Isn't the National Guard the well regulated militia?

Exactly…if the militias were to be “well regulated”, it’s insanity to believe individuals aren’t.
Since there are no “well regulated militias”, the second amendment is meaningless, outdated, and moot. It needs rewriting with universal regulations enshrined in the body, codified in the constitution, to shut the ignorami up once and for all.
I also note, no where does it say citizens can OWN arms…only keep and bear them. My interpretation is that only well regulated militias may own arms, which they may lend to their members to keep and bear…under strict regulations. The founding fathers knew well the difference between ownership and possession and wrote it that way on purpose.

You are absolutely incorrect. Typical right deflections.

I absolutely want to address this issue. Modification of the 2nd amendment to regulate, license, train, insure and track all weapons purchased, regularly. There are other great options out there. Many other countries do the same - that contributes to a well-regulated militia!

And it's "souls" by the way. Get educated!

Here's the thing: if average citizens didn't have guns, I'd be right pissed if the cops carried them.

I can't speak for the whole of whatever the fuck you think "liberals" encompasses, but here's my take on guns & cops: the constitution allows for guns within well-regulated militias. It was just worded really, really poorly. I mean, read 2A - it's practically authentic frontier gibberish. But the words "well-regulated militia" are definitely in there. And it makes sense - they were trying to secure a bold new type of governance. They needed to be able to defend that, and there was no immediate plan for a standing army. So local, reasonably well-supplied militias, which weren't a bunch of bumblefucks shooting at whatever whenever, were a pretty real need. Where we're at *now* with guns is so fucking far from what the founders could've possibly conceived, that to think they'd approve of it is absurd. I mean, maybe a few of them (they were quite the diverse bunch of white male landowners, in all sincerity), but those with solid military experience likely would've been horrified.

Having said that, it's fantasy-land nonsense to think the prospect of completely eliminating recreational guns in the US in the near term is viable. Hunting armaments will (and perhaps should) remain common for a long while, so be it. I see handguns and non-hunting long arms (or those that are excessive for it) as of significant negative value to society, they can all fuck right off into a metal recycling center or the armory of a well-regulated militia. Perhaps keep some at firing ranges for recreational target practice, with competent professional supervision, and with reasonable regulations in place.

Cops should have firearms in their armory, up until such time as we're living in a Star Trek-like utopia of blissful peace. Humans are largely cool, but some of us are dangerous fucksticks. Have cops pull guns for calls that seem like they'll be needed, and rely on less-lethal options as much as possible. Oh, and stop using the less-lethal options as fucking compliance-obtaining shortcuts. Don't fucking tase or use chemical spray when it isn't needed, they're not for the cops' convenience but to avoid more severe harms from occurring. Officer Friendly should be the order of the day, and any substantial deviation from that should be met with termination and arrest, with consequences no less severe than a non-police citizen would see. No more bad apples, no spoiled bunch.

Hey, thanks for the rant opportunity! Us liberals need to practice our high horsing from time to time. And just like God, we all love you. You specifically, you goddamn sexy hater.

It would be more convenient to go with a majority vote to bar him from office if it was that simple, but I don't think it really is. (In reality I think that's maybe not the best move, because if he can run and starts a new conservative party, it will guarantee a Democratic landslide because the liberal vote won't be cut in half)
No matter the method, it's imperative that calling for the overturn of a certified election by any means necessary, and sending a crowd to force trial by combat, instructing them to stop the congressional certification, don't let it happen (which is a a direct call for interference in government proceedings only possible by force) be punished not ignored or it begs for a repeat. It's far from just using the word fight, it's saying if you let them certify this election you lose your country, you've got to get rid of these representatives that won't go along with you, and fight hard, you can't let them install Biden, stop it, he's illegitimate and I won by a landslide but Biden stole it, do not let them certify him or you're country is gone they must elect me, I'll be there with you stopping the steal.

I seriously doubt the American people will see it that way, all polls show a majority agree with his policies over Trump's. The election reinforces that.

It's hard to imagine hurting the economy worse than Trump's disastrous pandemic response that continues to cause more damage today because the distribution part of his "plan" was 1/2 baked and 1/4 implemented. Hundreds of millions of vaccines are being shipped to Europe because he wouldn't commit to buying them when he could, even knowing he couldn't buy them later. Any misstep in the response cost lives and hurt the economy horrifically.
Then there's the 8-9 trillion added to the debt not including last year's unprecedented spending spree during a recession meaning the deficit his last year may be well over $4-5 trillion (I've seen estimates of $9 Trillion). The debt and deficit will be hard to screw up worse, but time will tell.

