@suzianne saidThe National Guard is a government entity. Militias back then were not the government.
"Well-regulated Militia -- see National Guard"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)
"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."
It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does NOT say "unless you are not in a militia".
26 May 22
@Metal-Brain
(a) No it doesn't say anything about government tyranny in the 2nd Amendment.
(b) Refer to my post above re what the Framers considered to be a Militia (certainly not any "anti-government" entity).
@vistesd2 saidSee my post edit addition above.
@Metal-Brain
(a) No it doesn't say anything about government tyranny in the 2nd Amendment.
(b) Refer to my post above re what the Framers considered to be a Militia (certainly not any "anti-government" entity).
"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."
It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does NOT say "unless you are not in a militia".
@Metal-Brain
It is a statement of reason and intent. If that intent is not served by unrestricted gun ownership, then unrestricted gun ownership is not Constitutionally protected (in my lay-person’s opinion).*
BTW, I have “borne arms” since a young man (to this day). But I do not think that my right to lawfully bear arms is (or ought to be) unlimited.
___________________________________
* If you want to argue that you have a right to bear whatever arms as a moral -- as opposed to Constitutional -- right, that's another discussion. I'd certainly question the "source" of such a putative moral right.
26 May 22
@metal-brain saidIt also doesn't say "unless you are a duck", so clearly, we need to arm the ducks.
The National Guard is a government entity. Militias back then were not the government.
"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."
It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does NOT say "unless you are not in a militia".
But the concept of the militias, especially in the concept of calling out the militia to help with natural disasters, has evolved into what we have today, performing a similar role -- the National Guard.
26 May 22
1 edit
@metal-brain saidThe only ones consistently attacking the Constitution, seeking to change it into something they can swallow, are the Republicans.
We have laws that allow that right to be taken away. Convicted felons cannot own firearms legally, even if their crime was non violent and didn't involve a firearm at all. We also have another stupid law in Michigan. If you get convicted of possession of an illegal drug you lose your right to drive an automobile for several months, even if you were not driving when busted ...[text shortened]... entless attack all of the time. As GW Bush once said, the constitution is just a G D piece of paper.
This is what the Article V movement is about.
26 May 22
@vistesd2 saidDoes the constitution say anything about registering such well regulated militias with the government? No.
@Metal-Brain
It is a statement of reason and intent. If that intent is not served by unrestricted gun ownership, then unrestricted gun ownership is not Constitutionally protected (in my lay-person’s opinion).
BTW, I have “borne arms” since a young man (to this day). But I do not think that my right to lawfully bear arms is (or ought to be) unlimited.
How can you prove I am not in a militia? Militias do not need to register with the government. If you are going to open up the can of worms with "intent" the 2nd amendment was intended to fight government tyranny.
26 May 22
@metal-brain saidStop spamming the thread.
See my post edit addition above.
"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."
It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does NOT say "unless you are not in a militia".
We heard you the first time.
Stupid then, stupid now.
@suzianne saidIf you don't like the 2nd amendment, change it.
The only ones consistently attacking the Constitution, seeking to change it into something they can swallow, are the Republicans.
This is what the Article V movement is about.
Oh, that is right. Democrats don't do that.
"The Second Amendment needs some changing, because Americans don't agree with it and we've had it," Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa
😛
@metal-brain saidIt implies, because there is no “and” that the armed people are part of said well regulated militia.
See my post edit addition above.
"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."
It says "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
It does NOT say "unless you are not in a militia".
Ergo, not in that well regulated militia, no right to bear arms.
26 May 22
@metal-brain saidThat was great when muskets were the high tech weapons of the time.
Does the constitution say anything about registering such well regulated militias with the government? No.
How can you prove I am not in a militia? Militias do not need to register with the government. If you are going to open up the can of worms with "intent" the 2nd amendment was intended to fight government tyranny.
Let's see your rifles up against bazookas, RPGs, and tanks.
PS, the National Guard has those too, and serves at the pleasure of state governors.
The National Guard is the ONLY "well-regulated militia".
26 May 22
@Metal-Brain
"...the 2nd amendment was intended to fight government tyranny."
Can you offer some evidence of that? Given that all the other (and preceding) mentions of "Militia" in the Constitution refer to Militias to defend the government?
26 May 22
@metal-brain saidWe couldn't even pass the ERA.
If you don't like the 2nd amendment, change it.
Oh, that is right. Democrats don't do that.
"The Second Amendment needs some changing, because Americans don't agree with it and we've had it," Rep. Mike Doyle, D-Pa
😛
An amendment repealing the second amendment has the same chance as a snowball in Phoenix.