>"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
What did they mean by this?
"a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
Julian Brown
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtu.be
archive.4plebs.org
archive.4plebs.org
archive.4plebs.org
archive.4plebs.org
youtube.com
teachinghistory.org
en.wikipedia.org
thefreedictionary.com
twitter.com
Brayden Moore
>the right of the people
What did they mean by that?
Owen Roberts
Shall not be infringed.
¿QUE?
Austin Gutierrez
Means you need a militia (the people) to be in proper working order so you can defend a free country.
Also, the rest is pretty fucking relevant.
Jaxon Cooper
They meant that in order to ensure the states are secure they need well equipped militias
Mason Barnes
>militia
over the age of 18
>well regulated
can do its job (resisting tyranny)
there you go reddit
Austin Lee
>A tasty sandwich being necessary to a delicious lunch, the right of the people to keep and eat turkey breat shall not be infringed
What did they mean by this????
Jordan Bell
youtube.com
That in order for the republic to be safeguarded from threats both foreign and domestic by a militia, that in order for the militia to function properly, access to firearms must be unimpeded for citizens as is their birthright.
Joseph Hughes
Who is regulating it to make sure it's doing it's job, and how is it being regulated?
Mason Gomez
you are using a modern meaning of the word, it has nothing to do with regulations in that sense.
Dylan Long
>a well regulated militia
Back in the day, "well regulated" meant well supplied. In order for the militia to have what it needs, it needs to have access to weapons. The militia is comprised of the people. It's not a paramilitary wing of the government. It's not beholden to the government.
Isaiah Reyes
You've misquoted,
"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."
They say a militia is needed to ensure the place is free, then make a separate point saying that can only be done if people have access to firearms, hence the comma.
Hudson Watson
SHALL
Logan Russell
The militia was intended by the Founders of America to suppress rebellions and repel invasions, not to fight a central government. They opposed standing armies---the virtues of the largest representative in history of which, the modern United States army, neo-conservatives exalt to the heavens, even as they pretend to be ardent lovers of their Founders.
As observed in another thread, to save the trouble of repetition: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is a clear condition.
In other words,
"We will guarantee this right insofar as it effects the security of a free state, because a militia is necessary to that."
Or again,
1) "Our goal in making this amendment is to effect the security of a free state."
2) "A well-regulated militia is necessary in order to secure that freedom."
3) "Therefore and only therefore the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
If the ownership of certain weapons in private hands violates that security then the condition would appear to make the right to own it in a Lockean state of nature null and void.
Even Scalia admits there are limits of some sort. He says, "I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided."
Why do Yanks arbitrarily draw the line at such a dangerous level of weaponry as if it were gospel, then shout to the heavens "shall not be infringed"? How can it be necessary for the security of a free state for a private citizen to own a machine gun, for example?
Kevin Jones
Certain unalienable rights given by God not the government.
Matthew Jackson
You are completely wrong. The statement "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" is not a condition for the right, it is an expression of intention in guaranteeing the right.
The Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the orthodox literalist interpretation of this claus numerous times, saying that an individual citizen has a right to firearms regardless of whether he is in a militia or not.
They go on to say that even if this were the case, all fighting age males are by definition part of the reserve militia of the United States, and the 14th Amendment extends this status to everyone.
This is what the law is. Most gun laws we already have are unconstitutional, and any further ones would require a constitutional amendment to repeal or alter the Second Amendment.
Jason King
>then make a separate point saying that can only be done if people have access to firearms
Which people? What firearms? Observe the condition closely. All the other parts of the Constitution contain a prefatory statement, then a definition of that statement. Here alone we have no definition of the right---instead it hinges on a condition---"effecting what is necessary to the security of a free state." Whatever is not encompassed in that therefore is not allowed by the right given in the main clause.
If I make a law that says,
"A person breaking into another person's house without permission, that man will be considered an intruder, and severely punished,"
I can only consider the person an intruder if he fulfils the condition contained in the absolute clause. It is exactly the same here. Whatever is not encompassed in "what is necessary to the security of a free state" and the means by which it is to be effected, a "well-regulated militia," does not fulfil the condition and so is not included under the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" that shall not be infringed.
