New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen

[Smit]

When you see the term "well regulated", how do you interpret that? 

It seems to me that the two different spectrums of people interpret that phrase differently.

Just to give away my reason for asking -

CNN has a document out "27 Words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment - 

I see some people interpreting that as meaning to be regulated by government.  Here is the interpretation written in the CNN document.

Unsurprisingly it seems most folks regard it as filler verbiage to be discarded as it doesn't fit what they choose to believe.

But Neuro, since you asked, I interpret the term "militia" as being outside of government. That might not have been the case back then.

The "well regulated" would certainly indicate they thought some kind of structure was to be or should be in place.

[mkd]

The "well regulated" would certainly indicate they thought some kind of structure was to be or should be in place.

pretty reasonable take, smit.

 Like the boston tea party, I believe the Jan 6th protesters constituted a not so well regulated militia as evidenced by officers inviting them in. Their continued political prisoner status is a blight on our nation.

[neurosis]

Unsurprisingly it seems most folks regard it as filler verbiage to be discarded as it doesn't fit what they choose to believe.

  This is another debate that I usually stay out of. Especially in here.    I've was brought up around and have been around guns and responsible gun owners throughout my life. But I've also been around people who act like they are some kind of status symbol or toy. It's just my opinion - that not every swinging dick moron in the Country should be trusted with something that can so easily take out one of them family member or friends because they are too dumb to respect what it actually is.

[mkd]

It's just my opinion - that not every swinging dick moron in the Country should be trusted with something that can so easily take out one of them family member or friends because they are too dumb to respect what it actually is.

yes, you should apply for a free speech permit.

[neurosis]

yes, you should apply for a free speech permit.

The next time I accidentally shoot someone while cleaning my unloaded free speech I'll take that in to consideration.

[YoDoug]

It's just my opinion - that not every swinging dick moron in the Country should be trusted with something that can so easily take out one of them family member or friends because they are too dumb to respect what it actually is.

Ahh but where do we draw the line? There are way more morons behind the wheel of a car that will recklessly kill someone. Should we allow red flag car/license laws. Report someone driving recklessly and they get their car/license taken.

Every law needed with respect to guns already exists. It is illegal to coerce, threaten, forcefully hold someone at gun point. It is illegal to shoot someone unless it is in self defense. It is illegal to discharge a gun in most cities. etc, etc, etc. If the existing laws are not deterring enough people from misusing guns then perhaps we need to increase fines/jail time for those violations.

[beej]

Asking for a friend....why is it that "A well regulated militia" part always get passed over but people cling to the "shall not be infringed" part like it's the only thing that matters?

Does everybody think the people who wrote the 2nd amendment just used it to make the amendment longer but didn't really mean it?

I kinda wished the justices would've addressed that but they, too, skipped right to the "shall no be infringed" part.

here is some reading on the regulated militia from the federalist papers early in 1788. 6 months before it was ratified. it sounds like there was a lot of skepticism of a federal military at the time. There must have been some that wanted state control of it.
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

[neurosis]

Ahh but where do we draw the line?

You can't. That's why I stay out of the debate. And again, that is just my opinion.

We have to take a test to get a drivers license but they'll hand a gun to any moron regardless of their intentions so in my opinion, the car analogy doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't even get a license to drive without going to some kind of driver education class in Washington State.    

It's an impossible argument.

On one hand, I think that responsible gun owners shouldn't have their rights infringed upon. On  the other, I've been around enough gangster wannabes that you don't have to be a genius to realize that there are a lot of things they shouldn't be doing.. like breeding. 

[mkd]

Next week i'll be applying for a work permit, a free speech permit, a house buying permit, a business permit, a building permit, a getting a new job permit, a drivers license, a being a stupid cunt permit.
But i won't be applying for a gun permit.

[Matthew Hajicek]

When you see the term "well regulated", how do you interpret that? 

It seems to me that the two different spectrums of people interpret that phrase differently.

Just to give away my reason for asking -

CNN has a document out "27 Words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment - 

I see some people interpreting that as meaning to be regulated by government.  Here is the interpretation written in the CNN document.

Code Select Expand

10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
U.S. Code
Notes
prev | next
(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.
(Aug. 10, 1956, ch. 1041, 70A Stat. 14, § 311; Pub. L. 85–861, § 1(7), Sept. 2, 1958, 72 Stat. 1439; Pub. L. 103–160, div. A, title V, § 524(a), Nov. 30, 1993, 107 Stat. 1656; renumbered § 246, Pub. L. 114–328, div. A, title XII, § 1241(a)(2), Dec. 23, 2016, 130 Stat. 2497.)
In other words, if you are between the ages of 18 and 45, and of sound mind and body, you are a member of the militia.

If anything should be changed, it should be to make the language gender neutral, and perhaps to raise the ending age, as the age at which the average American ceases to be fit to fight is much older than it was in the 1700's.

It's up to you to make yourself well regulated; you need to work out, practice, train, study strategy and tactics, etc.  There used to be government programs to arm and train the common citizen for this purpose.

[Matthew Hajicek]

You can't. That's why I stay out of the debate. And again, that is just my opinion.

We have to take a test to get a drivers license but they'll hand a gun to any moron regardless of their intentions so in my opinion, the car analogy doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't even get a license to drive without going to some kind of driver education class in Washington State.  

It's an impossible argument.

On one hand, I think that responsible gun owners shouldn't have their rights infringed upon. On  the other, I've been around enough gangster wannabes that you don't have to be a genius to realize that there are a lot of things they shouldn't be doing.. like breeding. 

They'll hand a drivers license to anyone regardless of their intention, all they have to do is pass a stupid simple test, and that's not even a constitutional right.  A 16 year old with a fresh license can buy a 1300cc Hayabusa, a Hummer, a Lamborghini, practically any overpowered vehicle they want, and drive it legally.  You can even buy a car without a license or insurance, no background check, no nothing, use it to smuggle drugs, people, guns, whatever, drive drunk at 165MPH at 3AM if you like, or smash into a crowd killing dozens.  They only enforce the laws AFTER you break them.

With gun control, they're trying to enforce laws preemptively; they think you might hurt someone, so you lose your rights.  Or worse, they think someone might hurt someone, so everyone (except the rich and connected) loses their rights.

Any politician who wants to ban a type of gun should lead by example by prohibiting their protection detail from using them.

[neurosis]

all they have to do is pass a stupid simple test,

You're not going to change my mind on this no matter how hard you try. Just like I'm not going to change yours.

At least there is a test in place. They don't just let some 16 year old with 0 driving experience get behind the wheel of a car. Not in my State anyway.  Again, the car is a bad analogy. 

[mkd]

You're not going to change my mind on this no matter how hard you try.

Yes, we are

[YoDoug]

You can't. That's why I stay out of the debate. And again, that is just my opinion.

We have to take a test to get a drivers license but they'll hand a gun to any moron regardless of their intentions so in my opinion, the car analogy doesn't make a lot of sense. You can't even get a license to drive without going to some kind of driver education class in Washington State.    

It's an impossible argument.

On one hand, I think that responsible gun owners shouldn't have their rights infringed upon. On  the other, I've been around enough gangster wannabes that you don't have to be a genius to realize that there are a lot of things they shouldn't be doing.. like breeding. 

The car analogy is not a true apples=apples argument, but it does hold some credence here. Matt got straight to the point, they are trying to pass preemptive laws. They will undoubtedly abuse this and at some point most of us on this forum will have to choose between handing over our guns or standing up for the fight because our very words on this forum will have been deemed "dangerous" by someone of opposite ideology.

[mkd]

this thread needs a theme song