Well-Regulated Militia

[Jazzy]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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." Such language has created considerable debate regarding the Amendment's intended scope. On the one hand, some believe that the Amendment's phrase "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms" creates an individual constitutional right for citizens of the United States. Under this "individual right theory," the United States Constitution restricts legislative bodies from prohibiting firearm possession, or at the very least, the Amendment renders prohibitory and restrictive regulation presumptively unconstitutional. On the other hand, some scholars point to the prefatory language "a well regulated Militia" to argue that the Framers intended only to restrict Congress from legislating away a state's right to self-defense. Scholars have come to call this theory "the collective rights theory." A collective rights theory of the Second Amendment asserts that citizens do not have an individual right to possess guns and that local, state, and federal legislative bodies therefore possess the authority to regulate firearms without implicating a constitutional right.

The term in this debate
Well-Regulated Militia: A disputed term used in the Second Amendment: gun control advocates interpret it to mean a disciplined, organized army under government control; gun rights advocates interpret it to mean any person trained in the use of firearms.

The debate question
How do you interpret the term Well-Regulated Militia and why?

 

[DrLeftover]

I'll just forward this question to the man that wrote the Bill of Rights.

Mister Madison, what say you?

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do, you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution, which can only end in a distorted, bastardized form of illegitimate government."

Very good sir, anything else?


"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.'

-James Madison

 

[DrLeftover]

Chicago also has very aggressive ANTI-firearms laws, has had several gun "buy back" program....

July 4, 2014

At least 13 people have been shot in Chicago at the start of the long holiday weekend, including a woman killed as she sat on a porch near Garfield Park and a man slain in front of a hair salon on the South Side, police said.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-chicago-shootings-at-least-4-shot-20140703,0,3923848.story

 

[TommyTooter]

in light of the farce on the bundy ranch, the hippies who either own weapons themselves or support people's right to own them, are scratching their heads at how a well-regulated miltia came to mean a heavily armed redneck rabble.

in my circles, we believe there is a middle ground. though tighter gun laws invariably result in increased gun violence, the majority of gun deaths are friends or relatives of the gun owner, either in a crime of passion, accidental discharge or suicide. in chicago last weekend, there were 14 homicides and 85 injuries from gunfire. clearly stringent laws aren't working.

we feel that gun owners should be licensed and registered in a similar fashion to driver's licenses and motor vehicles. there should be background checks and people with a history of mental illness should be denied access to firearms. the common thread in all the high profile shootings since john hinkley and mark chapman, is that the shooter is or was on psyche medication at the time of the shooting.

if a gun owner is truly responsible, he will have no problem taking an oral and practical examination for a license to own one and will endorse criminal penalties against a person whose gun is used by somebody to harm anybody. though it shouldn't apply to hand guns, shotguns and hunting rifles, i think anybody who wants to own heavier weaponry should be compelled to report once a month for militia training.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

in light of the farce on the bundy ranch, the hippies who either own weapons themselves or support people's right to own them, are scratching their heads at how a well-regulated miltia came to mean a heavily armed redneck rabble.

What farce?

in my circles, we believe there is a middle ground. though tighter gun laws invariably result in increased gun violence, the majority of gun deaths are friends or relatives of the gun owner, either in a crime of passion, accidental discharge or suicide. in chicago last weekend, there were 14 homicides and 85 injuries from gunfire. clearly stringent laws aren't working.

You want a middle ground convince the people to change the constitution. Anything else is not what the founders intended.

we feel that gun owners should be licensed and registered in a similar fashion to driver's licenses and motor vehicles.

Since owning a gun is a right that is completely out of the question. Again convince the people to change the constitution.

there should be background checks and people with a history of mental illness should be denied access to firearms.

Background checks are fine. But now you are getting in dangerous territory when a person might have a "mental illness" but has done nothing wrong and you are denying him a right. I bet government would start using the term mental illness quite often to disarm the people.

the common thread in all the high profile shootings since john hinkley and mark chapman, is that the shooter is or was on psyche medication at the time of the shooting.

And a bunch of radical left wing nut jobs.

if a gun owner is truly responsible, he will have no problem taking an oral and practical examination for a license to own one and will endorse criminal penalties against a person whose gun is used by somebody to harm anybody.

I am a responsible gun owner just like several generations before me and I have a huge problem with something so unconstitutional.

though it shouldn't apply to hand guns, shotguns and hunting rifles, i think anybody who wants to own heavier weaponry should be compelled to report once a month for militia training.