Noah Sanders
It does not inherently matter to me what the Supreme Court says, the opinions of whose members have to be considered as carefully as those of any Theologian partisan for his creed. They are not the be-all and end-all. They blunder, and especially where their political creed is involved. They are chosen for the purpose of being party tools. They were not right in the case of Dred Scott and they are not necessarily right now. Interpretations can change with time. I simply want to get at the meaning of the original language.
David Clark
Every thread
youtu.be
Evan Ward
>instead it hinges on a condition
That's purely of your own speculation, probably why you aren't on the Supreme Court.
Colton Richardson
Why are you in every thread spouting your pseudointellectualism. Write more essays, britcuck
Caleb Turner
If you are interested in the original language and meaning, you should know the other writings of the Founders clearly express the thoughts of the Founders on firearm ownership, and the sheer fact that historical precedent has allowed citizens to own firearms for over two hundred years should be more then enough to disprove your position.
Ultimately of course this is a meaningless discussion because gun control in America is never happening. There are more firearms in the United States then people who collectively own more then a trillion rounds of ammunition. There are millions of people here who are just waiting for an excuse to overthrow the government, many of whom view firearm confiscation as the line in the sand. The military is generally speaking a conservative institution and every time an attack like the one in Las Vegas occurs the citizens respond by buying more firearms in case the government is ever so stupid as to attempt confiscation.
In short, in terms of both what the law actually means and says, and the simple realpolitik facts on the ground, gun control is never happening.
Ever.
Joseph Baker
Its called a justifying clause. Learn to speak English.
Carson Sullivan
the meaning of the original document is plain as day to anyone who isn't an idiot. these were literate men, that means they know exactly what they are saying.
if they meant what you say they mean, they would have said "as" or "as long as"
what they mean is that "because of X, you have the right to bear arms" if they said that because of Y you have the right to bear arms the fact that the reason changed has no bearing at all on the right.
Cameron Watson
WAR IS UNAVOIDABLE, READ THESE THREADS:
archive.4plebs.org
archive.4plebs.org
archive.4plebs.org
archive.4plebs.org
WAR IS UNAVOIDABLE, START PREPPING NOW.
Camden Gutierrez
That's not a well balanced breakfast.
Oliver Rodriguez
>In other words,
>"We will guarantee this right insofar as it effects the security of a free state, because a militia is necessary to that."
Funny how you think you can put words in the founding father's mouths
Jaxson James
you're a modern interpretationist, thats okay. But originalists still dominate the scotus.
Carter Allen
If my cock was a gun, it'd be that one.
Angel Howard
Regulated, as in, regular. As in the 1st Virginia Regulars. Or similar units/militias etc that followed common combat doctrine and could be easily absorbed or integrated with other 'regular' elements to create a larger, organized element.
Elements that did not follow common doctrine or common military tactics were known as 'Irregulars'.
This is what was meant in the late 18th century about a 'regulated' militia.
Nolan Gray
...
Colton Thomas
>Militia=able bodied adult citizens not already in the military
>Well regulated=their equipment (guns) are properly maintained
Wyatt Murphy
regulated back then meant practiced. So a well armed and well practiced militia...that's a common sense gun law. If you are going to own a gun, practice often using it so you dont accidently shoot your toes.
Asher Diaz
The Founders of the country wanted to have local militias to suppress rebellions and not have a standing army. So Americans are already going against their intentions in the utmost degree, with their enormous army and their military bases. They did not see it as dangerous for private citizens to own muskets---as violating the security of a free State---but how is that any argument for what they would think of machine guns and other modern weaponry? There we have to analyze the conditional clause, and the obvious meaning and grammar of the passage; which says, the right is guaranteed upon the condition that it serve "the security of a free state."
Noah Foster
Fucking red coat lecturing on our 2A
el oh fucking el
Connor Perez
They meant the first Amendment only applies to newspapers.
Jace Morgan
No, I am an originalist. I am simply a foreigner who wants to get at the original meaning and intention of the language. I have absolutely no agenda beyond that.
Logan Wright
Fuck off, commie.
Angel Ramirez
Your entire argument rests on the assertion that the clause is a conditional statement, when it is clearly a justifying statement.
