Vivek ramaswamy

[randylahey]

Then surely you remember reading the opinion that standing armies in times of peace were viewed as a threat to liberty. And that's why the 2nd amendment used the wording "well regulated militia"

The founding fathers believed in minimal centralized federal government. They understood the problems a centralized government and federal army could lead to. And they were 100 percent right. Look at what it turned into today

So you and your fellow MAGA-heads are going to take on one third of the Federal budget, with your penis extenders?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the 2nd Amendment was to establish a citizen army to defend against foreign aggression in lieu of a Federal army (your earlier claim) or it was designed for citizens to defend themselves against the Federal army (current claim). Which is it?

I think you were accidentally correct in your earlier claim, which also concludes that it is not an individual right, and thus the words “a well regulated militia” and the nine that follow it. Too bad the band of criminals on the SCOTUS pulled the 20th century version of Dred Scott decision in deciding Heller (and completed the trifecta with Dobbs and Citizens United)

Its to defend from enemies foreign or domestic. Simple

[randylahey]

Since I know you don’t read more than three sentences at a time and it has to be on the internet for it to be true, how bout this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._16

So while yes, the second amendment was written to give citizens a way to prevent a corrupt government from forcing its will ( gee, I wonder why the newly formed America would be concerned about that ) it was also clearly written with a well regulated militia in mind — i.e. a group of people who followed a process of forming in time of need, one that was established and somewhat trained.

That supports what I've been saying

[jfish26]

Since I know you don’t read more than three sentences at a time and it has to be on the internet for it to be true, how bout this:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._16

So while yes, the second amendment was written to give citizens a way to prevent a corrupt government from forcing its will ( gee, I wonder why the newly formed America would be concerned about that ) it was also clearly written with a well regulated militia in mind — i.e. a group of people who followed a process of forming in time of need, one that was established and somewhat trained.

That supports what I've been saying

But no, it doesn't. You said that the phrase "well-regulated militia" is irrelevant to individual rights?

[jfish26]

Then surely you remember reading the opinion that standing armies in times of peace were viewed as a threat to liberty. And that's why the 2nd amendment used the wording "well regulated militia"

The founding fathers believed in minimal centralized federal government. They understood the problems a centralized government and federal army could lead to. And they were 100 percent right. Look at what it turned into today

So you and your fellow MAGA-heads are going to take on one third of the Federal budget, with your penis extenders?

You can’t have it both ways. Either the 2nd Amendment was to establish a citizen army to defend against foreign aggression in lieu of a Federal army (your earlier claim) or it was designed for citizens to defend themselves against the Federal army (current claim). Which is it?

I think you were accidentally correct in your earlier claim, which also concludes that it is not an individual right, and thus the words “a well regulated militia” and the nine that follow it. Too bad the band of criminals on the SCOTUS pulled the 20th century version of Dred Scott decision in deciding Heller (and completed the trifecta with Dobbs and Citizens United)

Its to defend from enemies foreign or domestic. Simple

But that's not what the amendment says. Again, bringing context in (outside the bounds of the amendment's text) is probably not helpful for your position!

[pdub]

"The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a standing army."

THIS is the thing I said was historically inaccurate.
Then you told me to do my research -- which is your go to for deflecting reality.

[randylahey]

"The founding fathers never intended for the federal government to have a standing army."

THIS is the thing I said was historically inaccurate.
Then you told me to do my research -- which is your go to for deflecting reality.

They had mixed opinions, there were pros and cons, but were collectively not in favor. A "well regulated militia" is not a standing army. They thought centralized government and a standing army would be problematic.

Fast forward to the world super power military industrial complex America is today, they were right

[jfish26]

Well regulated militia refers to the armed citizens of a free country. Who all owned guns, not to commit random acts of violence like the fragile mentally broken population we have today, but to defend themselves and their country against enemies foreign or domestic

Are you saying that the “well-regulated militia” portion of the Second Amendment is irrelevant to the scope of an individual citizen’s rights?

No. An individuals right to bear arms has absolutely nothing to do with a militia. Both are guaranteed rights. Individuals have the right to bear arms without being a part of a militia. And individuals have the right to form well regulated militias

There is no sensible reading of the Second Amendment that has it conferring separate sets of rights (one set for militias, another for individuals).

Here's the text:

"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."

Either (1) the first two clauses provide interpretive context for the second two clauses, or (2) the first two clauses are just sorta hanging out there alone ("fun fact!"), and the second two clauses are not qualified by the first two clauses.

A well-settled principle of construction is that all components of a text (here, the Second Amendment) are to be given effect. So Option 2 above is out - the founders wouldn't have just tossed a random observation into the Second Amendment. Which means that the rights granted under the second two clauses of the Second Amendment are absolutely qualified by the context provided in the first two clauses. And you do the same analysis for the "well regulated Militia" phrase within the first clause - it provides context relevant for interpreting those first two clauses.

I would also note that a very good reason the gun nuts don't go full "strict constructionist" on the Second Amendment is that, very annoyingly for them, "keep and bear" doesn't exactly support the acquisition of guns. The text would, however, support a reading that the right conferred is for people to keep (and bear) the guns they already have.

Not very helpful to Randy, though.