Let's be realistic that the majority of Americans never wanted Trump, so much they voted for Hillary the most despised politician at the time, 3 million more times...it took nothing but not ignoring swing states and not being the most hated candidate in living memory to flip the electoral vote. Trump becoming the most despised candidate in history helped.

It wasn't a few thousand, my recollection is it was hundreds of thousands in most critical states, only a few were even close, only Georgia was as close as 12000, still more than a few, and Biden won easily without it.

The green new deal, if implemented, should create tens of thousands of good paying jobs. Innovation almost always pays off....again, time will tell. I'm of the opinion that it's too late to avoid climate disaster, probably too late to avoid a near total extinction next century without a miracle, but any mitigation is worth trying if it works. I don't want to live on Venus....and don't want my grand nieces and nephews to either.

I'll agree to disagree about guns. I've heard the same fear my entire life, claims democrats will take guns away, I once believed it. It's never happened even when they had the house, Senate, and Whitehouse. I'm pro gun and pro regulation.....a well regulated militia is what the constitution says. I respect your position even if I disagree.

I am a stickler for not fudging terminology. It makes understanding another person's argument impossible if they use words that are just wrong just because other people are misusing them, and is often used intentionally as a means of escaping one's statements by saying they didn't mean what they said, but only when tightly cornered. That's not an accusation, just a peeve. Bob, to name one, insists Trump's never been impeached.

The word "militia" comes up time and time again in those founding documents. That the citizens should have access to arms as party of "a well regulated militia."

The modern interpretation of the second amendment has done away with the idea that a citizen ought to be a part of an organized militia to bear arms.

The founders of the US said other things too:

“A lady asked Dr. Franklin Well Doctor what have we got a republic or a monarchy. A republic replied the Doctor if you can keep it.”

I imagine that Franklin thought the republic would need defending against other monarchies, not from large corporations who, after centuries of wealth concentration would, with a few lobby organizations like the NRA, become the de-facto unelected rulers of the land.

I can't imagine that Franklin would have expected that children should go to elementary school in fear of being murdered by their classmates either.

Who the fuck cares? ANYTHING IS ACCEPTABLE AS LONG AS WE CAN KEEP OUR GUNS!!! EVERYONE KNOWS A GOOD GUY WITH A GUN IS THE ONLY THING KEEPING YOU SAFE EVERYONE I KNOW KNOWS IT GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS GUNS

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.

regulated
regulated
regulation
regulation

regulation
[ reg-yuh-ley-shuhn ]

1) a law, rule, or other order prescribed by authority, especially to regulate conduct.
2) the act of regulating or the state of being regulated.

@eric3579 -- I agree that that is a sticking point. I have trouble buying it because there are already limitations on the "right to bear arms".

The 2nd amendment:
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.


Certainly, one could argue that licensing / registration of firearms would count as infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. However, "arms" is rather unspecific. Merriam Webster defines it as "a means (such as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm".

The government has already decided that limiting the access to some "arms" is fine, and doesn't infringe on the constitutionally guaranteed right to bear arms. For example, in many states it is "legal" to own a fully automatic, military use machine gun. BUT:
1) It had to be manufactured before 1986
2) Said machine gun has to be registered in a national database
3) The buyer has to pass a background check

So there's 3 things already infringing on your constitutional right to bear a specific kind of "arm". A firearm -- not a missile, grenade, or bomb or something "obviously" ridiculous. And actually, even "destructive devices" like grenades are technically not illegal to own, but they require registration, licenses, etc. that the ATF can grant or refuse at their discretion. And their discretion generally leads them to NOT allow civilians to exercise their right to bear that particular sort of "arm".

If those limitations / exceptions aren't an unconstitutional infringement on the right to bear arms, certainly reasonable expansion of the same sort of limitations might also be OK.

I empathize with pro-gun people's fear of "slippery slope" escalating restrictions; the potential to swing too far in the other direction. But at some point you gotta see the writing on the wall. To me, it seems like it would be better for NRA-types to be reasonable and proactive so that they can be part of the conversation about where and how the lines are drawn. In other words, accepting some reasonable "common sense" limitations (like firearm licensing inspired by driver's licensing) seems like a good way to keep any adjustments / de-facto exceptions to the 2nd amendment reasonable (like the laws about machine guns). Otherwise, you're going all-in. With a not particularly good hand. And that's when you can lose everything (ie., 2nd amendment removal rather than limited in sane ways that let responsible people still keep firearms).

WTF does Hillary have to do with any of this?

Let's be very clear here. No-one is talking about banning guns (and if anyone is, they can fuck right off). Guns are useful tools. I've been target shooting a few times, I have friends who hunt. I wouldn't see their guns taken from them because they are sensible people who use guns in a reasonable way.