Once again then have the convinced to change and ratify the constitution to your ideas. Other then that its stealing my rights.

This explains it very clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQLFR1c_UI&feature=player_detailpage

 

[DrLeftover]

If I order either one I usually get a vanilla milkshake. They are usually not too overpowering with the flavoring or so sweet you feel like you need to call your dentist about halfway through.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

If I order either one I usually get a vanilla milkshake. They are usually not too overpowering with the flavoring or so sweet you feel like you need to call your dentist about halfway through.

?

 

[TommyTooter]

in light of the farce on the bundy ranch, the hippies who either own weapons themselves or support people's right to own them, are scratching their heads at how a well-regulated miltia came to mean a heavily armed redneck rabble.

What farce?

in my circles, we believe there is a middle ground. though tighter gun laws invariably result in increased gun violence, the majority of gun deaths are friends or relatives of the gun owner, either in a crime of passion, accidental discharge or suicide. in chicago last weekend, there were 14 homicides and 85 injuries from gunfire. clearly stringent laws aren't working.

You want a middle ground convince the people to change the constitution. Anything else is not what the founders intended.

we feel that gun owners should be licensed and registered in a similar fashion to driver's licenses and motor vehicles.

Since owning a gun is a right that is completely out of the question. Again convince the people to change the constitution.

there should be background checks and people with a history of mental illness should be denied access to firearms.

Background checks are fine. But now you are getting in dangerous territory when a person might have a "mental illness" but has done nothing wrong and you are denying him a right. I bet government would start using the term mental illness quite often to disarm the people.

the common thread in all the high profile shootings since john hinkley and mark chapman, is that the shooter is or was on psyche medication at the time of the shooting.

And a bunch of radical left wing nut jobs.

if a gun owner is truly responsible, he will have no problem taking an oral and practical examination for a license to own one and will endorse criminal penalties against a person whose gun is used by somebody to harm anybody.

I am a responsible gun owner just like several generations before me and I have a huge problem with something so unconstitutional.

though it shouldn't apply to hand guns, shotguns and hunting rifles, i think anybody who wants to own heavier weaponry should be compelled to report once a month for militia training.

Once again then have the convinced to change and ratify the constitution to your ideas. Other then that its stealing my rights.

This explains it very clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQLFR1c_UI&feature=player_detailpage

a well-regulated militia is not a redneck rabble jacking up motorists in a scene that was total bullshit from the get go.


keep the NRA logic for the brain dead. not interested in arguing it with you. the second amendment says well-regulated. what regulations will you militia members accept?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

in light of the farce on the bundy ranch, the hippies who either own weapons themselves or support people's right to own them, are scratching their heads at how a well-regulated miltia came to mean a heavily armed redneck rabble.

What farce?

in my circles, we believe there is a middle ground. though tighter gun laws invariably result in increased gun violence, the majority of gun deaths are friends or relatives of the gun owner, either in a crime of passion, accidental discharge or suicide. in chicago last weekend, there were 14 homicides and 85 injuries from gunfire. clearly stringent laws aren't working.

You want a middle ground convince the people to change the constitution. Anything else is not what the founders intended.

we feel that gun owners should be licensed and registered in a similar fashion to driver's licenses and motor vehicles.

Since owning a gun is a right that is completely out of the question. Again convince the people to change the constitution.

there should be background checks and people with a history of mental illness should be denied access to firearms.

Background checks are fine. But now you are getting in dangerous territory when a person might have a "mental illness" but has done nothing wrong and you are denying him a right. I bet government would start using the term mental illness quite often to disarm the people.

the common thread in all the high profile shootings since john hinkley and mark chapman, is that the shooter is or was on psyche medication at the time of the shooting.

And a bunch of radical left wing nut jobs.

if a gun owner is truly responsible, he will have no problem taking an oral and practical examination for a license to own one and will endorse criminal penalties against a person whose gun is used by somebody to harm anybody.

I am a responsible gun owner just like several generations before me and I have a huge problem with something so unconstitutional.

though it shouldn't apply to hand guns, shotguns and hunting rifles, i think anybody who wants to own heavier weaponry should be compelled to report once a month for militia training.

Once again then have the convinced to change and ratify the constitution to your ideas. Other then that its stealing my rights.

