Moderator’s Note: SenorBeef, direct personal insults are a violation of the rules of this forum. Do not do that again. Saying you weren’t typing in anger or in the heat of the moment really just makes it worse.
And to several of the rest of you: Cool it. Either debate each other’s arguments in a reasonable manner, or if you absolutely must, open up threads in the Pit.
The first clause does not say that the government shall or shall not do anything, the second one does. The fact that you can make a sentence which does not have the same meaning as the one in the constitution doesn’t change what is stated in the constitution.
Fine. Sorry. Do they also get reprimanded for insulting me, or is it alright to insult so long as you don’t use a naughty word?
Yes, he did. He stated that in the usage of the times, “well-regulated” doesn’t mean “subject to regulations by the federal government”, but “well maintained, trained, and armed”.
So that does, indeed, answer your point.
Put it this way: What’s the point of creating a militia to oppose potential tyranny if the federal government is in charge of the militia, and therefore can disarm it? There’d be absolutely no point.
Cecil is many things, Max, but he is not a legal scholar. Nor is my restatement–which, again, gives effect to all the words of the provision as required by basic principles of legal interpretation–saying that the right of the people to bear arms is incompatible with a well-regulated militia. The amendment guarantees the right to bear arms, but only to the extent those arms are necessary to a well-regulated militia.
What’s that? You say you’re not a member of the militia? Why, in that case I would suggest that you write a letter to your state representatives and ask them to start one up, pronto!
[You may now begin the predictable “everyone’s in the militia” argument.]
The first clause is explanatory. It explains why the second exists. The second is the actual clause that restricts the government.
State constitutions often have similar setups. An explanatory clause, and then the actual restricting clause.
For example, off the top of my head, Rhode Island as “A press corps, necesary to the freedom of the state, the right of the people to freely express themselves shall not be infringed”. Not exact, but I could find it if you insist.
The [Explanation clause, restrictive clause] format is found in a lot of the state constitutions because that’s how they used language at the time. It only appears unique here because it’s the only use in the Bill of Rights.
Not everyone. Males 17-45, veterans to 65.
It’s only predictable beacuse it’s true. You might as well have said “You may now begin the predictable rational argument.”
What’s your point, anyway? The well-regulated militia refered to in the Constitution is the same militia defined in USC 10.
Are you saying “only the militia has relevance… oh, but you still can’t bear arms, because, well, you’re only in the militia.”?
10 U.S.C. 311:
Now hand over the shotgun to the ATF, grandpa. And no more women with guns in their purses, either. Bwahahahahahaha! My evil plan to disarm the populace and place them under my nefarious control is nearly complete! 
On a more serious note, I’d also point out that merely being a member of the “militia” by Congressional fiat does not prevent Congress from restricting the right to bear arms as I’ve set it forth above, for that right is only infringed if it interferes with the well-regulated militia.
(A) You ain’t well-regulated if you ain’t got any regulations in your “unorganized militia.”
(B) Any particulary regulation isn’t a violation of your second amendment rights if the restriction doesn’t interfere with the operation of a well-regulated militia. Somehow, I think the National Guard has more than enough weapons to handle its activities, so they don’t need yours.
**
Did you completely ignore the last few posts? Are you being willfully ignorant?
Being part of the militia is not a prerequisite to having the right to own a firearm.
**
Really? Are you the legal scholar that you criticized cecil for not being?
**
Why not read the last 10 or 15 posts? It might do you some good.
**
Please tell me where the constitution says “The right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” If that’s what they meant - and that’s what your asserting, then why you “the people”?
The national guard has nothing to do with the unorganized militia.
Er, by “you” in the second to last line, I meant “use”.
Mods: I accidentally made a triple and a double post earlier, if you could clean those up, please…
:rolleyes:
Nope. But it doesn’t guarantee it, either.
I’d lay odds I’ve published more legal scholarship and written more court opinions than Cecil. I have the highest respect for the gentleman, of course, but his training is in the field of genius, not the law.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
That’s not my point. My point is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms may be infringed unless it affects the well-regulated militia.
Unless I’m mistaken (which is possible), one of the Nordic countries (Sweden or Switzerland, I think) has gotten around this very issue. Men of fighting age are issued a rifle and a sealed container of ammunition. Periodically, the seals are inspected, and periodically the men have to go for weapons training.
There ya have it–a well-regulated citizen militia. Far more regulated than my going to a gun show, slipping the guy a c-note to skip the background check, and walking out with a 9mm and cop-killers.
Oh, and Beef ? This kind of undermines your argument:
So much for the 9mm, huh?
