Second Amendment: What is the legal definition of a well regulated militia?

[ms maggie]

I think an armed public is a potential militia.

But hardly well regulated.

Interesting factoid: at NRA HQ, only part of the 2nd amendment is inscribed over the entrance. Care to guess which part is missing? Care to postulate why?

[SemiAuto]

By this logic I have a constitutional right to spend every afternoon sitting across from Riderwood elementary under the shade of my World War II howitzer while polishing my trusty bazooka.

If you were so inclined to such extreme measures, yes.

[octoburn]

A fact or a factoid? There is a big difference between the meaning of the two words.

[SemiAuto]

Without equivalency in equal firepower to that of the government, the citizens will lose every time. Things ~ including weapon technology and methods of delivery ~ have changed a great deal since the Second Amendment was written.

Does the 2A apply only to firearms that one can carry on her or his person?

If it does and is limited in that regard, then that is a limitation and infringement on one's right to bear arms because it limits the type of weaponry a citizen can possess.

I do not understand the opposition to background checks to determine if one is fit to have a weapon.

The same reason one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not up to the citizenry to prove their worthiness to the government. If the government wants to remove a person's freedom then they're going to have to go to court to do so and offer up some sort of proof as to why they should do such a thing.

[ms maggie]

In order to have a well regulated militia you'll have to have an armed populace, thus the right of the people to keep and bear arms should not be infringed.

The spark that lit up the Revolution was essentially gun control.

WHAT??? It was taxation. Enough of this nonsense. If the founders wanted the right to bear arms to exist independent of well regulated militias they would have said so. They didn't. It was no mystery to them what this kind of militia looked like--state run military organizations. They eventually went away as the country invested in larger and larger standing army and navy.

[ms maggie]

A fact or a factoid? There is a big difference between the meaning of the two words.

No it's true.

[SemiAuto]

WHAT??? It was taxation. Enough of this nonsense. If the founders wanted the right to bear arms to exist independent of well regulated militias they would have said so. They didn't. It was no mystery to them what this kind of militia looked like--state run military organizations. They eventually went away as the country invested in larger and larger standing army and navy.

I'm talking about the fighting itself. What were the British doing at Lexington?

As for standing armies the Constitution has a bit on that also, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" I'd wager that congress regularly violates that one.

[ms maggie]

The same reason one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. It is not up to the citizenry to prove their worthiness to the government. If the government wants to remove a person's freedom then they're going to have to go to court to do so and offer up some sort of proof as to why they should do such a thing.

Really? Then why do you have to pass a background check to get a liquor license? Why do you have to pass a driving test to get a license?

[HumanSpirit]

The evidence points to a "well regulated militia" being the citizens of the country. One of the reasons the second amendment was put in believing that if the government could restrict it's citizens and possibly prevent them from being armed it could very easily become a tyrannical government.

Is "well regulated" meaning Controlling the military by pharmacutical mind drugs. Much like the 33 at Virginia Tech died in the public sector or the 20 children and 4 adults at the hands of the mental health industry.


Soldier Cases

http://www.ssristories.com/index.php?p=soldier


Public cases

Death, violence, erratic behavior and the suicide by mind drugs

http://ssristories.com/index.php


Iraq Veteran Stripped of Right To Bear Arms



Sgt. Wayne Irelan re-enlisted in the Army National Guard after September 11th.

He was severely injured in Iraq and awarded the Purple Heart. But now his second amendment rights have been taken away.

"I really feel betrayed," Sgt. Irelan told 5NEWS.

A year ago the Irelan's began receiving a small stipend from Veterans Affairs because Lana had to take over the family's finances.

"How many husbands do you know in America that pay the bills? There's not very many," Lana Irelan told 5NEWS.

The V.A. declared Wayne Irelan incompetent and now his right to own a gun is gone.

"It's wrong. Laws need to be changed. They need to look at individuals and not stereotype them as some sort of mad man," Sgt. Irelan said.

Irelan has post traumatic stress disorder from the Iraq war, but his wife says he has never been violent. Lana Irelan told 5NEWS his diagnosis is not a legitimate reason for his gun rights to be taken away.