This explains it very clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQLFR1c_UI&feature=player_detailpage

a well-regulated militia is not a redneck rabble jacking up motorists in a scene that was total bullshit from the get go.


keep the NRA logic for the brain dead. not interested in arguing it with you. the second amendment says well-regulated. what regulations will you militia members accept?

It wasnt about the redneck it was about the obvious explanation of what the American founders intended.


The NRA is the logical ones and far from the brain dead ones so I guess it will be a short conversation with you.

No regulations unless you intend to lead a effort to make a amendment in the constitution.

 

[TommyTooter]

in light of the farce on the bundy ranch, the hippies who either own weapons themselves or support people's right to own them, are scratching their heads at how a well-regulated miltia came to mean a heavily armed redneck rabble.

What farce?

in my circles, we believe there is a middle ground. though tighter gun laws invariably result in increased gun violence, the majority of gun deaths are friends or relatives of the gun owner, either in a crime of passion, accidental discharge or suicide. in chicago last weekend, there were 14 homicides and 85 injuries from gunfire. clearly stringent laws aren't working.

You want a middle ground convince the people to change the constitution. Anything else is not what the founders intended.

we feel that gun owners should be licensed and registered in a similar fashion to driver's licenses and motor vehicles.

Since owning a gun is a right that is completely out of the question. Again convince the people to change the constitution.

there should be background checks and people with a history of mental illness should be denied access to firearms.

Background checks are fine. But now you are getting in dangerous territory when a person might have a "mental illness" but has done nothing wrong and you are denying him a right. I bet government would start using the term mental illness quite often to disarm the people.

the common thread in all the high profile shootings since john hinkley and mark chapman, is that the shooter is or was on psyche medication at the time of the shooting.

And a bunch of radical left wing nut jobs.

if a gun owner is truly responsible, he will have no problem taking an oral and practical examination for a license to own one and will endorse criminal penalties against a person whose gun is used by somebody to harm anybody.

I am a responsible gun owner just like several generations before me and I have a huge problem with something so unconstitutional.

though it shouldn't apply to hand guns, shotguns and hunting rifles, i think anybody who wants to own heavier weaponry should be compelled to report once a month for militia training.

Once again then have the convinced to change and ratify the constitution to your ideas. Other then that its stealing my rights.

This explains it very clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQLFR1c_UI&feature=player_detailpage

a well-regulated militia is not a redneck rabble jacking up motorists in a scene that was total bullshit from the get go.


keep the NRA logic for the brain dead. not interested in arguing it with you. the second amendment says well-regulated. what regulations will you militia members accept?

It wasnt about the redneck it was about the obvious explanation of what the American founders intended.


The NRA is the logical ones and far from the brain dead ones so I guess it will be a short conversation with you.

No regulations unless you intend to lead a effort to make a amendment in the constitution.

why should i? The amendment says 'well-regulated militia' -- all i see is a redneck rabble. where are the regulations?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

in light of the farce on the bundy ranch, the hippies who either own weapons themselves or support people's right to own them, are scratching their heads at how a well-regulated miltia came to mean a heavily armed redneck rabble.

What farce?

in my circles, we believe there is a middle ground. though tighter gun laws invariably result in increased gun violence, the majority of gun deaths are friends or relatives of the gun owner, either in a crime of passion, accidental discharge or suicide. in chicago last weekend, there were 14 homicides and 85 injuries from gunfire. clearly stringent laws aren't working.

You want a middle ground convince the people to change the constitution. Anything else is not what the founders intended.

we feel that gun owners should be licensed and registered in a similar fashion to driver's licenses and motor vehicles.

Since owning a gun is a right that is completely out of the question. Again convince the people to change the constitution.

there should be background checks and people with a history of mental illness should be denied access to firearms.

Background checks are fine. But now you are getting in dangerous territory when a person might have a "mental illness" but has done nothing wrong and you are denying him a right. I bet government would start using the term mental illness quite often to disarm the people.

the common thread in all the high profile shootings since john hinkley and mark chapman, is that the shooter is or was on psyche medication at the time of the shooting.

And a bunch of radical left wing nut jobs.

if a gun owner is truly responsible, he will have no problem taking an oral and practical examination for a license to own one and will endorse criminal penalties against a person whose gun is used by somebody to harm anybody.

I am a responsible gun owner just like several generations before me and I have a huge problem with something so unconstitutional.

though it shouldn't apply to hand guns, shotguns and hunting rifles, i think anybody who wants to own heavier weaponry should be compelled to report once a month for militia training.

