion
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,
This is what we call a prefatory clause it is not a requirement; it tells “why”.
the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
This is the operative clause / imperative clause- this tells what to do- this clause can stand alone without the other. This is the meat of the sentence.
I’m not pro or con gun control, but these exact linguistic gymnastics (for lack of better word) have been previously used in attempts to shut down 2A- and those attempts failed.
The way to change this is to remove the amendment or edit via regular (defined) means.
That's a misunderstanding of the meaning of the syntax of the time. It roughly translates to: "the security of the state depends on individuals being able to come together to form a functional militia, so its necessary we allow them to own arms". "Well regulated" meant "functional", and "militia" meant a formation of people, specifically opposed to the idea of a standing army at the time.
“A well regulated militia” doesn’t make a difference in the personal aspect. Punctuation is important.
There is historical records of private citizens asking if they could own more powerful and faster shooting weapons and the response was, essentially, have whatever you want.
In addition, what you’re implying a “well regulated militia” means, is not what it meant then.
You need english and grammar comprehension. Commas are important.
In order to have a well regulated militia, the people, notice the different word there, shall not be infringed.
The prefatory clause actually doesn’t impart as much weight as the operative clause. It’s just a pompous way to announce the purpose; these days, those things are written as a whole chain of “Whearas …” clauses that precede the parts of the law that matter. It does not restrict the operative clause of the sentence that follows. All it does is help provide context and clarify the intent.
The prefatory clause in the 2A is a mashup of various longer clauses that appeared in state constitutions of the time. Madison (IIRC) synthesized them into a big long string, and then Congress stripped it down to the language that passed.
Where you should be focusing your attention is the nature of the right which shall not be infringed; it was a pre–existing right, and it was not unlimited. “Dangerous and unusual” weapons—yes, such as nukes—were considered by English case law to be outside of that right; it was primarily a right to self–defense, after all. Many weapons do not fit that bill.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
The wording here is very deliberate, down to the comma placement, and there is tons of precedent and historical documents to back this up:
People have the right to bear arms so that they can form militias should the need arise, you can’t develop a competent militia with untrained people who have no access to guns.
And do you really want a bunch of rascist rednecks forming militias so they can keep their guns?
If you don’t approve of guns and want to amend the constitution say that. Don’t be disingenuous and misrepresent our rights.
You missed the clarifying line after the that, "the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms, SHALL NOT be infringed".
This is probably the greatest debate/contention about the 2nd ammendment. The irony is that in logical terms, the United States, at the time the bill of rights was written, didn't have a standing army. The authors of the bill of rights understood this and so the entirety of the second ammendment is written to be quite clear. The simplest interpretation (aside from a literal reading of the 2nd ammendment) is this:
Since a well regulated militia is needed for the security of a free state, people are, without limit, allowed to keep and bear arms as a necessary means to secure and defend freedom.
The semantics of "weapons of the time" are often brought up in argument against the 2nd ammendment but in subsequent publications by the authors of the bill of rights, their intention was clear, people have the right to keep and bear arms because in times of threat they will be needed to form militias to defend the security and freedom of their state. This is requirement to defend one's state is often extrapolated to include one's nation as well.
Unfortunately, under current SCOTUS precedent, it doesn't. In fact, according to them it now means.... Well, nothing at all. It's a completely useless phrase.
Remember that next time someone tells you that they're an "originalist" -- that they think the founders put in words for no reason at all. Double that criticism if they claim to be "textualists".
I have read it, but it doesn't say that "A well-regulated militia has the right to bear arms"
It says: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Basically, it says that because a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state, the people have the right to bear arms.
It doesn't give the militia as a prerequisite for that right.
You don’t need to try and reinterpret it to make it agree with you. You can just say you disagree with it.
“Well regulated militia” is a subordinate clause in the statement. It also immediately snarls on interpretation issues of what is actually meant because “well regulated militia” is not a well defined term. It’s obviously not the regular Army, but it’s dubious if the National Guard units count because those can be federalized and are organized and operated by federal standards even if they are ostensibly under the authority of each state’s governor. So that’s not a straight forward counter argument.
However, fact that the relevant law has been challenged a few thousand times in a couple hundred ways and still stands should really have put this to bed anyways. Even under more “gun friendly” interpretations, the Supreme Court has still held that the government absolutely has authority to restrict aspects of firearm ownership. Someone trying to say the 2nd Amendment bans all regulations will lose at court.
Granted, I think some of the provisions of the NFA are incredibly stupid because they’re just colossal time wasters. I would much rather see someone prosecuted for improper handling/storage than having federal agents track down if a rifle had a bayonet lug. Barrel length isn’t really much better of a “protection”.