"I was there when they gave him his purple heart for fighting for that right to bear arms, and they are stripping it away," Lana said, her eyes tearing up.

The couple didn't know Wayne's gun rights had been terminated until they went to get a gun out of pawn. Days later Wayne got a letter from the Arkansas State Police saying his concealed carry permit had been revoked. The ATF has told the Irelans that they could go to jail if a firearm is found in their home.

The Irelans say they will fight not only for Wayne's rights but for veterans and all Americans to ensure their constitutional rights.

Although not yet familiar with the Irelans' situation, Congressman John Boozman called this an injustice and promised to look into it.

"I'm very upset and will do all I can do to make sure that people with PTSD diagnosis will continue to enjoy their second amendment rights," Boozman told 5NEWS Friday afternoon.

The Irelan's have filed an appeal with the V.A. and vow to fight. Lana Irelan says she will do whatever it takes within the law to get Sgt. Irelan's gun rights restored--from contacting congressmen to telling their story via local and national media.


Pasted from <http://www.kfsm.com/news/kfsm-news-rv-iraq-veteran-stripped-of-second-amendment-rights,0,1708919.story>



Dont forget that the loss of a gun takes away from any other citizen residing in the home

[cprenegade]

Without equivalency in equal firepower to that of the government, the citizens will lose every time. Things ~ including weapon technology and methods of delivery ~ have changed a great deal since the Second Amendment was written.

Does the 2A apply only to firearms that one can carry on her or his person?

If it does and is limited in that regard, then that is a limitation and infringement on one's right to bear arms because it limits the type of weaponry a citizen can possess.

I do not understand the opposition to background checks to determine if one is fit to have a weapon.

There are some who assert that the equivalency in firepower was meant by the framers and they apply that to the assualt rifle debate. Obviously, as you point out, the technological advancement of weapons and the growth of the federal government make that an impossibility. Background checks are fine, but the criteria for denying that someone is fit to own a weapon is what would need to be watched. The federal government could effectively disarm a population simply by setting the bar so high for gun ownership that nobody could ever meet the criteria. I don't see any reason why there should be opposition to legitimate background checks designed to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental health problems.

[soulflower]

In the original context of the 2nd Amendment a well regulated militia is one that is trained, disciplined and equipped.

States don't have militias anymore

[SemiAuto]

Really? Then why do you have to pass a background check to get a liquor license? Why do you have to pass a driving test to get a license?

Because they are privileges and not rights.

[ms maggie]

I'm talking about the fighting itself. What were the British doing at Lexington?

As for standing armies the Constitution has a bit on that also, "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;" I'd wager that congress regularly violates that one.

The enemy always tries to destroy the other side's arms. But to say gun control "lit up the revolution" is simply wrong.

[SemiAuto]

States don't have militias anymore

So? The 2nd Amendment has not been repealed so the right still belongs to the people.

[soulflower]

Every gun sale should require an extensive background check

[SemiAuto]

The enemy always tries to destroy the other side's arms. But to say gun control "lit up the revolution" is simply wrong.

They were trying to confiscate the militia's arms. If that is not gun control then what is?

A fight broke out over it. It was the spark that started the open warfare.

[ms maggie]

They were trying to confiscate the militia's arms. If that is not gun control then what is?

A fight broke out over it. It was the spark that started the open warfare.

Indeed. Just like the Japanese were trying to destroy our arms at Pearl Harbor. who know WWII was all about gun control.

[Wild Eyed Southern Boy]

If Obama gets to nominate at least one and maybe two justices, it would be a good time for that newly made up Supreme Court to finally address gun ownership in the US.

While the second amendment says you a have right to bear arms, I am not so sure that a hodgepodge of individual citizens owning arms is a well regulated militia.

Well it took almost 70 years from the Miller vs U.S. to Heller vs D.C. I doubt they are likely to hear another soon, so don't hold your breath.

[soulflower]

The evidence points to a "well regulated militia" being the citizens of the country. One of the reasons the second amendment was put in believing that if the government could restrict it's citizens and possibly prevent them from being armed it could very easily become a tyrannical government.

Small arms aren't enough to stop a tyrannical government

[ms maggie]

Because they are privileges and not rights.

Earning a living isn't a right?