Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Bombadil]

Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

I interpret it as the common people making up the militia, and the government is able to regulate it to a degree, but not completely ban it.

A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Clear.

A militia are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

Clear.

[Chernoslavia]

I interpret it as the common people making up the militia, and the government is able to regulate it to a degree, but not completely ban it.

Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Clear.

A militia are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

Clear.

It really couldn't be clear enough already.

[Bombadil]

Sure, but 'well-regulated', or from your example, 'when properly formed', which indicate there needs to be at least some form of structure to any group as opposed to just any individual regardless. If you want it to be for anyone then..

The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

Clear.

A militia are in fact the people themselves, and render regular troops in a great measure unnecessary.

Clear.

It really couldn't be clear enough already.

It really isn't otherwise there wouldn't be constant debate and even court cases on what those commas mean. Yet for me that is beside the point given under the current interpretation then 'well regulated militia' is redundant, which it clearly isn't or it wouldn't be in there.

[Telconi]

Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

It's an explanation, the right is given to everyone because a militia is important.

[Chernoslavia]

It really couldn't be clear enough already.

It really isn't otherwise there wouldn't be constant debate and even court cases on what those commas mean. Yet for me that is beside the point given under the current interpretation then 'well regulated militia' is redundant, which it clearly isn't or it wouldn't be in there.

There's constant debate about it because some people choose to play semantics.

[The Chuck]

Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

My two cents on this is that with the original wording, it was common wording of the time and arms applies to all weaponry of the era from swords, muskets, early rifles, and cannons. Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution clearly covers the issuance of letters of Marque and Reprisal which allows privateering so privately owned cannons aboard privateer ships was definitely a thing of the era. As the English language and specifically the Americanized version has grown and changed with time, many people are confused/interpret this differently but for the time, militias meant citizenry and arms meant any weapon of the era. Just my two cents Bombadil

[Bombadil]

Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

It's an explanation, the right is given to everyone because a militia is important.

Except it's 'well regulated militia', not just militia.

There's constant debate about it because some people choose to play semantics.

Obviously both sides are playing semantics.. but again, your interpretation makes 'well regulated militia' redundant, so why did they include it?

[Narland]

Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). States and Counties that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.

[Telconi]

It's an explanation, the right is given to everyone because a militia is important.

Except it's 'well regulated militia', not just militia.

There's constant debate about it because some people choose to play semantics.

Obviously both sides are playing semantics.. but again, your interpretation makes 'well regulated militia' redundant, so why did they include it?

Well a well regulated militia is better than a shittily regulated militia. Yes?

[Chernoslavia]

It's an explanation, the right is given to everyone because a militia is important.

Except it's 'well regulated militia', not just militia.

There's constant debate about it because some people choose to play semantics.

Obviously both sides are playing semantics.. but again, your interpretation makes 'well regulated militia' redundant, so why did they include it?

No, just the left.

Simple. To specify a need for non-federally controlled armed forces to protect the state from enemies both foreign and domestic.

[Chernoslavia]

Except it's 'well regulated militia', not just militia.



Obviously both sides are playing semantics.. but again, your interpretation makes 'well regulated militia' redundant, so why did they include it?

Well a well regulated militia is better than a shittily regulated militia. Yes?

*nods*

Sometimes I feel like we're the only ones with quotas...

[Grinning Dragon]

Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

This should explain the usage of the prefatory clause in the 2nd Amendment much better than I, to try to recall from memory.

[Bombadil]

Here's my genuine question..

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.

As I understood it the interpretation rests in the commas, but my question is..

..if 'a well regulated militia' is essentially redundant then why include it at all? If the amendment meant to give the right to everyone regardless then why have those words in it at all. Seems clear to me that the inclusion means it has significance, that the purpose was to allow guns as part of a well regulated militia, not just willy-nilly for everyone.

Why is about commas?

Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). Those that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks, yeah I had noticed that various states have slightly clearer interpretations. Seems to me the US was supposed to be more like the Swiss canton system but the federal government has way over reached its power. I can certainly understand why in terms of civil rights but this has clearly seeped into all areas.

Seems to me that gun rights could act as a framing point to simply review the US as a whole if there was a candidate brave enough and able to cut through the noise of partisan rhetoric.

For myself I don't mind guns, I hunted when young and had shotguns but they were licensed, had to be locked separate from the key and I certainly couldn't just walk around town with them.