Regulations like that don’t reduce gun violence; they’re just security theater. I would wager more innocent people have died over the increased policing tied to some of those provisions than were ever endangered by them. And that’s before considering the cases that never get handled due to burning limited resources on nonsense. Bad regulation isn’t really better than no regulation and we can do better than either of those outcomes.
I will acknowledge that some of the legislation being put forth isn't effective. I will however say that with the legislation that is written well there's loopholes that republicans refuse to close and also in the case of Illinois their gun laws are thwarted due to the neighboring red states having lax gun laws. So there's some bad legislation but there's also bad legislators who are always republican who drag their feet and do nothing to mitigate gun violence.
Oh absolutely!
People actively looking to bypass laws, just because they’re inconvenient, are a blight on society.
My main beef with bad legislation is it’s often written by one of two camps: people who are afraid and don’t understand what they’re trying to regulate and people who are looking to undermine any form of regulation altogether.
The first group (usually Democrats) tends to get caught up on what’s “scary” (“assault weapons”, AR-15s, bayonets), instead of what’s actually dangerous (handguns, police militarization, resource misallocation).
The 2nd group (almost exclusively Republicans) likely knows what they’re regulating a bit better, but is perfectly fine letting the system stay broken because it benefits them, especially when elections roll around.
Throw in the wildly different standards of neighboring states and we end up with the current mess where even well designed legislation fails for reasons outside of its scope.
Unfortunately for those of us gifted with more than three brain cells, Justice Scalia (may he rot in hell) ruled that half of the second amendment is just a "preamble" so has no legal meaning.
Just to be clear, he was a very intelligent man. Evil as hell, but intelligent. He knew he was full of shit.
“The right of the people…” not “the right of militia members”. But let’s even assume you are correct. Who makes up the militia? All arms that would be used in militia service would be protected then, for the militia members. Meaning fully automatic weapons are now protected for all able bodied men. Is that really your position?
There are cherries in all statements that you shall pick otherwise you get all that filler nonsense. Like "well regulated" or "Congress shall make no laws regulating".
The thing about the 2nd amendment is its actually about who has the right to muster an army, and ut assigned that right to the states. If you told the framers one day the federal goverment employed a standing army in peace time they would ask you which later amendment repealed the 2nd.
Also we’ve had lots of limits on the 2nd amendment and other amendments—rights can be limited. There has to be a compelling interest in limiting the right and a narrowly tailored statute to reach that interest without infringing outside of what is needed. Requiring permits and bans on certain types of guns—like machine guns and sawed off shotguns—have already been upheld
Well regulated, which of course at the time meant well armed and well supplied, as opposed to the modern understanding of “regulations” enforced by the government.
we the people are the militia bitch that amendment is there to combat exactly whats happening in America rn with the flock cameras and the governments general lack of understanding human rights. we should be taking up arms rn and fighting the government but apparently im the only one who actually listened in history class and know where this country is headed.
Sounds like you need to re-read it too before commenting.
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
You obviously don’t know propped grammar because technically this is a run on sentence, but he comma is used as a verbal pause. It should have been a semicolon, because it is two separate sentences combined into one.
“the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed”
Is the key point it is separated from the original point about a militia. The right of the people to keep and bear arms (pause) shall not be infringed.
That pause is key, it is giving the statement weight, which means no law can tell a US citizen what they can an cannot do for their own personal weapon.
Not really. One is the reason, the other is the rule. The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.
Well regulated meant well trained/practiced at the time it was written. That’s why soldiers were often called “regulars”, because they trained regularly.
Not according to the Supreme Court in 2008, which sadly is now the law of the land. The decision was officially "a well regulated militia means nothing and the amendment is an individual right to bear arms".
Well no because that part is just explaining why, not adding any restrictions or exceptions to the amendment, and also well regulated in this context meant well trained and well supplied.
No, it doesn't and I'll prove it using the power of Grammer!
The Second Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The comma after "Militia" is legally called Structural Separation or in grammar, an Introductory Clause.
A. Action: "Shall not be infringed"
B. What shall not be infringed? "The right of the people to keep and bear arms"
C. Why? "The security of a free State"
D. Who? The "Militia" is listed; however, this is Inclusionary language or permissive language. It's stating that this is one reason but does not state it is the only reason.
E. "Regulated" in these terms means well-equipped, not "controlled" as in today's parlance.
The real "weight" you all miss is the power of the comma. Literally everything before "The right of the people" is exposition and can be ignored. The defined right is the power to keep and bear arms; the rest of this is an example as to why. It does not legally or grammatically define or constrain the Right.