It does not mean "As long as its necessary to the security of a free state" it means "Because it is necessary to the security of a free state"
The writings of the Founders and over 200 years of legal tradition and the current rulings of the courts disagree with your esoteric interpretation.
Also this. Don't you have teeth to not brush right now?
Charles Anderson
>the right is guaranteed upon the condition
here we go again
Samuel Parker
>blatantly ignore other texts from the founding fathers
>miscontrue well established amendments because comma (????)
>im an originalist
topkek
Nolan Martin
Means fuck the government, keep your guns forever.
Also says, we put this shit second because its fucking important as fuck. First is the worst, second is the best after all.
Adam Ross
You will observe that Adams says nothing there about what kind of arms. Arms can mean anything from swords and muskets to machine guns and grenade launchers. The condition stipulated in the Second Amendment quite clearly limits their kind and quality to those that are necessary towards the security of a free state, by means of well-regulated militias.
Adams and the other Founders were opposed to Standing Armies, yet neo-conservatives like you who pretend to be their ardent disciples are fanatic supporters of your enormous military.
-
While polls today generally indicate that Americans think of the military in glowing terms (rightly associating terms like “sacrifice,” “honor,” “valor,” and “bravery” with military service), Americans of the 18th century took a much dimmer view of the institution of a professional army. A near-universal assumption of the founding generation was the danger posed by a standing military force. Far from being composed of honorable citizens dutifully serving the interests of the nation, armies were held to be “nurseries of vice,” “dangerous,” and “the grand engine of despotism.” Samuel Adams wrote in 1776, such a professional army was, “always dangerous to the Liberties of the People.” Soldiers were likely to consider themselves separate from the populace, to become more attached to their officers than their government, and to be conditioned to obey commands unthinkingly. The power of a standing army, Adams counseled, “should be watched with a jealous Eye.”
Andrew Richardson
>well regulated
>any psychopath can own 30+ military-style guns capable of simulated full auto with extended mags and no questions will be asked
huh...
Asher Brown
If Americans truly wanted to conform to the 2nd amendment, then they should scrap their military and go back to relying on the militia system. Revering the 2nd amendment but also accepting the permanent military is contradictory.
Blake Hall
>well regulated
>gun regulation is non constitutional
what republicans mean by this?
Andrew Johnson
Based and well put, user
Thanks for taking time to educate the Britfag on the reality of the situation.
Nathaniel Campbell
The issue of their being against standing arms has nothing to do with the current discussion. Pointing out neoconservatives are hypocrites to a bunch of libertarians, fascists, and reactionaries isn't exactly a very strong argument.
Jose Moore
The meaning isn't different. Conservashits just say that cause muh evil banking regulations.
In September 1755, George Washington, then adjutant-general of the Virginia militia, upon a frustrating and futile attempt to call up the militia to respond to a frontier Indian attack:
>...he experienced all the evils of insubordination among the troups, perverseness in the militia, inactivity in the officers, disregard of orders, and reluctance in the civil authorities to render a proper support. And what added to his mortification was, that the laws gave him no power to correct these evils, either by enforcing discipline, or compelling the indolent and refractory to their duty ... The militia system was suited for only to times of peace. It provided for calling out men to repel invasion; but the powers granted for effecting it were so limited, as to be almost inoperative.
en.wikipedia.org
The militias under the British colonial system sucked, they wanted MORE control over militias to be more efficient for public defense. And to keep and bear arms back then meant participating in a militia, not just possessing guns and "the people" in this context is collective, not individual just like how it is with "We he people" in the preamble. The 2A is about ensuring the most proficient public security possible and "shall not be infringed" just means the federal government can't do anything antithetical to that. The Constitution really does not guarantee private arms ownership, some state constitutions do, but not the federal one...
at least not until a cuckservatives dominated SCOTUS decided to reinterpret it and now we're paying for it with increasing nigger violence and shooting like what we saw in Vegas.
Logan Phillips
>shall not be infringed
What did the founding fathers mean by this?
Charles Wright
but regulations don't infringe your right to own a gun
Joseph Brown
Hmm let's see what Washington had to say about the right to bear arms
Oh look at that, a free people are free if the government has their CONSENT. Consent being an agreement between people who are not powerless and not enslaved.
Jayden Taylor
Except that isn't remotely true and if you want them you should come and take them.