[Chernoslavia]

Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). Those that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks, yeah I had noticed that various states have slightly clearer interpretations. Seems to me the US was supposed to be more like the Swiss canton system but the federal government has way over reached its power. I can certainly understand why in terms of civil rights but this has clearly seeped into all areas.

Seems to me that gun rights could act as a framing point to simply review the US as a whole if there was a candidate brave enough and able to cut through the noise of partisan rhetoric.

For myself I don't mind guns, I hunted when young and had shotguns but they were licensed, had to be locked separate from the key and I certainly couldn't just walk around town with them.

Now that I think of it, I think the Swiss were the absolute first to do something like that.

[Slavakino]

More gunpowder epic

[Telconi]

Compare the Virginia Declaration of Rights which the Federal Bill of Rights is largely based:

"That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power." Virginia Declaration of Rights, 1776 - Section 13

It looks like they started to quote Section 13 word for word, and then went succinct.

Notice that they used commas and semi-colons that would be grammatically incorrect today. Also, that a citizen militia is considered safe, while a standing army is considered dangerous.

Federal law throughout our history has defined the Militia as all (draft) capable men between the years of age 18 to 35-45. An organization can be regular (meeting on a regular basis) like many counties used to do or irregular (no set meeting times if any), regulated (like the ones that used to meet at the county armories (and some still do, and largely usurped by the National Guard Act). The Federal law defining these change often as America changes from a limited government federal republic to an ever expanding bureaucratic administrative state.

When I was a teenager my county still required me to join the bucket list as part of an organize militia -- report to the sheriff for deputation training, join the volunteer fire department, become an EMT (paid for by the county), join the National Guard, and there were some other options like clerking for the courthouse. If someone owned a weapon of war like a tank or bazooka they were required to keep it at the Country Armory and only use it when authorized (like for training with the National Guard). Those that stopped doing so can be considered unorganized. As the US drifts further from its roots, few jurisdictions even have memory of what it means to fulfill the 2nd Amendment.

Thanks, yeah I had noticed that various states have slightly clearer interpretations. Seems to me the US was supposed to be more like the Swiss canton system but the federal government has way over reached its power. I can certainly understand why in terms of civil rights but this has clearly seeped into all areas.

Seems to me that gun rights could act as a framing point to simply review the US as a whole if there was a candidate brave enough and able to cut through the noise of partisan rhetoric.

For myself I don't mind guns, I hunted when young and had shotguns but they were licensed, had to be locked separate from the key and I certainly couldn't just walk around town with them.

Would you mind if someone did just walk around town with one, why or why not?

[Bombadil]

Would you mind if someone did just walk around town with one, why or why not?

Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.

[Chernoslavia]

Would you mind if someone did just walk around town with one, why or why not?

Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.

...Aren't you in South Africa?

[Bombadil]

Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.

...Aren't you in South Africa?

HK.

[Chernoslavia]

...Aren't you in South Africa?

HK.

Heckler and Koch?

[Telconi]

Would you mind if someone did just walk around town with one, why or why not?

Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.

Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.

[Bombadil]

HK.

Heckler and Koch?

Even in airports, where I can see their use, I still find it odd when I see those.. I was in Paris a couple of years ago over Christmas and there was a terrorist scare in the airport when I was checking in. All these armed police with H+K's came running in and ordered us out onto the pavement.. if you're really unused to seeing guns it's unnerving to be faced with them.

Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.

I don't have a problem with guns given their proper and responsible use. There simply isn't much hunting here.. but then I think the idea of everyone owning a gun, or walking around town with them, is in theory a fine idea until you see society breaking down.

I mean civil wars are perpetuated by the global gun trade, there was a flow map of where guns come from and go to and it's depressing, flowing from the UK, France, US and Russia into economically and societally divided regions.

It's easy to support gun ownership in a statistically safe place.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

...Aren't you in South Africa?

HK.

That won't stop the PLA from firing their guns.

[Chernoslavia]

Considering what's occurring in my city at the moment I thank god it's essentially a gun free state.

Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.

Considering Hong Kong is being strong armed by the PRC, I'd rather people have easier access to guns.

[LiberNovusAmericae]

Which is interesting, because you said you didn't have a problem with guns. I find it odd that you say you don't have a problem with guns, and yet you "thank God" that there aren't any around.

Considering Hong Kong is being strong armed by the PRC, I'd rather people have easier access to guns.

He might be in the pro-China political camp.