|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 11, 2011 8:00:58 GMT -8
"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 is time to ask the Supreme Court to void all previous contrary decisions on the Second Amendment, and specify what arms are necessary for a well regulated Militia.
As I have pointed out to many people, the word "Regulated" is very powerful and limiting if people pay proper attention to it. The Supreme court needs to give special attention to what regulated militia means.
Am I right or wrong?
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 11, 2011 9:36:08 GMT -8
"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 is time to ask the Supreme Court to void all previous contrary decisions on the Second Amendment, and specify what arms are necessary for a well regulated Militia. As I have pointed out to many people, the word "Regulated" is very powerful and limiting if people pay proper attention to it. The Supreme court needs to give special attention to what regulated militia means. Am I right or wrong? Most "Gun Rights" supporters read the 2nd amendment as follows; " 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." |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 11, 2011 10:33:21 GMT -8
"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 is time to ask the Supreme Court to void all previous contrary decisions on the Second Amendment, and specify what arms are necessary for a well regulated Militia. As I have pointed out to many people, the word "Regulated" is very powerful and limiting if people pay proper attention to it. The Supreme court needs to give special attention to what regulated militia means. Am I right or wrong? Most "Gun Rights" supporters read the 2nd amendment as follows; " 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." Indeed, and it would appear that the Supreme Court has also forgotten that the first part of the sentence is there, too. So sad. |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 11, 2011 10:34:10 GMT -8
How regulated must a militia be to be "Well Regulated?"
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 11, 2011 13:28:57 GMT -8
Most "Gun Rights" supporters read the 2nd amendment as follows; " 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." Indeed, and it would appear that the Supreme Court has also forgotten that the first part of the sentence is there, too. So sad. It means the same either way. The question is not about the right to keep and bear arms, but the regulation part. |
|
|
|
Post by davdesid on Jan 11, 2011 13:55:34 GMT -8
Indeed, and it would appear that the Supreme Court has also forgotten that the first part of the sentence is there, too. So sad. It means the same either way. The question is not about the right to keep and bear arms, but the regulation part. "There are frequent contemporaneous references to "a well-regulated militia" being "composed of the body of the people, trained in arms." Plainly, then, "a well-regulated Militia" refers not to a special or select subset or group taken out of the militia as a whole but rather to the condition of the militia as a whole, namely being well disciplined and trained. " And, "Militia," just like "well-regulated Militia," likewise was understood to be composed of the people generally[glow=red,2,300] possessed of arms which they knew how to use[/glow], rather than to refer to some formal military group separate and distinct from the people at large. " -US v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203 (5th Circuit 2001)- |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2011 14:31:30 GMT -8
That anyone thinks the only reason for possessing an arm during the period in which the constitution was written was for the purpose of drilling with a militia is simply historically ignorant. They were in fact so ubiquitous for the purpose of defense of life and property and to put food on the table that the fact simply needed no mention. We had a sitting VP actually shoot and kill the former Treasury Secretary in a duel and yet there was no cry for gun control at the time. That should tell all of you histo-ignoramuses something. Shouldn't it?
|
|
|
|
Post by AlwaysAnAztec on Jan 11, 2011 16:25:17 GMT -8
That anyone thinks the only reason for possessing an arm during the period in which the constitution was written was for the purpose of drilling with a militia is simply historically ignorant. They were in fact so ubiquitous for the purpose of defense of life and property and to put food on the table that the fact simply needed no mention. We had a sitting VP actually shoot and kill the former Treasury Secretary in a duel and yet there was no cry for gun control at the time. That should tell all of you histo-ignoramuses something. Shouldn't it? Is it possible for you to post ANYTHING without name calling? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 11, 2011 16:28:31 GMT -8
That anyone thinks the only reason for possessing an arm during the period in which the constitution was written was for the purpose of drilling with a militia is simply historically ignorant. They were in fact so ubiquitous for the purpose of defense of life and property and to put food on the table that the fact simply needed no mention. We had a sitting VP actually shoot and kill the former Treasury Secretary in a duel and yet there was no cry for gun control at the time. That should tell all of you histo-ignoramuses something. Shouldn't it? Is it possible for you to post ANYTHING without name calling? Can you post anything of any substance? |
|
|
|
Post by The Great Aztec Joe on Jan 11, 2011 19:44:18 GMT -8
That anyone thinks the only reason for possessing an arm during the period in which the constitution was written was for the purpose of drilling with a militia is simply historically ignorant. They were in fact so ubiquitous for the purpose of defense of life and property and to put food on the table that the fact simply needed no mention. We had a sitting VP actually shoot and kill the former Treasury Secretary in a duel and yet there was no cry for gun control at the time. That should tell all of you histo-ignoramuses something. Shouldn't it? Is it possible for you to post ANYTHING without name calling? I have never known afan to post anything that was historically accurate, but he is good at name calling. Still, he has a right to voice his opinion and we can just take his foul rantings and ravings with a grain of salt and snicker at his posts as they are obviously intended to be mirthful. He does add a lot of humorous content to the board. For that we can be thankful. |
|
|
|
Post by uwaztec on Jan 11, 2011 20:11:39 GMT -8
That anyone thinks the only reason for possessing an arm during the period in which the constitution was written was for the purpose of drilling with a militia is simply historically ignorant. They were in fact so ubiquitous for the purpose of defense of life and property and to put food on the table that the fact simply needed no mention. We had a sitting VP actually shoot and kill the former Treasury Secretary in a duel and yet there was no cry for gun control at the time. That should tell all of you histo-ignoramuses something. Shouldn't it? Is it possible for you to post ANYTHING without name calling? True story. I first started posting on Aztectalk about 8 years ago. I saw the "politics" forum and thought that it would be a great place to discuss an area I have some expertise in, which is the environment. So I make this pretty general post regarding coral reefs or sharks... I forget now. That was my very first post on Aztectalk. Anyway, this guy immediately blindsides me with about 3 paragraphs of expletives, I mean really going off. Guess who that was!  |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Jan 11, 2011 21:42:15 GMT -8
That anyone thinks the only reason for possessing an arm during the period in which the constitution was written was for the purpose of drilling with a militia is simply historically ignorant. They were in fact so ubiquitous for the purpose of defense of life and property and to put food on the table that the fact simply needed no mention. We had a sitting VP actually shoot and kill the former Treasury Secretary in a duel and yet there was no cry for gun control at the time. That should tell all of you histo-ignoramuses something. Shouldn't it? Hamilton and Burr had single shot black powder pistols. Had Laughner been using one there would not have been a slaughter in Tucson. |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Jan 12, 2011 14:03:47 GMT -8
Is it possible for you to post ANYTHING without name calling? True story. I first started posting on Aztectalk about 8 years ago. I saw the "politics" forum and thought that it would be a great place to discuss an area I have some expertise in, which is the environment. So I make this pretty general post regarding coral reefs or sharks... I forget now. That was my very first post on Aztectalk. Anyway, this guy immediately blindsides me with about 3 paragraphs of expletives, I mean really going off. Guess who that was! I give up. I hope it was not me!  |
|