Joseph Long
Good at articulating 2A arguments.
But autisic insults
Carson Bell
You're a complete retard, the other poster is clearly defending the right to form militias due to government's distrust by the founding fathers. Something your very own link similarly echoes.
Sebastian Cox
>Second Amendment quite clearly limits their kind and quality to those that are necessary towards the security of a free state
Which there isn't a limit to
>Adams and the other Founders were opposed to Standing Armies, yet neo-conservatives like you who pretend to be their ardent disciples are fanatic supporters of your enormous military.
Imagine strawmanning this hard
Angel Edwards
"Because" _is_ a conditional statement. And nothing in 200 years of legal tradition says you can own any weapon you want. As previously remarked, even Scalia admits limitations; and who are the supporters of this or that level of lethalness of weaponry to draw the line at x y or z then yelp "shall not be infringed" to the Heavens, as if they were defending a self-evident truth?
Joshua Rogers
You expect me to waste time writing good jokes, when Britbong cannot even use his to write good arguments?
Landon Young
by definition a militia is any armed unit formed by and from the polity, meaning it arises from the free association and agreement of individuals rather than state action. "well-regulated" can reasonably be taken to mean 1. that the militia has the interests of the mentioned "free state" in mind (that is, maintaining or re-establishing it, rather than engaging in banditry or some other state-eroding activity). and/or 2. meaning acting according to legislation by state powers acting in accordance with the constitution (the basic idea behind US state power). here's the rub:
no guns circulating among a body of citizens, no possibility of a militia; hence the second amendment is violated if you ban private ownership of firearms.
Tyler Jones
A well trained militia
Announce sagw
Evan Thomas
The people were the militia. The country was too big and rural to have a standing army. The constitution allows the government to raise armies but not maintain one. That’s where the people come in. But that was a long time ago. In the near future robots will do all the fighting and no civilians army will be able to defeat them.
Landon Garcia
I agree the 2nd amendment is vague in interpretation, but, militias were hardly difficult to form or be a member of. It's basically like a volunteer fire department
Asher Campbell
no, 'well regulated' is a common fucking term untill the 20th century used in all sorts of ways and it does not mean what 'regulations' mean at all, if i had to guess the modern meaning of regulations morphed out of some association of 'rules and regulations' which referred to discipline, not the restrictive sense that the word commonly means today.
Yes, and unlike countries that do forced conscription the founders decided that instead of mandating people practice they just ensure theres enough guns around and hope its good enough
Shut up you are not helping, if they get away with their definiton of regulation then your fucking meme last line wont matter. The argument is 100% about what the first two parts actually mean. Its fairly cut and dry using period language but the left is always fond of shifting definitions and then making things sound like they mean something they didn't.
Kayden Anderson
If anything their position against standing armies should make it obvious that they support citizens bearing any sort of weapon. If the people cannot keep guns, how can they form a well-regulated militia?
Lincoln Thompson
>What did they mean by this?
well practiced, able to hit your target.
Asher Kelly
I'll take that just because you fucked up that britfag so well
Anthony Clark
I dun think it meaned SHALL!
Lucas Long
Your interpretation is incorrect, private citizens at the times of the Founders owned the same quality of weaponry as the military of the time including privately owned warships.
In any case as I've pointed out repeatedly, realpolitik is on my side. This discussion is purely an exercise is my deigning to discuss the matter with you. Neither the law nor the reality is changing.
Nor should it, since the power of a weapon is inversely proportional to its usage in homicide. Concealable knives and pistols make up the majority of deaths, whereas rifles are less frequently used then fists to kill people, and 'assault weapons' even moreso.
Mason Miller
They meant that every fucking American male will be armed with an AR-15 and the Jews and the leftists are going to regret firing the first shots and starting this civil war.
Blake Thompson
>George Washington would literally disagree with you
>he hasn't heard about the Militia Act of 1792 that proves the militia isn't everyone
>he doesn't know Shay's rebellion and the Whiskey rebellion prove the 2nd amendment isn't about fighting muh tyrannical gubmit
>not knowing the gubmit can take your guns away if you ever slip up
Juan Russell
>were
Still are.