**
Switzerland.
[QUOTE]
**
There ya have it–a well-regulated citizen militia. Far more regulated than my going to a gun show, slipping the guy a c-note to skip the background check, and walking out with a 9mm and cop-killers.
[QUOTE]
**
Wow, did you pull that one right off of bradycenter.com? I’ve never seen so many emotionally driven misconceptions in one line, outside of that site.
A) What does bribing a gun dealer have to do with a gun show? If the dealer is being a criminal (and it’s very unlikely, because the ATF tests for stuff like this), what does being at a gun show have to do with anything? Sounds like pointlessly trying to give the impression that gunshows somehow don’t have to follow the law - and they do.
Additionally, cop-killer is such a fad term. The bullets they were talking about weren’t really different than any commercial self defense loads, but they had evil names like “black talon” and geez we can’t have evil sounding names!
I should’ve been more general, and used the term “military arms” of the day. The army has millions of m9 berettas that fire 9mm, and because of that, assumably they have some sort of militia purpose.
And I never conceded that something had to be militia-related in order to own it.
**
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Sounds like a gaurantee to me.
And “people” is not limited to the USC 10 unorganized militia definition.
**
What is it that you do? I’m not going to give you any credit for working in the legal field, btw. You’ve already said things like “,” why on earth should we be limited in that discussion, in the year 2002, to what a bunch of 18th century schmoes may or may not have thought were natural rights when they couldn’t even be bothered to write them into law?", suggesting you clearly can’t objectively interpret the Constitution.
Explain the logic behind that one.
“The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed unless it inteferes with a well-regulated militia.”?
Even if I accept that odd definition - how could my gun ownership possibly interfere with a well-regulated militia? Since it can only bolster that militia, using your definition, arms ownership would be garunteed.
Also, what are you trying to suggest with this?
That a citizen militia only works if the government gives them weapons and ammunition?
That sealing the ammo somehow prevents them from doing evil things?
What is your point?
If this militia has let all these grave injustices slip by, and hasn’t done a single thing that you said it could/should do in the past 225 years, then it no longer is relevent. While you talk about protecting some none existant militia’s right to bear arms, more persuasive arguments have come up against this “right.”
Your argument about will/ability means nothing, except that when push comes to shove the “militia” doesn’t do jack unless they directly are effected, and even then they still do nothing.
Nor would a troop of crack ninja SEALS with no weapons. That is the topic; you’re refuting the converse instead. To have a well-regulated militia, one of the aspects that needs regulating (by any definition) is their armaments, and one of the things they require is their armaments. That’s what the Second Amendment, taken in its entirety as the anti-any-reasonable-control lobby hates to do, says. It does not mean anything more or less than what it says.
No, it is the reason given. The only one.
Perhaps you can explain why you have to register your car, then. So the government can find it when they want to take it away?You do not answer the question of why one might think that “regulation”, in any sense of the word, equals “banning”. It does not and never did, paranoid fantasies notwithstanding.
I share that disgust, and it applies to those who so badly want the Second Amendment to mean something other than what it says that they revere only half of that single sentence while trying to explain away the other, inconvenient half. I’d extend my disgust to those who use all-or-nothing, quasi-religious arguments such as your assertion about registration being obviously only the first step toward banning.
There you go again, ignoring the first clause of the amendment. It’s like you’re putting your fingers in your ears, stamping your feet, and crying “la la la la la la” in a deliberate attempt to ignore that which you do not like. That may work in kindergaten, but try to address the issues when you’re in Great Debates, okay?
I never said it was, though you would apparently prefer to take the militia out of the amendment entirely. As I have stated several times already, the well-regulated militia requirement establishes a limit to the right of the people to keep and bear arms described in the second clause. Please try to accept the fact that this is my position, rather than continuing to repeat the same mischaracterizations again and again.
I’m a lawyer. All of the above statements in regards to my experience were entirely true, and that’s all that I feel you’re entitled to know.
Move to strike as conclusory, ad hominem, and irrelevant in that it fails to address the question quoted.
My apologies. Read it instead as The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed if the infringement interferes with a well-regulated militia.
See my post directly above. “Well maintained, trained, and armed” includes control of the weaponry, without which you don’t have a militia.
What happened to the classic anti-any-control argument that a militia is to defend against foreign invasions? I miss seeing the old scenario of everybody with a hunting rifle using it to capture those Soviet paratroopers - or was it those regiments of British lobsterbacks? I forget now.
Oh yeah - now the argument is that the government, which is the people btw in the rest of the Constitution, could itself try to suppress the people? Is that the kind of argument you have to resort to?