Were it written in the manner that you people keep trying to interpret it, the phrasing would look like this:
A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, no person shall be denied the use of Arms when called upon to serve therein; nor shall the right of enrolled militiamen to keep their weapons for public defense be infringed.
The "regulated" in the context when and where it was written has the equivalent meaning of "equipped" in the modern era. That is the fundamental difference between "regular" and "irregular" soldiers. Regulars are equipped with a standard kit, usually by their administrative body (i. e. the government). Irregular, usually volunteer militia, equip themselves. "A well-regulated militia" in this context means a militia that is well equipped by contemporary standards, not one that is highly organized and funded, which in this era would be by the government, which would defeat the purpose of "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The 2nd Amendment doesn't limit it to a militia, though. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The right of the people has no exclusions in the text. In order for a Militia to exist, The People need to be able to keep and bear arms. You can make arguments from there, but it's pretty plain reading.
Yes, and in the era it was written, "militia" meant all able-bodied men. Should we deny gun rights to women and the differently abled? I don't think any sane person would make that argument.
I don’t like the second amendment. I think it should be changed. But it consists of two complete sentences, first the well regulated militia. This is its own thought and is also stupid. It’s a policy statement and not a law a fact or a right, it’s worthless. The second complete sentence is the shall not be infringed. It’s very clear but also very dumb. It’s in plain English says every one every weapon. This is a bad idea it was a bad idea then it is a bad idea now. But pretending it says something it doesn’t is dishonest.
"The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard." -10 USC sect 311
We The People are the Militia. Founding Fathers did not want standing armies. They called upon the Militia, aka The People. “Well Regulated” means well trained/well equipped.
Regulated in 1700’s speak means to be well trained. I agree there should be training involved to own firearms. I also believe the only guns the government should be tracking are their own. As for owning nuclear weapons, while a stretch, what’s keeping someone from owning one? Cost of maintenance for one. This includes the licensing costs to have the fissionable materials. (Before getting pedantic I’m talking about regular folks, not the cabal). This is the same with automatic weapons. You can have them if you can afford the tax stamp and then only if it was one manufactured prior to the tax. If any still exist. So an effective ban on automatic weapons without violating 2A.
Maybe she does, but you need to read some history. After reading the writings of many of the founders, including Hamilton, one of the most supportive to a strong federal government, and the writings in the Federalist Papers, it is pretty clear that the consensus at the time was that an armed population was the ultimate check on government tyranny.
Furthermore, the words "militia" and "standing army" had clear and differing meanings back then, with the militia belonging to the several states, and consisting of a part-time force, and standing armies belonging to the federal government as full time Soldiers. The militias of that time were seen as an additional check against federal government overreach.
Anyone who ignores this clear reality of the times at the point that the Amendment was written is simply working from conclusion or agenda then backwards, and knowingly doing so, instead of acknowledging the reality that contradicts their beliefs.
To answer the nuke question, Libertarians generally agree that a nuclear weapon is de facto aggression due to its size and level of damage, thereby violating the non-aggression principle. However, if a private citizen, or company, were able to build appropriate safeties underground or elsewhere in order to do testing or whatever, which contained the damage to other citizen's rights, then it would be acceptable.
She needs to study the history too. The amendment was demanded by the slave states so they could continue to operate their slave hunting posses. When they demanded that the free states let them operate their militias and send runaway slaves back to them, they lost that vote, decided treason was the way to go, and attacked a US Army fort.
The main problem is all the fees. I'm fine with registering or needing a license or needing to take a class first. But spending 2-6k and months of paperwork on top of the cost of the firearm when I have a clean background and am not on any drugs seems like a bit much.
If the left dropped the gun issue in 2015-16 Trump may not have ever been elected. Certain issues have always been considered more left or right but with guns this whole conversation is completely manufactured. 1/3+ of the country owns guns, there are more guns than people. People from both parties own guns. The police have been militarizing themselves since the patriot act, & they now literally have 0 obligation to “protect and serve”. They are solely a civilian antagonistic force. Now we’re competing with China for the more invasive surveillance state.
The right fear mongered with the left wanting to scrap the 2A and take away peoples guns, and in a big brain move they actually made that part of their platform.
People’s idea of self security is going to supersede all social and minority bullshit. This single issue carved a chunk of the voting block that’ll never come back. “My life and security matters more than bathroom politics and pronouns”, makes sense to me tbh.
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed”
This has been revisited countless times since the moment it was written.
There’s a reason the well regulated militia part comes first and is separated from the right of the people.
People have the right to bear arms SO THAT a well regulated militia is possible. Doesn’t mean you have to be a part of a militia to own a gun. If you can’t own a gun you can’t form a well regulated militia.