The united states militia consists of every male 17-45 and all ex-military up to age 65. This is law
Jason Wright
>You will observe that Adams says nothing there about what kind of arms. Arms can mean anything from swords and muskets to machine guns and grenade launchers.
So using Adams as a reference you state the text effectively implies any type of "arms" is acceptable.
>The condition stipulated in the Second Amendment quite clearly limits their kind and quality to those that are necessary towards the security of a free state, by means of well-regulated militias.
Once again putting non-existant words in their mouths, well-regulated has already been established by historians as meaning "self-sufficient from governmental aid" due to the heavy government distrust of the rebelling colonialists AND the unmanageable cost of payrolling an entire army of their own at this stage of american hiatory. Somerhing your own links refers to again. You're really bad at this.
Dylan Turner
Can we all agree that its super gay that the Constitution can be interpreted to anyone's convenience instead of being an explicit legal document specifically and clearly defining rights and government operations? Idk if you know this but most Constitutional Case Law in the past 200 years has just been figuring out how the fuck the government is supposed to work...
Zachary Kelly
>NFA act of 1986
>Hughes amendment
Anthony Jackson
>Back in the day, "well regulated" meant well supplied
Sources please.
Lincoln Phillips
>They opposed standing armies
> How can it be necessary for the security of a free state for a private citizen to own a machine gun, for example?
The answer to you're question lies in your first statement.
However right or wrong the worlds largest standing army being that over the US government kind of renders it's own 2nd amendment retarded doesn't it?
Isaiah King
They meant we should all have guns. Numerous Supreme Court Justices who were a great deal smarter than you have agreed.
Christian Cooper
It is only open to interpretation when the left slowly shifts the meaning of words through their stranglehold on academia to make it not blatantly obvious to even the most casual of reader what was intended.
John Hill
>the gubmit can take your guns away if you ever slip up
ONE TRILLION ROUNDS OF AMMO.
The citizenry of the United States is better equipped then most countries. The fucking Afghans could deflect the American War Machine with decades old Soviet AKs, you think the gov has even the slightest chance of defeating a resistant population? The country would balkanize faster then you can say "Yugoslavia"
Carter Turner
the FF hated standing armies due to putting up with Britain's bullshit for so long. so instead of a standing army, their more enlightened nation would have only a citizens militia rather than a standing army of professional but rights trampling soldiers
a militia isn't much good unless they've got guns. the ends of the 2nd amendment is to provide for the militia, granting the people the right to keep and bear arms is the means to this end. in other words, while the militia is busy being necessary to the security of the free state, it is the people who enjoy the right to keep and bear arms
it didn't take very long for them to realize their vision was impractical. they started hemming and hawing around 1784 then finally bit the bullet and said ok ok we'll officially have a standing army, then in 1791
Asher Martin
...
Gavin Ross
They require command structure and being a commander isn't the easiest thing in terms of combat where you have to know what you're doing so you don't lose (or die).
thefreedictionary.com
I also literally just posted George Washington's experience with a not very well organized militia and there's plenty more examples in that article. How is control over your men not efficiency as some claim regulation meant to be in property working order (and still means)?
Nathan Anderson
>However right or wrong the worlds largest standing army being that over the US government kind of renders it's own 2nd amendment retarded doesn't it?
It would if there were absolutely no defectors in the military upon being given the order to attack their own citizens, which wouldn't at all be the case.
Henry Miller
The shit early Americans would say about the military is pretty funny. Modern conservatives would rage if anybody spoke about the military in such a way today.
>The military parade which meets the eye in almost every direction excites the gall of our citizens; they feel a just indignation at the sight of loungers, who live upon the public, who consume the fruits of their honest industry, under the pretext of protecting them from a foreign yoke. They put no confidence sir, in the protection of a handful of ragamuffins; they know that when danger comes they must meet it, and they only ask arms at your hands. Gentlemen have talked of organizing the militia; I call upon them to make good what they have said. Instead of reducing this force I could wish to see the whole of it, reprobated as it is by our citizens, abandoned, and the defence of the country placed in proper hands, those of the people. - John Randolph of Roanoke
Joseph Parker
Understanding the standing armies versus militia question is essential to the point at hand, the interpretation of the Second Amendment. People repeat ad nauseam that it was "intended to resist governmental tyranny"; no, it was intended to circumvent the necessity of having a standing army on the one hand; and suppress rebellions, and defend the state by means of the aforementioned militias on the other. Governmental tyranny was not supposed to come about in the first place because there was never supposed to Be an army to resist.
