Don't forget Piglosi.... another California Nazi

look REGULATE is right in the text of the consitution,,,lol


congressional version:

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.


version RATIFIED BY STATES:

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



continue to debate how regulation is a SPECIFIC infringement upon the second amendment,,,,,

And what was meant by the term "militia"?

There are regulations and laws in place.... and as always, they don't work when the "REAL" problem isn't addressed to stop these crimes. They will still occur even if they banned all guns! Why? Because what does a person who would commit these types of crimes care about laws or regulations?

It's all just an agenda used by the anti-gun lobby

isnt that the constant and ongoing debate?


'Before and after the English Bill of Rights, the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.[19] In 1765, William Blackstone wrote the Commentaries on the Laws of England describing the right to have arms in England during the 18th century as a natural right of the subject that was "also declared" in the English Bill of Rights.[20][21]


The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st.2. c.2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression'


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Text


having arms....SUITABLE FOR CONDITION AND DEGREE

and

ALLOWED BY LAW

In order to do that, we have to have a solid definition of what was MEANT by the founding fathers by "regulated" and "militia." This will require more that the everyday interpretation of "regulated" and must be put into the appropriate context. This also applies to the word "militia."

The best way of understanding this is to look at the various writings of the original framers of the constitution outside of what was written within it.

Too, we have to remember that the meaning of "citizen" was changed in 1860 or thereabouts to basically mean "subject", which is what it meant in Britain (and still does in almost ALL the countries now). Prior to that time, an American citizen was a sovereign man (not yet women or slaves…they were considered property (unlawfully, but in ignorance).

The American citizen before 1860 was considered the equal in law of any other sovereign on the planet, which includes ANY of the kings or queens of Europe. Furthermore, he was considered the MASTER of his government, NOT the servant of it. The government existed to serve him, and his fellow American citizens. That all got twisted around by the civil war and Lincoln's creating the Union to keep the country from splitting in two. At that point, the flow of power was essentially reversed, and without even their knowing it, American citizens went from being the masters of their government to the servants of it.

This set up an extremely dangerous situation that only got worse over time as the federal government continued to consolidate its power. we should easily be able to see here and now where this was all leading. It appears that the people will have to rise up once again to depose yet another tyranny, this one, created over time by their own lack of involvement, apathy, and decadence. I hope they are up to the Second American Revolution, as that war is now upon them, whether they choose to see it or not. If they haven't still got the Spirit of '76 somewhere in their beating hearts, they are done for.

I do NOT advocate violence! indeed violence MUST be reserved for self defence, but in order to DETER a government with clear ambitions of tyranny, THE PEOPLE MUST BE ARMED AND READY because only such DETERRENCE can stave off an eventual bloodbath so bad I can scarcely conceive of it. The American Civil War will seem like a Sunday picnic by comparison.

IF the people can stop their government from enslaving them, it will only be because it is not economically viable to attack the people unlawfully and the only way to ensure it will not be economically viable is to make such an attack uneconomical with DETERRENCE. What is a better deterrent than a properly armed and well regulated (something like Switzerland's) CIVILIAN MILITIA?

If the American people can stave off the government oppression (which I believe they can if they choose in great enough numbers to do so), then they can and will depose the government by peaceful means, with lawful arrests and fair trials under the principal of the Rule of Law, which, when you think about it, is the only thing a citizen should be subject to…Beats hell out of Rule by men if you ask me.