Once again then have the convinced to change and ratify the constitution to your ideas. Other then that its stealing my rights.

This explains it very clearly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MpQLFR1c_UI&feature=player_detailpage

a well-regulated militia is not a redneck rabble jacking up motorists in a scene that was total bullshit from the get go.


keep the NRA logic for the brain dead. not interested in arguing it with you. the second amendment says well-regulated. what regulations will you militia members accept?

It wasnt about the redneck it was about the obvious explanation of what the American founders intended.


The NRA is the logical ones and far from the brain dead ones so I guess it will be a short conversation with you.

No regulations unless you intend to lead a effort to make a amendment in the constitution.

why should i? The amendment says 'well-regulated militia' -- all i see is a redneck rabble. where are the regulations?

Penn and Teller are many things but rednecks they are not. Why should you? Then give me rational explanation of where he is wrong in the video and how you can dismiss Madisons own words quoted above.

 

[TommyTooter]

i don't argue with people who use videos to make their points. in your own words, please tell my why the statement 'well-regulated miltia' in the second amendment is not the basis for the establishment of regulations for gun ownership.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

::seeyoulater:

i don't argue with people who use videos to make their points. in your own words, please tell my why the statement 'well-regulated miltia' in the second amendment is not the basis for the establishment of regulations for gun ownership.

 

[TommyTooter]

::seeyoulater:

i don't argue with people who use videos to make their points. in your own words, please tell my why the statement 'well-regulated miltia' in the second amendment is not the basis for the establishment of regulations for gun ownership.

thanks for the warning. mentally conditioned true believers are really tedious. have a nice conservative life cheering on creeping fascism in america.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

::seeyoulater:

i don't argue with people who use videos to make their points. in your own words, please tell my why the statement 'well-regulated miltia' in the second amendment is not the basis for the establishment of regulations for gun ownership.

thanks for the warning. mentally conditioned true believers are really tedious. have a nice conservative life cheering on creeping fascism in america.

No warning you can't argue the points made and you are using excuses. Because apparently you don't argue quotes either.

 

[TommyTooter]

lol. another chess playing pigeon. pure conservatard. the cognitive dissonance of you people is pathetic.



//The term in this debate
Well-Regulated Militia: A disputed term used in the Second Amendment: gun control advocates interpret it to mean a disciplined, organized army under government control; gun rights advocates interpret it to mean any person trained in the use of firearms.

The debate question
How do you interpret the term Well-Regulated Militia and why? //


you have responded with jingoisms and little else. the amendment defines the right to keep and bear arms around a 'well-regulated militia'. where are these well-reguated militias? all i see is gun-toting morons cruising around department stores with assault rifles.

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

lol. another chess playing pigeon. pure conservatard. the cognitive dissonance of you people is pathetic.



//The term in this debate
Well-Regulated Militia: A disputed term used in the Second Amendment: gun control advocates interpret it to mean a disciplined, organized army under government control; gun rights advocates interpret it to mean any person trained in the use of firearms.

The debate question
How do you interpret the term Well-Regulated Militia and why? //


you have responded with jingoisms and little else. the amendment defines the right to keep and bear arms around a 'well-regulated militia'. where are these well-reguated militias? all i see is gun-toting morons cruising around department stores with assault rifles.

Can't keep it on topic I see. But that insult could not be a bigger compliment.

I and the doctor have responded with the true intent of the 2nd amendment. Now if you do not like the way it was delivered I can't help that.

 

[TommyTooter]

keep kicking over those chess pieces, pigeon. you have done nothing but spew the standard NRA line.

i ask again, where is the well-regulated militia and what are the regulations?

 

[WHO IS SERAFIN]

keep kicking over those chess pieces, pigeon. you have done nothing but spew the standard NRA line.

I didnt know Madison was a member of the NRA. But either if thats the NRA position I am more then happy to get behind it.

And once again that question is explained in the video. So if you would like to explain where Penn is wrong let me know.

 

[TommyTooter]

keep kicking over those chess pieces, pigeon. you have done nothing but spew the standard NRA line.

I didnt know Madison was a member of the NRA. But either if thats the NRA position I am more then happy to get behind it.

And once again that question is explained in the video. So if you would like to explain where Penn is wrong let me know.

if you are referring to the sign on the blackboard as madison's words, i ask once more for you to show me the well-regulated militia that's supposed to be going along with gun ownership.

i refuse to watch the video. argue in your own words please.