Home Forums Hunting & Shooting Hunter's Campfire New angle of attack for anti gunners

our local anti Second Amendment lefty mayor has been articulating the new tact the liberals are going to take. Instead of the usual attacks on the Constitutionality of owning guns, they are using the exact wording of the Amendment to justify their point of view.
We extol the words "shall not be abridged", but they will be using the words "A well regulated Militia". Their point is that with the current and on going occurrences of mass shootings, the militia is NOT well regulated. Their efforts are going to be directed at Regulating the militia, which they now admit means the body politic.
Bottom line is they will never, ever, under any circumstances give up their fight.

Agreed, and we must also never give up the fight.

From what I've read 'Well Regulated' meant the firearms, ammo. training of the militia, meaning all males from age 15 or 16 to age 45.

The militia doesn’t have the right to keep and bear arms, the people do. They can pass a law saying the militia has to wear pink pussy hats and it wouldn’t change the fact that it’s an individual right. Heller put that to rest even though anyone capable of reading English already knew it.

That's the angle that was recently thrown at me. "They had a militia because they didn't have a regular army. Now that we have a military, there's no need for a militia or the Second Amendment."

Funny how they always find a way around talking about all the illegals murdering Americans with ill-gotten firearms.

IT'S ALWAYS ABOUT DISARMING AMERICANS.

Case in point:

https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbt...nviction-of-kate-steinle-s-killer#UNREAD

Does anyone honestly believe their treatment of the citizens will improve after disarmament? It's already Orwellian.

Thinking SCOTUS has already ruled on the meaning of "militia " and did so favorably from a deplorable's perspective.

Fugg em

That doesn't mean that the libs accepted it though; always subject to continual & ongoing review from their POV...............................nothing is ever final.

Whereas, if it's something they like, once there is a ruling at any level, it becomes "settled" law, whatever the fu^ck that means.

MM

The second references two groups.... the state (government) and the people.
BECAUSE the state has a well regulated militia, the right of THE PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..... to protect themselves from the states "well regulated militia".

If you're talking about the US Constitution, that has already been hashed out. The Supreme Court, in Heller, determined that the right resides with the people, as clearly stated in the Amendment. The militia was supposed to be our primary defensive force in times of peace. Regular armies were only to be raised after a declaration of war. But militias weren't the basis for the right. The basis for the right was that it already belonged to the people from God, and the Second Amendment only guarantees that it will not be infringed (cut back from its entirety) by the US Government.

“The people” is the phrase that is used everywhere individual rights are concerned. States rights, etc are delineated as such.

Take a look and check out how many amendments specifically address individual rights.

As George Mason said during the creation of the bill of rights, "the militia is the people."

Nowhere does it say that "the people" have a right to keep and bear arms so they can be part of the militia. My interpretation is that the phrase, "A well organized militia being necessary to the security of a free state, ..." Simply acknowledges that the government has the right to raise a "well-organized militia." Then there's that comma. The comma signifies the separation of two ideas. It says to me that because the government needs to be able to raise a "well-organized militia" the people, also, have the right to keep and bear arms (to protect themselves from governmental misuse of said militia. I think we've made a big mistake over the years in our assertion that "we are the militia" mentioned.

Yeah, that's the interpretation that Penn and Teller gave to it in a video they produced on the subject a few years ago. Hard to find fault with it based strictly on the words.

Regulated = armed and prepared to protect. There is a national militia law and every state has or did have a militia law. Being retired from the WV Air Guard I am part of the non-organized militia by WV state law.

THE PEOPLE is in the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 9th, & 10th amendments. It either means THE PEOPLE in all or none of them.

Gawd, they’ve tried this tactic before, it’s just recycled. Saw an op-ed on Market Watch where a guy was touting the same argument.

As others have noted Heller addressed this issue, but the left won’t let it go.

Every mass shooting just adds fuel to their efforts.

Yep you’re correct they won’t quit beating this dead horse. Better hope RBG kicks off before the election or Trump gets re-elected.


Fing liberals anyway.

PS Thomas Jefferson was appalled at the use of four commas in the proposed Second Amendment when he saw how it was going out. He said that they made for a nonsense statement, due to improper grammar. He composed a corrected version, but by the time he submitted it, he was told they had already been sent out to the various state legislatures.

His grammatically corrected version was 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."

This makes clear the intent, i.e., that since a well regulated militia is necessary for state security (e.g., against invasion or insurrection), a counterpoint to it was also required, i.e., an armed populous.

This interpretation is in perfect accord with the Federalist Papers, too, which predates the Second Amendment. It refers to "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Clearly the Founders intended for this right to be guaranteed by the Bill of Rights, since it was one of the foundations of their defense of the proposed Constitution. In other words, some objected to the proposed constitution out of fear that it would interfere with the right to arm that Americans enjoyed, and the Founders assured them that this would continue. Not good enough, the people demanded a specific guarantee of this in a Bill of Rights (the Second Amendment) attached to the constitution, and they later gave it to them as a condition for ratification.