What we are talking about is a reasonable level of control, like background checks, restrictions on certain types of weapons, etc.

BTW, you might want to actually read the 2nd amendment.
"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"

None of these people are in a well-regulated militia, and in 2017 "a well regulated militia" is not necessary to the security of the state, that's what a standing army and a police force are for.

Your seatbelt analogy also makes no sense at all. If I drive around without a seatbelt and crash, the only one hurt is me (I'm still a fucking inconsiderate asshole if I do that, but that's another story). Guns are all about hurting other people, so it makes sense to regulate them.


Fundamentally, the USA needs to grow the fuck up and stop believing "Die Hard" is a documentary.

You are not Roy Rogers.
You do not need a gun for "home defence".
You are more likely to be killed by a criminal if you have a gun than if you don't.
And the most powerful weapon you have against a fascist dictatorship is not firearms, but the ballot box.

The irony is that while your democracy is increasingly slipping away from you (gerrymandering, super PACs, voter suppression), you have a corporate-funded lobby group protecting your firearms.

OK, one last reply....
Um...no. They didn't do commentary pieces in the constitution. If it's in there, it's because it's important to understanding the law/right it's attached to.
OK, it's meaningless huh?...."[Because our countrymen having farmers tans and wearing wife beaters is an inalienable right, the] right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Not so meaningless now, is it? ;-)

Bi yearly training/testing was Hamilton's FAR LESS invasive and LESS time wasting idea to counter the idea of a "well regulated militia" which he saw as far too time consuming for the entire populace to live up to. HIS way of seeing it was that twice yearly proficiency and equipment testing was far LESS restrictive than what "well regulated militia" meant...because to live up to "well regulated militia" would require extensive training, and re-training constantly.

I disagree completely that a militia that follows basic regulations is somehow an agent of and under the direction of the government that makes those regulations, that's nutty and paranoid thinking. "Regulation" does not mean 'operates at the discretion of' or 'under the sole direction of' or even 'operates only in ways the government supports'. It means there are basic rules to follow to be in compliance with the law. Your characterization is silly on it's face, and totally wrong IMO.

In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, some people in regulated (self regulation is not any regulation, BTW) militias (it's members thereafter known as "the people") would have to be allowed to keep and bear arms, but not necessarily let individuals keep them at home, one 'regulation' could easily be that the arms must remain in the firm custody of the militia at all times, not be taken home by members, and not used outside militia activities. Again, I find your characterization silly.

HILARIOUS. You are now saying only NON regulated militias have a right to keep and bear arms, contrary to the exact words of the document?! Now who wants to re-write the law?!? ;-)

"Well regulated" is one of those terms that's left to the Judicial to define since they didn't define it in the document. Sorry. That makes your argument moot.

The word "People" denies the individual. If the rights are only secured for "people", they are not secured for a single "person". Two different words.

Again, I disagree 100% with your entire premise.

"So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'."

No, only in your silly argument have you established that to yourself. I do not concede at all, and disagree with every point of your premise.

I grow weary of this. I get your point. I strongly disagree. Enough said.

Here's a breakdown that shows my train of thought :



The 2nd amendment limits the authority of 'specifically the government'.

It is not an affirmative right to individuals, it is a denial of rights to the government.
It in theory prevents the government from taking any actions that would infringe on bearing arms.




So, let's look at scope.


If bearing arms is for government regulated militias :

Let's assume that 'well regulated' means 'well government regulated'. (i.e. Merely government regulated in practice.)

- A militia that uses arms as per the government's regulation, would be operating as the government wishes - it would *be* an extension of the government, and the government would not need to seize its arms. The 2nd amendment is moot.

- A militia that doesn't use arms as per the government's regulation, is not government regulated, and has no protection from government arms seizure. The government is free to deny this militia arms at the government's discretion. The 2nd amendment is moot.


In order for the 2nd amendment to not be moot, you would need to protect an entity that the government would *not* wish to be armed.

Since we're still talking militias, that leaves only "non-government-regulated militias" as a protected class of entities.
Hence, this would preclude "government regulated" as a possible definition of "well regulated", in regards to "well regulated militia".

So, we've established that for the 2nd to not be moot, only "non-government-regulated militias" can be in the set of 'well regulated militia'.




So, following on the idea of the 2nd amendment scope being for "well [non-government] regulated militias".

The government can then circumvent 2nd amendment protection by making illegal any 'non-government-regulated militias'. This would eliminate the entire category of arms protected entities. The 2nd amendment is moot.

Hence, for the 2nd amendment to not be moot via this path, that means that "well [non-government] regulated militias" must also be protected under the 2nd amendment.




