Thread replies: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Come on, smart anons. I want to learn something. Poke a hole in my argument.
The Second Amendment (Hereafter simply "2A") 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."
"Well Regulated", as a phrase, meant at the time something more like "properly self-functioning" than "ordained in legislature." Per http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm, " Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected." Further, http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm presents an excellent, in-depth discussion on the phrase.
Gun Control is not only counter-intuitive to creating a well-regulated militia, by the above definition, but is a clear form of infringement on the ABILITY of the people to keep and bear arms. Regardless of whether or not the RIGHT to bear such arms is extended to individual citizens ("the people") or only those involved in a state- or federal-government-sanctioned Militia (which is unlikely, I think), the very concept of these laws is a limiting factor in the goal of keeping and bearing arms. This is by definition; Gun Control is meant to decrease a set group or groups' ability to buy, keep, and bear firearms.
The Militia Act of 1792 and related legislation carry the definition of Unorganized Militia to modern law. The most recent Act I've encountered in my short research would be the National Defense Act of 1920, which reinforced (as opposed to repealing) the definition of an Unorganized Militia indicating that all male citizens of the prescribed ages (18 to 45) are members of the unorganized militia as a federally-recognized concept and are, thereby, undeniably protected by the 2nd Amendment's definition.
Conclusion. Whether 2A applies to Militias or to Individuals, IE "The People," is irrelevant for Male Citizens. Their rights cannot legally be infringed in the form of Gun Control legislation without disregarding 2A.
>>
>Regardless of whether or not the RIGHT to bear such arms is extended to individual citizens ("the people") or only those involved in a state- or federal-government-sanctioned Militia (which is unlikely, I think), the very concept of these laws is a limiting factor in the goal of keeping and bearing arms. This is by definition; Gun Control is meant to decrease a set group or groups' ability to buy, keep, and bear firearms.
Can you elaborate on this? I don't understand why you think it doesn't matter if the right to keep and bear arms is extended to individual citizens or not. The right is extended to individual citizens, but hypothetically if it wasn't why do you think we would still have the right to bear arms?
>>
>>130904547
To be clear, I think it matters quite a lot that the aforementioned right be extended to all citizens with a clean criminal history.
In that section, I'm attempting to say that regardless of how gun control laws are applied, the basic concept behind them is exertion of control to limit keeping and bearing of arms. However, while there's an ongoing argument as to whether or not that clashes with 2A under the assumption that every American citizen is only that, a citizen; that argument is based on us being defined as "The People," not as some variety of "Well-Regulated Militia." The moment that the People of the USA are legally considered to be part of a Militia is the moment that any Gun Control law must fight against the intention and meaning of the words of the Founding Fathers in order to be lawful. That is not a fight that many laws win.
I then continue to say that whether 2A applies to The People or to Militias is irrelevant for those defined by the discussed acts as Militia members; If 2A applies to the people, then they cannot be impeded from owning weapons; if 2A Applies to Militias only, then they cannot be impeded from owning weapons.
Does that answer your question? Apologies, it's late a night where I am, and sleep is calling my name quite loudly...
>>
People should stop even quoting the first draft of the amendment, which has ambiguous and incorrect punctuation, with which regressives have been playing word-games ever since.
The version authenticated by Jefferson and ratified by the states is:
>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.
Much clearer.
>>
>A well regulated education system, being necessary to the economic vitality of the nation, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.
What's that amendment talking about?
>>
>>130903802
"Well regulated" just means "stopped from forming mafias".
>>
File: 1497680661393.jpg (595KB, 1000x1133px) Image search:
[Google]
595KB, 1000x1133px
>>130906920
>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.
Actually, it says
>A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep Bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Thread posts: 7
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2