(Nor is the very very very very very long history we have of regulating guns, including the recent assault weapons ban that was challenged but never overturned.)

[pdub]

Aaaand we are back tracking.
"They had mixed opinions".
Fucking lol.

It became clear, for the growth and protection of the states ( however immoral you may think, DURING the very FIRST PRESIDENTS time in office, BEFORE the 2nd Amendment was signed in, that the militia wasn't going to cut it, and one of THE MOST FAMOUS FOUNDING FATHERS ( hint his face is on the one dollar bill ) pressed Congress for a Federal army ( with another FOUNDING FATHER backing him, hint his face is on the ten dollar bill ). And it was eventually granted ( and yes, there were opinions ( MIXED! ) against it, Jefferson/Monroe being the more known ).

So when you say the words NEVER INTENDED then THAT is historically inaccurate.

[pdub]

Before the establishment of the army, however, one of those mixed opinionists wrote this, which define what a well-regulated militia was intended to be.

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/fed29.asp

"It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, RESERVING TO THE STATES RESPECTIVELY THE APPOINTMENT OF THE OFFICERS, AND THE AUTHORITY OF TRAINING THE MILITIA ACCORDING TO THE DISCIPLINE PRESCRIBED BY CONGRESS.''

This was a founding father.
Years before the 2nd Amendment was written in.
Well. Regulated.

[randylahey]

Semantics semantics. That isn't backtracking. No group of people ever had unanimous opinions about anything

But we've gotten so far off track. You guys wiggling around words just trying to so you told me so

[randylahey]

2nd amendment keys: right to bear arms AND for a well regulated militia

[pdub]

I’m not jiggling words.
I’m arguing that your statement was wrong.
And it was.

“Gravity is real.”
“No it’s not.”
“Here is proof.”
“Ok maybe it’s kind of real. Semantics, semantics.”

[pdub]

2nd amendment keys: right to bear arms AND for a well regulated militia

Please quote the actual 2nd Amendment so we know you are looking at the same thing as we are. For clarity sake.

[KUTradition]

Semantics semantics. That isn't backtracking. No group of people ever had unanimous opinions about anything

But we've gotten so far off track. You guys wiggling around words just trying to so you told me so

um…words, and their specific definitions, absolutely matter (especially when it comes to the constitution), regardless of how inconvenient that may be for you

[jfish26]

2nd amendment keys: right to bear arms AND for a well regulated militia

There is nothing in the Second Amendment that confers a "right ... for a well regulated militia."

There is a Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

But either (1) that right is qualified by the two clauses providing contextual background for WHY that right is being conferred, or (2) that right is NOT qualified by the first two clauses (which makes them nothing more than an interesting observation from the founders; a little easter egg!).

(#2 is not it.)

(Again, you will note that the right that is conferred does not actually cover the acquisition of guns.)

[randylahey]

Fish what exactly is your interpretation of the 2a then lol

[jfish26]

Fish what exactly is your interpretation of the 2a then lol

Well:

"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."

I think the most rational reading of the Second Amendment is that it confers an individual right to gun possession for the purpose of an individual's participation in a well regulated (state-level) militia (which exists for purposes of ensuring the freedom of the state).

[pdub]

That is also my interpretation.

[jfish26]

That is also my interpretation.

I read "well regulated" to be how the founders intended the Second Amendment to be flexible over time. The "well" qualifier implies that the permissibility of regulation necessarily might mean something different in 2000 than in 1800, and different in 2200 than 2000.

I find it interesting that the rights-conferring language ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") not only does not contemplate the acquisition of guns, but it also doesn't even contemplate ownership.*

It would follow that it is the "well regulated militia" that acquires and owns guns, and the people who "keep and bear" those guns.

Before Captain All-or-Nothing loses his goddamn mind: I do not read the Constitution as prohibiting individual gun acquisition, ownership or use. But, outside the limited scope of the right that is actually conferred under the Constitution, anything else is a privilege (which may be limited as legislatures and regulatory bodies determine).

* The Third Amendment refers to an individual "Owner" of a house, implying that if the founders had intended the Second Amendment to cover individual ownership of guns, they would have drafted the Second Amendment accordingly.

[japhy]

That is also my interpretation.

I read "well regulated" to be how the founders intended the Second Amendment to be flexible over time. The "well" qualifier implies that the permissibility of regulation necessarily might mean something different in 2000 than in 1800, and different in 2200 than 2000.

I find it interesting that the rights-conferring language ("the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed") not only does not contemplate the acquisition of guns, but it also doesn't even contemplate ownership.*

It would follow that it is the "well regulated militia" that acquires and owns guns, and the people who "keep and bear" those guns.

Before Captain All-or-Nothing loses his goddamn mind: I do not read the Constitution as prohibiting individual gun acquisition, ownership or use. But, outside the limited scope of the right that is actually conferred under the Constitution, anything else is a privilege (which may be limited as legislatures and regulatory bodies determine).

* The Third Amendment refers to an individual "Owner" of a house, implying that if the founders had intended the Second Amendment to cover individual ownership of guns, they would have drafted the Second Amendment accordingly.

Is using actual legal terms and full text and context considered "semantics" or "moving the goal post"? Just asking for a friend.