The following is an answer I gave to someone on another site regarding the second amendment. While it is only my opinion, I feel this is an appropriate venue to express it:

The primary reason for the second amendment was to give the people the means to protect themselves from ALL enemies, both foreign AND domestic. The greatest danger the founding fathers foresaw was the danger of a standing army and so they wrote the second amendment to ensure by law that the American people would always have the means to oppose any army, whether a foreign invader, OR their own government troops. This concern was so great that the government wrote the Insurrection Act in 1807 to keep the hierarchy of power going from the people, all the way down to the federal government. The flow of power was reversed to go the other way in about 1860, the year that Lincoln created the Union in order to prevent the country from breaking in two. Later, in order to have a standing army, the government wrote the Posse Comitatus Act to ensure that the army could not be used against the people, but only for them by a now powerful (but hopefully benevolent) federal government. Please note that both the Insurrection Act and the Posse Comitatus Act have been nothing but toilet paper for the last few years (owing to changes made after 2001), so there is NOTHING standing in the way of government tyranny but the few meagre firearms you have left…and now they are coming for the more "worrisome" of those too, like semi-autos with big clips.

If you guys can't see the connections between 9/11, the Patriot Act, the recent perversions of the Insurrection & Posse Comitatus Acts, the recent agreements to allow armed foreign troops on your soil to "restore order" in the event of "social upheaval", and the NDAA, then I feel sorry for you all…You are truly blind and helpless before a monstrous beast that will soon trample you as it has almost every other country in the world.

Whether you see it or not, the fact is, the American people have already surrendered their liberty for "safety." If you surrender any of your guns, you have surrendered your last vestige of a chance to restore it, or to at least have some chance of standing against the oppression and debt slavery that would be imposed on you for generations to come.

And now a few quotes from my Second Amendment thread:

"If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens." -- The Federalist, No. 29 -- Alexander Hamilton

"Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them." -- Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775 - Thomas Paine

"What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins." -- Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789 -- Elbridge Gerry

"The great object is, that every man be armed." -- Patrick Henry

"That the people have a Right to mass and to bear arms; that a well regulated militia composed of the Body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper natural and safe defense of a free State..." -- George Mason

"Are we at last brought to such an humiliating and debasing degradation that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms under our own possesion and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?" -- Patrick Henry

"Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... O sir, we should have fine times, indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people!" -- Patrick Henry

"No free government was ever founded or ever preserved its liberty, without uniting the characters of the citizen and soldier in those destined for the defense of the state.... Such are a well regulated militia, composed of the freeholders, citizen and husbandman, who take up arms to preserve their property, as individuals, and their rights as freemen." -- State Gazette (Charleston), September 8, 1788

"While the people have property, arms in their hands, and only a spark of noble spirit, the most corrupt Congress must be mad to form any project of tyranny." -- Rev. Nicholas Collin, Fayetteville Gazette (N.C.), October 12, 1789

"Another source of power in government is a military force. But this, to be efficient, must be superior to any force that axists among the people, or which they can command; for otherwise this force would be annihilated, on the first exercise of acts of oppression. Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." -- Noah Webster An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peacable citizens, from keeping their own arms; or to raise standing armies, unless necessary for the defense of the United States, or of some one or more of them; or to prevent the people from petitioning, in a peacable and orderly manner, the federal legislature, for a redress of grievances; or to subject the people to unreasonable searches and seizures of their persons, papers or possesions." -- Samuel Adams, Debates of the Massachusetts Convention of 1788

"A militia when properly formed are in fact the people themselves . . . and include all men capable of bearing arms. . . To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms... The mind that aims at a select militia, must be influenced by a truly anti-republican principle."
"... whereas, to preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms, and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them..." -- Richard H. Lee, Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer 53, 1788

"... the loyalists in the beginning of the late war, who objected to associating, arming and fighting, in defense of our liberties, because these measures were not constitutional. A free people should always be left... with every possible power to promote their own happiness." -- Pennsylvania Gazette, April 23, 1788

"God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion.... And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.... The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." -- Thomas Jefferson, in letter to William S. Smith, 1787

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." (Thomas Jefferson Papers p. 334, 1950)

That was the end of my little "op ed"

Getting back to the definitions for "regulated" and "militia", it might be worthwhile to read this too:

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

laws are not intended or believed to be able to STOP people from doing things,, they are intended and believed to deter some people and to have recourse against others,,,,,


if a person acting on an IMPULSE, didnt have a gun in IMMEDIATE access,, is it as likely he would grab those things that WERENT There to commit these types of 'impulsive'/heat of the moment/reactionary

crimes?

