The 2'nd Amendment ONLY applies to Americans in the military (full-time or reserves)

Damocles said:
This could only be true if the words "the people" mean something different in this one sentence than it does in every other part of the document, and you and I both know that isn't true.

In the language of today it basically says: Because the government can call on an armed group of folks at will (currently a standing army, back then an armed militia), the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Click to expand...

That's a wrap people. Well stated Damocles. :clap:
 
AProudLefty said:
giphy.gif
Click to expand...

Yep, bingo. That being said....... the government has the right, and exercises that right, to abridge freedom of speech and prohibit the free exercise of religion in cases where the public interest outweighs the right. NONE of these rights is unfettered.
 
McRocket said:
First...I am a fan of firearms. And I do NOT want to ban any class of firearms.

Okay...

2'nd Amendment
'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.'

So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?

(i) The Militia Act of 1903

'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
https://archive.org/details/jstor-25119439/page/n1/mode/2up

The actual text of the Militia Act of 1903 - https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012yapam90993/?sp=1

(ii) '10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.'

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246


So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.

And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.

And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.



And for those whom wish to argue that the 'Militia' is NOT the subject of the sentence?

2'nd Amendment
'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.'


First -
'The subject of a sentence will never be in a prepositional phrase.'
https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/subject-of-a-sentence.html

'A propositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence'
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm


Second -
'A prepositional phrase is a group of words that lacks either a verb or a subject, and that functions as a unified part of speech. It normally consists of a preposition and a noun or a preposition and a pronoun.
Remember the following rules for prepositional phrases and you will find that using them becomes much easier.
Prepositional phrases always consist of two basic parts at minimum: the object and the preposition.'

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/preposition/prepositional-phrases/
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/prepositions

Third - 'of the people'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of a sentence.

Or - 'to keep and bear Arms'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of the sentence.

Fourth - 'A well regulated Militia'
is NOT a prepositional phrase.
'A' is an 'article' - NOT a 'preposition'..
'well' is NOT a 'preposition'.
'regulated' is NOT a 'preposition'.

Therefore:
The subject of the sentence IS 'a well regulated Militia'.


Finally?

I do not even begin to care how the SCOTUS or legal 'experts' or ANYONE else has 'interpreted' the 2'nd Amendment.
Or what ANYONE assumed the Founding Fathers meant by it.
Or what ANYONE's, unsupported opinions are on this.
If your reply does not include a link to a respected site to back up your point - I am not going to waste my time reading it.
I am NOT getting into the trillionth, nonsensical, hyperventilating discussion that people have about US gun rights.
:rolleyes:

All I care about here is how the Amendment is written and how it applies to US laws and the English Language.
Click to expand...

wrong.

you're a totalitarian.

regardless of the talk about militia, the constitution says the right of the PEOPLE to bare arms will not be infringed.

go fuck yourself, deep state cocksucker.
 
McRocket said:
First...I am a fan of firearms. And I do NOT want to ban any class of firearms.

Okay...

2'nd Amendment
'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.'

So...what exactly is 'A well regulated Militia'?

(i) The Militia Act of 1903

'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.'
https://archive.org/details/jstor-25119439/page/n1/mode/2up

The actual text of the Militia Act of 1903 - https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012yapam90993/?sp=1

(ii) '10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.'

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246


So...there are two kinds of militia - according to US law.
The organized and the unorganized.

And since the 2'nd Amendment refers SOLELY to 'a well regulated Militia'?
Than, the 2'nd Amendment cannot POSSIBLY include the 'unorganized militia'.
It is not possible for a 'well regulated Militia' to be 'unorganized'.

And since the ONLY organized militia refers ONLY to the military?
The 2'nd Amendment does NOT include ANYONE whom is not in the military.
By law.



And for those whom wish to argue that the 'Militia' is NOT the subject of the sentence?

2'nd Amendment
'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.'


First -
'The subject of a sentence will never be in a prepositional phrase.'
https://www.english-grammar-revolution.com/subject-of-a-sentence.html

'A propositional phrase will never contain the subject of a sentence'
https://www.chompchomp.com/terms/prepositionalphrase.htm


Second -
'A prepositional phrase is a group of words that lacks either a verb or a subject, and that functions as a unified part of speech. It normally consists of a preposition and a noun or a preposition and a pronoun.
Remember the following rules for prepositional phrases and you will find that using them becomes much easier.
Prepositional phrases always consist of two basic parts at minimum: the object and the preposition.'

https://www.gingersoftware.com/content/grammar-rules/preposition/prepositional-phrases/
https://academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/grammar/prepositions

Third - 'of the people'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of a sentence.

Or - 'to keep and bear Arms'
IS a prepositional phrase.
It starts with a preposition and ends with a noun.
It CANNOT be the subject of the sentence.

Fourth - 'A well regulated Militia'
is NOT a prepositional phrase.
'A' is an 'article' - NOT a 'preposition'..
'well' is NOT a 'preposition'.
'regulated' is NOT a 'preposition'.

Therefore:
The subject of the sentence IS 'a well regulated Militia'.


Finally?