Many people would agree with the notion that it is not merely not "necessary to the security of a free state" but actually quite contrary to it for a private citizen to own (for example) a machine gun. Scalia does not think you should be able to own a weapon that could blow up a plane. It seems to me that he contradicts his own principles there. If the "right to bear arms" is completely without condition or qualification, what right has he to limit it? But of course the Founders of America were not stupid enough not to put a qualification on it, hence they did put one on it. But it's curious he (along with all who think like him, in seeing the absolute clause as merely "prefatory") have to evade that circumstance simply in order to make his system work.
The intention as I understand it was for the militias to be kept by the States. Hence that kept the army relatively decentralized. If I am mistaken about that pray correct me.
Colton Campbell
early Americans were so BASED
Jace Taylor
If you want to get to the real meaning of the language, then maybe you shouldn't ignore legislation that actually describes what constitutes a militia instead of what YOU think constitutes a militia.
Alexander Morgan
The military would cuck the population and most Americans wouldn't dare fight against them so it's a moot point. Felons, those forced into a mental ward, druggies, domestic abusers, those with a restraining order against them, etc. aren't allowed to have guns and no one objects to that. Private guns were meant to be a privilege. They wanted the militia to have the best guns and that's what was mandated in the Militia Act of 1792 which also narrowly defined who the militia was.
Robert White
>But it's curious he (along with all who think like him, in seeing the absolute clause as merely "prefatory") have to evade that circumstance simply in order to make his system work.
read: _has_ to evade that circumstance
Luke Gomez
Doesn't make the no quarter right make sense though.
Jack Ramirez
What, you wanted cornflakes?
Gabriel Smith
Breh the whole thing is open to interpretation because of how vague the fucker is. I agree the left is really pushing it with things like Roe v Wade, which was a ridiculous legal argument. They interpreted a right to an abortion because they had interpreted a right to privacy in a different case. None of it is explicitly mentioned and the Framers made the thing to hard to amend in what now is probably the most polarized and ideologically diverse country the world has seen. You can't tell me cons don't have a dog in this fight either. The gun industry is worth 43 billion dollars and the NRA is the largest and most powerful lobby to exist. Its no surprise that the 2A has been interpreted so strongly.
Adrian Walker
>A well regulated
A well equipped
>Militia
Force of armed civilians
>Being necessary
It is necessary to have
>to the security of a free state
It is necessary to have a well equipped pool of civilians from which you can form a militia in order to ensure freedom in and from national governance.
And remember this only says that this right is recognized and protected by the state. It is not given to you by the state, you are naturally endowed with it from your creator.
God literally wants us to have guns.
Brayden Murphy
Fuck off, commie.
Juan Fisher
The United States is over 2600 miles wide with a population of over 300 million people. There are more then 300 million firearms in circulation, not counting the privates means of production of said firearms. There is at the same time more then one trillion rounds of ammunition owned by said persons.
97% of the above mentioned arms are in conservative areas. Any attempt at confiscation would be a completely one-sided bloodbath, and that's ignoring the simple fact that conservative local law enforcement would completely ignore the confiscation in the first place.
The idea of Uncle Sam going door to door asking for people's machine guns is a fantasy, whether you're a gun nut who wants to fire the Feds or a leftist who wants to turn America into France.
Ryder Allen
Well regulated means well armed in this usage
Andrew Sanders
>Muh, "big weapons didn't exist" meme
Dominic Moore
You keep hopping from what you interpret from the constitution, to what other people interpret from the constitution when it's convenient for you.
Not like it matters anyway because your argument is still shit, you haven't told me where in the 2nd amendment it limits the kind and quality of weapons a militia could have, even if being in a militia were come sort of condition to owning a weapon.
Samuel Martin
free men with guns are a prerequisite to freedom as the founders understood it.
Nolan Gonzalez
the anti federalists weren't stupid. they were thrown a bone. what would it cost? we're too enlightened for it to ever be an issue, anyway!
score one for those anti federalists. did us a solid, there