As IF this hasn't been debated ad nauseum for eleventy hundred years...

and gun nuts STILL don't get it! The amendment is clear: well regulated militia. It even comes 1st thing!... before the "right".

So it still needs to be brought up, because gun nuts are blind to the 1st half of the amendment... apparently.

r4ecced and unrecced just for the hell of it.....

if not that there need to be some rational controls in place,
to avoid scenarios like Aurora.

Thanks.

The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

So the definition of "Militia" is defined by STATUTE, not the Constitution. I'll file that one away.

Can anything unorganised be well regulated?

turn in their guns.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XVII
MILITARY AFFAIRS AND RELATED MATTERS

Chapter 250
MILITARY AFFAIRS

View Entire Chapter
250.02?Militia.—
(1)?The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.
(2)?The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.
(3)?The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.
(4)?Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.
History.—s. 4, ch. 8502, 1921; CGL 2015; s. 1, ch. 25112, 1949; s. 1, ch. 73-93; s. 2, ch. 2003-68.
Note.—Former ss. 250.04, 250.05.


no matter how wrong you might be.

I'd be thrilled if gun culture could constrain themselves in a similar fashion.

The weapons and ammo were kept under lock and key and only distributed for cleaning, training or going to war.
And please take note about the "training" thing. Mandatory !

Now for some reality:

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XVII
MILITARY AFFAIRS AND RELATED MATTERS

Chapter 250
MILITARY AFFAIRS

View Entire Chapter
250.02?Militia.—
(1)?The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.
(2)?The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.
(3)?The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.
(4)?Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.
History.—s. 4, ch. 8502, 1921; CGL 2015; s. 1, ch. 25112, 1949; s. 1, ch. 73-93; s. 2, ch. 2003-68.
Note.—Former ss. 250.04, 250.05.

I live in the USA and have, in the not too distant past, bore arms for the said USA. I could give a fuck less what the state of Florida says or what sort of "ceremonial statutes it keeps in it's Constitution. My draft notice was from the Defense Dept. of the USA, where I swore to defend all 50 States and the Territories, including Florida.

Then they would take them home with them because they belonged to them.

The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XVII
MILITARY AFFAIRS AND RELATED MATTERS

Chapter 250
MILITARY AFFAIRS

View Entire Chapter
250.02?Militia.—
(1)?The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.
(2)?The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.
(3)?The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.
(4)?Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.
History.—s. 4, ch. 8502, 1921; CGL 2015; s. 1, ch. 25112, 1949; s. 1, ch. 73-93; s. 2, ch. 2003-68.
Note.—Former ss. 250.04, 250.05.

And militias have to be defined by law to have any authority. Otherwise It's just a mob.

You're just copying them from some RW "authority" you found on the Internet.

My post is the FEDERAL MILITIA ACT - which I pulled up by typing 'militia' into Google. Then you quibbled about something so I posted the Florida (where I reside) statute which spelled it more clearly. Then THAT wasn't good enough and you demanded a FEDERAL statute, which was my ORIGINAL post so I directed you back to that. Now, I'm being accused of being under some RW Svengali's spell. Whatever. I gave you both the FEDERAL statute AND the Florida - both of which say the same thing. Apparently you just have a problem accepting the fact that you are wrong.

Here it is again, all at once.

FEDERAL:
The reserve militia[3] or unorganized militia, also created by the Militia Act of 1903 which presently consist of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who are not members of the National Guard or Naval Militia.(that is, anyone who would be eligible for a draft). Former members of the armed forces up to age 65 are also considered part of the "unorganized militia" per Sec 313 Title 32 of the US Code.[2]

STATE:
The 2012 Florida Statutes

Title XVII
MILITARY AFFAIRS AND RELATED MATTERS

Chapter 250
MILITARY AFFAIRS

View Entire Chapter
250.02?Militia.—
(1)?The militia consists of all able-bodied citizens of this state and all other able-bodied persons who have declared their intention to become citizens.
(2)?The organized militia is composed of the National Guard and any other organized military forces that are authorized by law.
(3)?The unorganized militia is composed of all persons who are subject to military duty but who are not members of units of the organized militia.
(4)?Only persons exempt from military duty by the terms of federal law are exempt from military duty in this state.
History.—s. 4, ch. 8502, 1921; CGL 2015; s. 1, ch. 25112, 1949; s. 1, ch. 73-93; s. 2, ch. 2003-68.
Note.—Former ss. 250.04, 250.05.

We don't all live in Florida, you know.

These show up on the first page when one Googles 'militia United States'. I will leave any conclusions about your powers of research to the disinterested observer...