So, without government regulation, a well regulated militia is subject to the regulation of its members.

As there is no government regulation on militia, there is also no government regulation regarding the quantity of militia members. You are then left with the ability of a single individual to incorporate a militia, and decide on his own regulations.

Which decomposes into de-facto individual rights





This is why the only consequential meaning of the 2nd amendment is one which includes these aspects :
A) Does not define 'well regulated" as "government regulated".
B) Does not restrict the individual.
C) Protects militias.

Any other meaning for the 2nd amendment would result in an emergent status quo that would produce the same circumstances as if there was no 2nd amendment in the first place. This would erase any purpose in having a 2nd amendment.





But sure, maybe the 2nd amendment is moot.
Maybe it was written out of sheer boredom, just to have something inconsequential to do with one's time.
Maybe it was a farce designed to fool people into thinking that it means something, while it is actually pointless and ineffectual - like saying the sky is up.




In any case, I think we can agree that, if the 2nd means anything, it is intended for facilitating the defense of the state against invading armies.

The fallout of that is that if the 2nd particularly protects any given category of arms, it protects specifically those that are meant for use in military combat. Not hunting, not self defense, etc.

A pistol ban would be of little military detriment for open combat, but would be the greatest harm to people's capacity for insurgency (because pistols can be hidden on a person).

A hunting rifle ban would also be of modest military detriment for open combat (can serve DMR role), but probably the least meaningful.

Arms with particular military applicability would be large capacity+select fire (prototypical infantry arms), or accurized of any capacity (dmr/sniper).
Basically, the arms of greatest consequence to the 2nd amendment are precisely the ones most targeted for regulation.

-scheherazade

Note that the only reason to include the "motivation" at all is for it to be used to interpret the "rule".

"to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions (read evaluations), as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia"

So even those dissenting were fairly clear that to be "well regulated" in the popular parlance of the day requires training and at least twice yearly evaluations....and for that, regulations governing and delineating that training and evaluating.
Hamilton was dissenting, saying 1) that in his opinion EVERY citizen would be in the militia 2) that making that militia 'well regulated' was too much of a burden if it fell on every citizen and 3) that he thinks gun owners should have to assemble twice a year (at least) to prove that they are properly armed and equipped (and tested for basic proficiency), NOT be forced to be "well regulated" which would mean MORE training and testing than only twice a year. SO, if you used his more lax criteria (and we don't) there would be bi-yearly proficiency testing and firearm inspections for EVERY gun owner. I think people would LOVE that to be the case, but his idea didn't rule the day, so it's not law.

(I edited, and some stuff pertains to your reply)

Regarding well regulated, here's the sauce :
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Keep in mind that the 2nd amendment is 2 part.
1st the motivation for why the rule exists, 2nd the rule.

The rule exists, whether or not the motivation is provided (and it's nice of them to provide context - but not necessary).

Even if regulation was meant in the modern sense, it would not change the fact that the rule does not depend on the motivating factors.

But if you insist on motivational prerequisite, here's Hamilton regarding individual right to bear :

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year. "
[etc]

(That last sentence - there's your training requirement, tee hee. Not only that, but that they should assemble people 1-2 times a year to make sure that everyone is armed and equipped. That's more than an individual right to bear, that's an individual requirement to bear. Let's just be happy with it being a right.)


Laws are supposed to be updated by new laws via representative legislators (who may need to be coerced via protest facilitated by freedom of assembly).
Or challenged by juries (i.e. citizens, i.e. members of the state) via jury nullification (i.e. direct state democracy). That's why there are juries. You need direct state involvement so that the legal system can not run amok independent of state sanction. It's not just for some group consensus.
The system was architected to give the state influence, so that government can't run off and act in an independent non-democratic manner.

-scheherazade

According to whom?

They don't normally do that. They decide "well, they wrote X, but clearly the intent was to also cover Y and Z" is how they usually interpret laws. Creating entirely new law based on entirely new circumstances is NOT how they are supposed to work...but I do admit it has happened, just not often.

The Judicial exists for a reason. Interpreting and enforcing laws is what they are here for. Let them do their job and interpret laws so the legislature can (not) do theirs and write new laws to cover new circumstances or re-write old ones to actually SAY what's intended, and remove or redefine parts that have been interpreted in ways that were not intended or that had unexpected consequenses.

EDIT: I would point out that it's judicial interpretation that has given the right to own and bear arms to individual citizens rather than only well regulated militias, the amendment only specifically gives it to "people" not "persons"...which technically means only groups of people are allowed to own them. It was new, recent judicial interpretation based on a challenge to the DC gun ban that granted the right to individuals, no where in the amendment does it spell out that individuals may own and bear arms.