Hmm, we seem to be hitting a lapse due to posting times on each of our parts.

What i mean is -w hen im posting a new idea, you're posting a rebuttal to an old one, or vice versa, and we both seem to be missing each others newest posts



If you don't mind, would you offer me your interpretation of my idea that says


a militia, as its defined both by my link in the previous post, and by the constitution's bill of rights - does not encompass ALL of the people.

It specifically refers to those people who make up a militia. (the thread about "fish and chips for ATS members" on the last page.

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

source from last post


it doesnt say government has the right to define a militia anywhere in there.


IMO - The definition of militia *is* the most important part of this decision.

If the militia played no role in the right to bare arms, why would the document mention the militia?

As it is written and passed by the house and senate:

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

Lets break it up grammatically.

A well regulated militia -- the subject of the statement


being necessary to the security of a free State, -- modifies the subject "militia" gives it a direction



now here comes the conundrum


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

Does "the people" refer to the people of the militia, or to "all people" ?

If it refers to "all people" why does it mention a militia as the subject of the paragraph?




Thats my big snag on the interpretation y ou offer me. Im not bashign you and saying "YOU ARE WRGOONNNNN GRRR"

i am saying it doesnt make sense to me.

If the 2nd amendment refers to ALL PEOPLE
then why was it confined to a "well regulated militia" ?

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

[edit on 8/11/2008 by Andrew E. Wiggin]

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.
2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.
3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.
4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

source from last post


it doesnt say government has the right to define a militia anywhere in there.


IMO - The definition of militia *is* the most important part of this decision.

If the militia played no role in the right to bare arms, why would the document mention the militia?

As it is written and passed by the house and senate:

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

Lets break it up grammatically.

A well regulated militia

It mentions militias because militias played a vital role in the revolution. Without them there would have been no victory. As I stated these militias consisted of normal citizens, most of them volunteered and brought their own firearms to the fight.

A Well regulated militia...

Who regulates the militia, we already determined it not/shouldn't be the gov. So that would leave the people to regulate it?

Like I said above (i may have edited it while you were typing) IMHO the right to bear arms is granted to the people, so that they may form the said militia when the time comes.

I read it like this

A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state

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

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin
[Thats my big snag on the interpretation y ou offer me. Im not bashign you and saying "YOU ARE WRGOONNNNN GRRR"

I never took it that way, actually I consider this a very well civilized debate, expecially when compared to other debates on topics this polarized. I do appreciate that by the way...


I believe if they meant it only to apply to militias then it would have been worded something like this:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep that militia, shall not be infringed

I would say a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

But thats just me, like you said this could go on forever...

Unfortunately for some - its something a lot of people agree with me on also...

Originally posted by Andrew E. Wiggin


Except that if they had said "should not infringe on the right to bear any specific types of arms"

or worded similarly

it says it should not be infringed upon the right to bear arms.

You still have a right to bare arms.

Just not all.

I'd be willing to bet that the constitution would ahve been worded a bit differently if Thomas Jefferson had ever seen what a .50 cal sniper rifle is capable of.

But of course, that's interpretation.

How many paint chips does one have to eat to come up with logic like that?

If they intended for gun control laws to be constitutional, they could have said " the right to bear only the arms approved by government shall not be infringed."

They put NO LIMITS on what type of arms citizens could and should bear .

I believe it is the right of americans to bear arms, but not the right of those who have the intention of abusing it and those who cannot handle it.

We are seeing too many school/youth shootings these days, it is too easy to access these weapons, almost anybody could just walk into a gun shop and acquire these weapons. I dont think more control over fire arms will solve the growing issue of youth gun violence in america, there are other factors to consider aswell such as the responsibility of parents/caregivers themselves and other authorities but more gun control will lower the risk of somebody who is unfit purchasing/ acquiring these weapons.

Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the ones responsible for Columbine acquired such weapons as the Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle and pump-action shotguns at the ages of only 18. In addition both members committed numerous felony violations prior to columbine but they still manages to get all these weapons. Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia massacre acquired arms easily despite his past mental and autism disabilities. These are but a few examples of the lack of control over guns by the government on all levels.

Obama is not going to take your arms away, this is yet again more fear mongering coming from righties to themselves and others. The plan is to put more regulation in place that gun ownership stores and other centers can be sure their selling these weapons to mentally fit members of society and those who are of a certain maturity. It is your right in the constitution to bear arms however it is not your right to acquire these weapons if you have previously used such weapons to kill or you known to have a history of mental illness. Tell me where is this proposal is wrong?



[edit on 11-8-2008 by southern_Guardian]

heh very true.

Though - here's my question...

fistly - i would argue it should read this way if it means "all people"

For the security of the state, the right of the people to bare arms, should not be infringed.



Because - after all - if "all people" are its intention - then there really is no reason to bring "militia" into it.


Here is how i read it. Take note of the punctuation


A well organized militia, that is important to the security of the state, shall not have the rights of its people to bare arms infringed upon.


But - then again - like we agreed upon - it could go on forever

or until we invent a way to clone Thomas Jefferson based on his 200 year old DNA and grow him into an adult and ask him what it means....

that is of course - if DNA stores memories ......

now that ive gone way off topic.....

i gota hit the sack

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the ones responsible for Columbine acquired such weapons as the Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle and pump-action shotguns at the ages of only 18. In addition both members committed numerous felony violations prior to columbine but they still manages to get all these weapons. Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia massacre acquired arms easily despite his past mental and autism disabilities. These are but a few examples of the lack of control over guns by the government on all levels.

Current proposed legislation would only make 1 of those weapons illegal. If I remember correclty those weapons were purchased illegaly, and gun control would have had no effect on it. If weapons were sold to felons at a legit gun store, then that store should be held responsible using the current laws, no need for new ones. As far as mental illness is concerned, if it was documented then current laws (i think) should have prevented the sale assuming it was a legit sale. If it was not documented, then why are the gun stores or the average joe responsible.

I'll concede to gun control, as far as keeping it out of the hands of felons, and those who are mentally ill. But gun control on what types is not needed. It will have no effect on illegally gained weapons, as most of them come across our horribly gaurded borders anyways...

Originally posted by XTexan

Originally posted by southern_Guardian
Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, the ones responsible for Columbine acquired such weapons as the Hi-Point 995 Carbine 9 mm semi-automatic rifle and pump-action shotguns at the ages of only 18. In addition both members committed numerous felony violations prior to columbine but they still manages to get all these weapons. Seung-Hui Cho of the Virginia massacre acquired arms easily despite his past mental and autism disabilities. These are but a few examples of the lack of control over guns by the government on all levels.

Current proposed legislation would only make 1 of those weapons illegal. If I remember correclty those weapons were purchased illegaly, and gun control would have had no effect on it. If weapons were sold to felons at a legit gun store, then that store should be held responsible using the current laws, no need for new ones. As far as mental illness is concerned, if it was documented then current laws (i think) should have prevented the sale assuming it was a legit sale. If it was not documented, then why are the gun stores or the average joe responsible.

I'll concede to gun control, as far as keeping it out of the hands of felons, and those who are mentally ill. But gun control on what types is not needed. It will have no effect on illegally gained weapons, as most of them come across our horribly gaurded borders anyways...

Point made xtexan, but im glad there is some agreement. I am a supporter of the constitution but highly critical at the current state of gun regulation.