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

an authority should be able to comprehend what he reads.

The Supreme Court held:[43]
.
.
.
(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

It was a 5 to 4 vote.

As posted above, a liberal view that puts personal gun rights in the hands of the states.

Scalias "original text" position on this argument ?

nt

Try again.

K and R

It did not exist when the 2nd amendment was ratified and so that is not what the founders were thinking of. What did the founders think?

Examples:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment
during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788

"Those who hammer their guns into plowshares will plow for those who do not."
Thomas Jefferson
Third President of the United States

In my state (AZ) the state constitution says all adults above 18 are automatically part of the state militia. My former state (IL) constitution says the same thing. Most states have these provisions.

On the federal level congress passed a law in 1903 (currently 10 USC 311) which followed up on a 1792 law which states all able bodied men, 17 to 45 of age belong to the class known as the reserve militia. So depending on your age, gender or state you live in you are probably part of the militia whether you like it or not.

I have certainly had my questions regarding this. I still have them, but I'm now questioning my questions.

Either directly or by implication. Please quote where I did or stop trying to spread your bs. But as long as YOU are bringing the topic up, yes they do apply to non-whites. The laws are still in effect no matter when they were passed.

As far as women are concerned the federal laws state adult men which is what I posted. So I didn't imply anything there. But as long as YOU are bringing it up they would apply to women also. Courts routinely have used the 14th amendment to apply laws to women where the language of the law uses the term men.

Do you have a link or are you just hawking a strawman

It seems clear to me that an honest reading of the 2nd amendment leads one to no other conclusion but that. The phrase "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..." doesn't seem to me to go along with any sort of regulation at all.

I know that this position puts me into a minority and I'm comfortable with that. I just wanted you to know that there are some of us out here who think that way.

infringed. Nowhere in the Amendment do I see the words "You must be in the Militia in order for this text to apply to you" or any variation thereof.

Do you?

Honestly?

Although I've served in both the Active Duty military as well as the National Guard in the past. But that's neither here nor there. I don't have to be a member of the militia in order to exercise my 2nd amendment right to keep and bear arms. That's the point. Nowhere does the 2nd amendment specify that you must be a member of the militia in order for it to apply to you.

The really weird/perverse part about the second amendment is that if we still need such a militia the 2nd amendment's well regulated phrase could be read to imply that the firearms kept by the people be appropriate for use by a modern militia working together with our regular military forces.

When you consider what a well regulated modern militia might require... you can end up in a really strange place

It seems to me that a well a force made up of well regulated militia would probably be greatly benefited by using the standard calibers of military ammunition provided to regular forces-..and I think that part of being 'well-regulated' would make a rifle like Colt's semi-automatic AR-15 the very thing that would contribute to the irregular force of a bring your-own-guns-militia being a well regulated, force capable of efficiently integrating with the logistics of the regular military force.

I know it's a perverse thought, but I think it's one of those weird consequences that follows from the idea of still needing a BYG militia.

I think the 2nd Amendment needs amending about the need for a bring your own guns militia.

Switzerland, where the militia is well armed with full autos store safely(regulated) and locked at home. Where even bullets are REGULATED and a good reason or need must be shown to CC.

The well regulated militia was to discourage, what the founding fathers feared most, a large standing army.

in the armory along with all of the other armament. Are you old enough to remember armories, most cities had them back in the day. I think many still do but they aren't used for their original purpose. Yup the nearest city to me still has theirs.

Here it is: Choose the link for Ogdensburg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Armory_(Ogdensburg)

This explains their purpose: Choose the top one for military
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armory_(military)

but some with plenty of riot gear.

If you are telling yourself it's time to for you to put up or shut up, then how are you going to do it?

If anybody tries to rob my house, I'll blow up the entire city!

for home defense and put everyone within miles at risk from their dangerous weapons.

Just as long as you have to detonate the nuke using a muzzle loaded approach, its all good.

I give up, not worth arguing.

that.
Won't be anything left to eat but hey it's still just a big gun and I don't want my right to bear arms infringed on.

But that was just an 81mm mortar.

Anyone at all?

I suppose we could have a national draft. Many first world nations have experimented with that, even in peace time. Although most are phasing it out. Not sure what it would accomplish and it wasn't what the founders intended but I could see an argument for it I guess.

I truly believe that that was the original intent of the Founders as well as the clear meaning of the 2nd amendment. I also realize that I'm in the minority in my interpretation. But yes, I believe that there should be no limits whatsoever on the civilian ownership of arms under our current Constitution.

I'm sorry but this has to be said.