I would imagine the chance would have decreased greatly

,,regulate for RESPONSIBLE access,,,,no harm in it

I love Blackstone. You quoted it yourself. Owning and possessing arms is a NATURAL RIGHT.

You should bear in mind, however, that "the government could always disarm any individual or class of individuals it considered dangerous to the peace of the realm.[19] " in a Non Feudal society, where The People are the Sovereign entity, your quote is turned around to mean that the people have the right and even the DUTY in law to disarm ANY BODY dangerous to the public peace. Since the original American Citizens were the sovereigns of the relm, this very statement of law gives them THE RIGHT AND DUTY to DISARM its government (a "body"), by force of arms if necessary. This would be totally consistent with law, and is in fact not only…

…ALLOWED BY LAW

...but DEMANDED BY THE LAW.

seems cirucular

applying the term 'government' to suit ones own need

if government/individual/ and class of individuals are all synonymous,, than there is indeed noone with actual authority

which is , realistically, not a governed society at all,,,,

FALSE!

Anyone who knows anything about law knows that the INTENT of a law is far more important than the words of it. It is the MEANING or INTENT behind the words that defines the law, NOT the WORDS themselves.

Clearly, the INTENT of the second amendment was to ensure that the people could launch a competent defence against ANY aggressor. This would include foreign armies as well as domestic standing armies not directly under the command of the people.

Since the intent of the second amendment was to preserve the right of the american people to defend themselves against even its own government-commanded army, it stands to reason that the people MUST be privy to, and SHOULD POSSESS weaponry EQUIVALENT TO any opposing army's weaponry, so that it can stand ready AT ALL TIMES to defend the nation, even from its own government should that government become tyrannical and unlawful.

To deal with a modern army, the people are going to need one helluva lot more than the semi-automatic rifles the government (unlawfully) wants to ban! They are going to have to buy some serious ordinance, and they have the RIGHT and DUTY to do so under the second amendment.

Society is supposed to govern itself..."Society" IS "the people"!..."government" is SUPPOSED to BE GOVERNED by THE PEOPLE.

Realistically speaking, this is the ONLY way to prevent a tyranny from being created.

Government "OF the people, BY the people, and FOR the people" is the ONLY kind of government any rational nation should have....As I said, the people should govern themselves, and a people that takes orders FROM its government, instead of giving orders TO it, is already enslaved and in servitude to the public servant called its "government"... and therefore in a sorry state indeed.

again,, personal opinions,,,

to each their own,,,

Yep! That is what it means.

Once again, it is sad so many US citizens don't understand the basics of their own government.

doesnt seem so 'basic' with terms like 'militia',,,,

who speaks like that in modern times? thank goodness it was written as a LIVING document,,able to grow and mature with time

As long as the eternal wisdom embedded in it is respected and acknowledged by the successive generations. With respect to the second amendment, everyone should understand that a strong civilian militia is what makes a society peaceful. Switzerland's well-regulated civilian militia stands as a sterling example in that regard. When was the last time Switzerland was invaded or had a revolution?...not for many many decades I'd bet.

You have made definitive statements here that you think a congressional law can change the Constitution. It can't. Learn the difference.

I think you should look up Switzerlands actual gun laws,,,

Id be all for duplicating them,,,lol

actually I didnt,, never posted 'congressional law' that was someone elses post/interpretation

congress can AMEND the constitution, and has several times, so that previous 'constitutional' applications were nullified in effect

congress can likewise 'pass laws'

and the constitutions mention of bearing arms, also mentions a 'well regulated' status


,,people will debate forever in what form that bearing arms should be 'regulated'

They can debate all they want...the meaning (intent) in this particular case is quite clear and unequivocal.