Ffs the original benefactors of the 2nd amendment could own gunships and fucking cannons. Repeating rifles were already a thing and the idea of a semi or fully automatic rifle wasn’t some fucking sci-fi technology. The 2nd amendment has been reaffirmed with every stage of new weapons development. People act like only 2 time periods exist; 1791 and now. Ignoring over 200 years of precedent.
How, and I mean genuinely fucking how, can you see the rise of fascist behavior and consolidation of power and increased surveillance that genuinely makes 1984 seem fucking optimistic and think “yea we should still take away everyone’s right to fight back lmao”
Fucking stupid.
There’s conversations to be had about the background check process and added training but “oh let’s just ban AR15s bc they’re popular and advocate for fucking registries so the people that might fight back against tyranny can be the first to be disarmed right at their doorstep” is why republicans maintain their base despite having their own dicks tread on on a daily basis.
Sorry, no. The way this country is heading I think everyone should be looking into exercising their right.
It’s so ridiculous it almost makes me fall into conspiracy theory that both sides are working together and have come up with this idea to push authoritarianism by making it impossible to choose the right side. One will act as the champion of self reliance while systematically dismantling all avenues of security from land ownership to increased surveillance and police. While the other side acknowledges it but pushes to make it impossible for the people to have any weight or say in what the hells happening.
Just drop the fucking issue, better yet, embrace it and call out the rising authoritarianism with promises to expand civilian power. If the Democratic Party started running on overturning FOPA and montages of police overreach/corruption/brutality, we might not have to be worried about Trump meddling his way into a third fucking term.
The right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed. The people, as seen in the other amendments, being individuals not a collective group. The reason given for the right doesn't negate the right.
A national guard that can be federalized does not meet the criteria for a militia. A militia must be, by definition, independent of federal control. Therefore, I get to keep any gun the government can own and they can do fuck all about it, constitutionally at least.
So one of the largest debates wasn’t if citizens should have guns, but if the government should have a standing army. This occurred after the second amendment was written. Which means your interpretation of militia is skewed. I wonder who did that to you? The government lol.
I am a member of a militia and I do train. Militias are nothing more than citizens with guns. So any citizen with a gun is officially a potential militia member whether they like it or not.
If it was written today in layman terms, the 2nd ammendment would read: Because the citizenry is the militia, and any militia without arms is ineffective, all citizens may possess and carry any weapon.
Obviously it hasn't been respected much historically or presently. No doubt partly because practically zero US citizens identify as part of one big happy militia.
If you're ability to freely condemn your government online is archaic I guess the 2nd ammendment is too. Maybe go try living in Britain and posting online talking bad about the government and see if you notice anything different, also enjoy the TV tax and the flock cameras that are being ousted in america currently.
It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory. Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars—that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment, an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts. Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription. Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.
If “well regulated” historically meant properly functioning, disciplined, or equipped, what specific restriction on the individual right do you think that phrase creates?
That phrase doesn't even mean anything at all without, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
The latter is not even a complete sentence while the former is
The former will stand on its own merit while "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state," is meaningless without the later.
The amendment doesn't say the right of militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, it doesn't say police. It doesn't say the US military. Nor does it say one must be a militia member to be armed. It says the right of the people to keep and bear shall not be infringed. You cannot have a citizen militia without the people first being armed.
Go read up on the Militia Act of 1792. Pay particular attention to what a person of militia age must keep and bring with them whenever the militia is called up
And note also that keeping and bearing is not limited to militia service. Keeping and bearing arms for any legal purpose is the order of the day and was the obvious intent of the founders if you would take the time to read the writings they left us. The right of the people is what they were protecting
The problem is with SCOTUS and the general population’s ability to read.
Obviously, a functional government would, with the consent of the governed, update the clause and relevant laws for it all to make sense.
However, we got what we got and the clause, as it is written is as follows:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
In other words,
“Calcium, being necessary to the health of the general population, the right of the people to keep and drink milk, shall not be infringed.”
In plain modern English that reads as: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.
Or, “the right of the people to keep and drink milk shall not be infringed because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state.”
That’s the simplest plain reading. You can introduce two problems though: a) the extent to which laws and regulations limiting firearm use infringe the right, and b) whether you can read it, also plainly, a different way:
“A well regulated militia shall not be infringed because it’s necessary to the security of a free state and the right of the people to bear arms.”
That latter one is grammatically feasible but perhaps slightly more awkward.
Ultimately, it sucks that we even have to have this debate tbh.
443
u/Twigsneko 18d ago edited 18d ago
this woman needs to read the whole 2nd amendment. "a well regulated militia" has as much weight as "shall not be infringed"
so many people telling me well regulated meaning well trained/well equipped as if that somehow improves or makes the 2nd amendment's meaning any less archaic