I do not even begin to care how the SCOTUS or legal 'experts' or ANYONE else has 'interpreted' the 2'nd Amendment.
Or what ANYONE assumed the Founding Fathers meant by it.
Or what ANYONE's, unsupported opinions are on this.
If your reply does not include a link to a respected site to back up your point - I am not going to waste my time reading it.
I am NOT getting into the trillionth, nonsensical, hyperventilating discussion that people have about US gun rights.
:rolleyes:

All I care about here is how the Amendment is written and how it applies to US laws and the English Language.
Click to expand...

False conditional. Semantics fallacy.

2nd Amendment said:
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.
Click to expand...

The right of self defense is inherent. It does not come from a piece of paper.

The 2nd amendment discusses this right, both for States (as collections of people), and for people individually. In other words, it discusses two cases, not one.

The States have the right to defend themselves. They do this by organizing militias made up of the people of that State (armies).
The people have the right to defend themselves. They do this by owning (keeping) and carrying (bearing) Arms (weapons).

This is NOT a discussion what 'the Founding Fathers' intended. It is NOT about speaking for the dead. It is about what is in the Constitution TODAY.

The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution of the United States. No web site or URL is a valid reference. Since you decided to open up yet another 'trillionth, nonsensical, hyperventilating' discussion about US gun rights, you have only yourself to blame.

There are NO limitations specified as weapons. ANY weapon is valid and legal. That includes ANY gun or accessory for them. And, before you try this extreme argument, yes...it includes nuclear bombs.
 
Damocles said:
This could only be true if the words "the people" mean something different in this one sentence than it does in every other part of the document, and you and I both know that isn't true.

In the language of today it basically says: Because the government can call on an armed group of folks at will (currently a standing army, back then an armed militia), the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms cannot be infringed.
Click to expand...

The problem with your “in the language of today” is that it doesn’t apply to the language of the day in which the amendment was written.

In the language of the day, the term “to bear arms” was in a military context. One did not “bear arms” to go shoot dinner. They bore arms to fight an enemy.

The founders had great disdain for a standing army, and thus the need for a well regulated militia. Today, that has no relevance, as our standing military is the largest in the history of mankind.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. This is settled law. Not just the placement of the comma, but the background.

SCOTUS doesn't rule on a single paragraph. They study the history and as many documents of the time as possible to discern what the Founders, signers and ratifiers meant by the Amendment.

There's no question that our Founders understood that every American citizen had a right to both self-defense but also, by name, to keep and bear arms. Arms meaning firearms.
Click to expand...

You don't get to speak for the dead, dude.
 
AProudLefty said:
In 1861 Connecticut was the first state to formally adopt the title "National Guard" for its militia, and the term became near universal following the Civil War. By the time the National Defense Act of 1916 mandated the use of "National Guard" as the title for all organized militia, only Virginia had not already adopted it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_United_States_Army_National_Guard
Click to expand...

The National Guard is a federal militia, not a State militia. Any State has the right to defend itself by forming a militia.
 
McRocket said:
Correct.

As far as US law is concerned.
As stated in 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes






True.
So it cannot be the subject of the 2'nd Amendment.
Click to expand...

WRONG!

Any State has the right to defend itself by forming a State militia. The federal government has NO authority or even a capability to prevent this.
 
Dutch Uncle said:
Agreed. A militia addresses concerns protecting the autonomy and security of each state plus the concern about Federal overreach. It was a given that citizens had a right to self-defense, but since a militia required firearms, they put the firearms in writing.
Click to expand...

The word 'firearms' doesn't occur in the Constitution of the United States.
 
McRocket said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

https://www.loc.gov/resource/rbc0001.2012yapam90993/?sp=2

'The Militia Act of 1903

'The first section reiterates the law of 1793, that the militia shall consist of every able-bodied citizen between eighteen and forty-five, and divides the militia into two classes — the organized militia or National Guard, and the unorganized or reserve militia.
The third section defines the " organized militia " as the regu- larly enlisted, organized, and uniformed militia which shall here- after participate in the annual militia appropriation (heretofore only one million a year). It gives the President authority to fix the minimum number of enlisted men in each company.''
https://archive.org/details/jstor-25119439/page/n1/mode/2up


And saying that nothing passed since the 2nd Amendment was written can change or clarify what what the latter mean?
Come on now?
You cannot actually believe that?
I thought you were smarter than that?
Click to expand...

The federal government does not have authority to change the Constitution.
 
Into the Night said:
No. He doesn't get to speak for the dead. Neither do you.

The ONLY authoritative reference of the Constitution of the United States is the Constitution of the United States.
I understand your confusion, since you don't know English.
Click to expand...

he's right on this one.
 
AProudLefty said:
To me it's pretty clear that the militia and the people are one and the same.
Click to expand...
They are not. Redefinition fallacy.
AProudLefty said:
If "the people" want to organize a militia, they are free to do so.
Click to expand...
No, they are not. See the constitutions of the various States.
AProudLefty said:
They are not a threat to the government.
Click to expand...
Void argument fallacy.
AProudLefty said:
In a nutshell, the militia are the people and the people are the militia.
Click to expand...
Redefinition fallacy.
AProudLefty said:
Tell me if I am wrong.
Click to expand...
You are wrong.

A militia is organized by a State to defend itself. Every State has this right, just as the federal government itself has this right. A national militia also exists, organized by the federal government. It is called the National Guard.
People are just that...people. They do not have to be part of any militia.

You should check the constitution of the State you are in. Most of these State constitutions do not allow people to form private militias. They do, however, reiterate the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top