I mean no disrespect towards them. But what they thought was practical in 1776 has nothing to do with what is going on in our society now. I don't give 2 shits what their original intent was. They were just men, not gods, men. Intellectual heavyweights for their time, but men nonetheless. And something tells me if they saw the kind of weapons technology we have today and witnessed the stupidity of the gun humping 2nd amendment purists and the kind of havok its subjecting us too, they would've have worded that amendment a lot more carefully with consideration for people's safety.

So don't give me that original intent bullshit. It means nothing in a serious argument about the issue.

You're awesome.

Founding fathers didn't anticipate pornography either, ban it too?

I don't think they gave a rat's ass about it.

It would be so terrible if somebody came into a theater with a big bag of porn? Your logic is tortured.

trumps common sense.
And respect for human life.
And acknowledging the problem, never mind working on a solution.

Gun worship has become an insane religion, on a par with the Westboro Baptist 'church'. You know, the 'God Hates Fags' and 'God hates America' folks. The gun humping 2nd amendment purists claim to love America. But, in reality, they don't.

In the future, I'm going to call every gun humping 2nd amendment purist 'Fred Phelps'. It's about the most foul name I can imagine.

Private citizens should be able to own nuclear weapons? Tanks? Can I park an F-15 in my driveway?

I'm not saying that it's a particularly good idea, but I do believe that all current Federal firearms regulations are unconstitutional.

If you're uncomfortable with no restrictions on civilian ownership of arms that's cool, and a debate worth having, but don't pretend the 2nd Amendment says something it doesn't. For example, that one must be a member of a militia in order for it to apply. Those words, or even their spirit, simply isn't in the amendment. If you want to restrict 2nd Amendment rights at the Federal level then change the amendment.

Unless you live in a red state and you are not a paleface. Wait that is not correct. retool: Unless you live in a republican runned state and you are not a paleface. The red road is a red state of mind! Beautiful, harmony, peace. Do' da da go' hv i!

Belief really has nothing to do with it.

Does this mean my crazy neighbors can have NUKES?

wanted crazy and fucked up where we are free to kill eachother, yes.

Or on second thought, maybe I mis-interpreted.

It may actually mean:

Insane madman must be free to arm themselves with weapons of mass destruction so they can destroy the lives of innocent citizens.

That's probably what the founding fathers really meant.
They just didn't express it as well as they could.

I'd say that the militia is the context of the why the people are given the right but the right isn't conditional on being in the militia in any way.

The State used is like the Secretary of State (nation) and in any even the right was expressly granted to the people which is consistent in meaning the individual throughout the text, rights to the states enumerated.
Further, you have the context of inclusion in the bill of rights which is all about enumerating natural rights.

As far as the funking writing, I suspect it was a compromise stemming from a late 1700's analog to the same debate we are having now but with a more direct focus on the debate revolving around the rights of the states, individual rights, and Federal power and came to a compromise in language which essentially justifies the individual right (though not conditioned on) on the right to form militias (to counter balance Federal martial strength) while stating the militias must be well regulated which potentially gives the Federal government a little hand, though clearly over the militia not the individual, and provides an alternative framework to discourage a standing army.

As far as the "mass destruction" angle (which is pretty much silly, being well below 'destructive device' levels), I can see no indication that there was any framer era Federal bans on artillery, cannons, or warships.

No, the idea is not to insure madmen have access to weapons, some understand that we cannot "baby proof" the real world and trying to serves only to restrict the otherwise law abiding citizen without even hindering the nutcase.

What is protected is simple self defense by ordinary citizens.

Everything else is just an indulgence by the NRA bought and paid for.

Just ask your friends and neighbors if they need to go to war with the police and the army.

When they are done scratching their heads and laughing, then you will arrive at the obvious limits of America's crazy and silly 2A which the NRA would have you believe.

Then take that to the NRA and shut it down.

Can't wait until my birthday.

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

Yep, works out for me, I have 2 arms (hands at the end and everything). God Bless the United States of America!

Wasn't particularly impressive.

to open fire in a crowded theater.

Other than that....

There is no registration requirement expressed.

There is also the pesky piece about the right of the people. It is clearly an individual right and does not include and if then, the right is not conditioned on participation in any militia. The militia is context, explaining why the right is granted.

...Justice Stevens' dissent in Heller is predicated upon the idea that, as no passage in the Constitution or BoR can be without meaning or importance, the prefatory clause (in his opinion) expresses the sole reason for the RKBA inclusion in the BoR. I find that short-sighted.

Key words...

I don't know... I haven't been following a lot of the arguing here, but I think I can understand what the 2nd amendment is saying. Anyone who thinks Barack Obama will "take our guns away" is not likely to be here, but the rub is the responsibility and firearms, which is what you are addressing.

I can't even think of owning a gun without having training. In fact, I took a firearms course, which helped me realize I wasn't ready for carry, much less concealing a gun.

We need to do what one of the dads of the dead kid at Columbine did... get a petition signed and put a vote up as a referendum to regulate over what is currently allowed - gun trafficking. Put it to a vote, because we can't wait for Congress to do this. We have to.

The militia is not the National Guard and the 2nd Amendment protects the right of THE PEOPLE. This is settled law - read the Heller and McDonald SCOTUS decisions.

Note here the term 'the people' is being used and is separated out from earlier phrase 'militia'

Both of those things are rights that we have - to have a well regulated militia (not necessarily ran by the feds) and the right of the people themselves to be able to bear arms - as it is:

"necessary to the security of a free State"

In other words, we don't trust the government to always have our best interest in mind, they should not hold all the power, and allowing people to be armed is necessary to keep themselves free.

Maybe some here trust a fellow citizen if they work for the government (but don't trust anyone else) but I tend to trust others and won't buy into the terra' fears used to control us. Not every muslim wants to attack america and not every gun owner is going to go shoot up places. But hey, fear sells.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

And yet, the courts have ruled that this means a lot more than just the government not making a law respecting an establishment of a religion. Just recently, some schools got in trouble for having a graduation in a church. There was nothing said about the religion, etc. However, it was ruled wrong as a violation of the first amendment.

that there can be restrictions. Apparently, the SC decision in this case has given wide latitude to states to impose restrictions. Of course those restrictions could be challenged in the courts.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=000&invol=07-290
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court's opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller's holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those "in common use at the time" finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54-56.

Capital's Gun Law Is Upheld
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204524604576611141583366696.html?mod=WSJ_hp_MIDDLENexttoWhatsNewsSecond

Excerpt from article:
"But the Supreme Court's gun rulings said that the right of armed self-defense, like other constitutional rights, could be regulated. It left the details to be ironed out by lower courts, and has declined so far to review their decisions. Last month, the justices let stand a ruling by Maryland's highest court that Heller provided only for individuals to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense.

On Tuesday, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found by a 2-1 vote that the city's revised gun regulations mostly met the high court's new standards., rejecting a challenge by Dick Heller, who brought the 2008 Supreme Court case, and other Washington residents.

The city's requirement to register handguns follows longstanding American practice, "similar to other common registration or licensing schemes, such as those for voting or for driving a car, that cannot reasonably be considered onerous," Judge Douglas Ginsburg wrote for the majority.

The city's interest in fighting crime clearly justified the ban on semiautomatic rifles and magazines containing more than 10 rounds of ammunition, the appeals court found. City Council hearings on the measure found substantial evidence that leaving such weaponry unregulated would endanger police officers and aid criminals, while their prohibition "does not effectively disarm individuals or substantially affect their ability to defend themselves," because they still can obtain handguns, the court found."

Unless you jump through a LOT of Federal hoops or work for a military/government agency, you are limited to non-automatic, non-sound-suppressed NFA Title 1 firearms under .51 caliber, plus shotguns, in this country. And you have to have a clean record with no felonies, no misdemeanors punishable by >1 year in jail, no misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence, and so on.

There are barrel length restrictions, restrictions on guns that are easily converted to full auto, restrictions on who can carry and under what circumstances, yadda yadda yadda.

Be it national guard or other public service. All citizens should be mandated to know how to performs first aid, CPR and mouth to mouth rescitation. Swimming and basic water rescue. Understand the basics of surviving hypothermia, how to survive a hurricane, tornado and earthquake. Every citizen should also own a water purification device and or know how to make drinking water in an emergency.

I don't have a problem with the recomendations as you've suggested however as a compromise I'd recommend adding mine to the mix. Now that's a put up or shut up plan.

PS: I'd go Marines or Navy, screw the National Guard.

but I do find that the amendment no longer applies in the broad sense that people take it for. The intent of the amendment had an entirely different purpose then, and the right to keep and bear arms did not include the high powered artillery that is so easily obtainable now.

Why people are scared to place stronger regulations on certain fire arms is beyond me, if people have the right to keep and bear I have the right to no be killed by those fire arms and I also have the right to NOT bear any fire arms as well.

When an amendment becomes a threat to society as a whole, its time to evaluate that amendment.

A change in this line of thinking of 'bearing arms" is not going to happen anytime soon, but I hope that in the future we will come to a consensus that guns are no longer acceptable normality.