|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 16, 2021 19:07:35 GMT -5
I disagree for numerous reasons, luckily we’re all entitled to do that.
|
|
|
Post by LVF on Feb 16, 2021 20:32:02 GMT -5
It’s not, really. How many of you are part of a State militia? They don’t exist anymore. I am. You are. In the context of the 2A, "Militia" was understood to be any adult male citizen (although ladies were not specifically excluded) who was not part of the standing army, and who was willing and able to help defend the Constitution. I am more than willing to defend the constitution and...repel all enemies, foreign and domestic. There are many like me that would gather to do this if need be. Under current circumstances, that likelihood is nearer to the surface than further away...if you catch my meaning. I didn't spend thirty five of my years serving this country to let it slip away. A militia is just as relevant today as it was back in the day.
|
|
BigBadJohn
Wholenote
I Lurk, therefore I am.
Posts: 222
|
Post by BigBadJohn on Feb 17, 2021 7:16:18 GMT -5
"^ Agreed, a well organized regulated militia isn’t really relevant to 2021."
Debatable.
It’s not, really. How many of you are part of a State militia? They don’t exist anymore. Indiana Constitution See Article 12
|
|
Tequila Rob
Wholenote
Posts: 688
Formerly Known As: Guitar Fool
|
Post by Tequila Rob on Feb 17, 2021 9:28:04 GMT -5
I've been waiting for my carry permit since September....I posted about the (glitch) in my background check that has, according to the Dept of Licensing in Florida, been worked out...I doubt Florida will go constitutional carry..even with a Republican in office.
I work part time at ACE Hardware and we sell ammo....it's gone as soon as it gets stocked..like buzzards over road kill...
Luckily I've been able to pick up some 22 Mag. and some .380
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 17, 2021 10:22:33 GMT -5
It’s not, really. How many of you are part of a State militia? They don’t exist anymore. Indiana Constitution See Article 12Hmm, now that’s interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 17, 2021 10:31:16 GMT -5
My personal take on it has always been that Milita is "of the people". Standing army is "of the Government.
Recognizing that difference is vital to freedom and liberty from less than wonderful governing control.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 17, 2021 10:32:49 GMT -5
In the federalist papers it mostly mirrors Indiana'a article 12.
So we are all part of the militia.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 17, 2021 10:39:05 GMT -5
I would argue it’s still poorly worded. Why even bother mentioning a “well regulated militia” if what you really mean is “everyone”?
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 17, 2021 10:51:29 GMT -5
It's a preamble, and I agree it should not be there.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 17, 2021 11:02:50 GMT -5
Why even bother mentioning a “well regulated militia” if what you really mean is “everyone”? IMO ... this is where modern day interpreters of the Constitution and Bill of Rights can become confused and misguided. If we fail or refuse to take into account the basis and foundation of the thinking behind the original documents they lose meaning. That foundational thinking is contained in the Declaration of Independence and the Federalist Papers (among other sources). Many legal thinkers simply mitigate the latter as meaningless "non-legal" documents when talking about the Constitution and Bill of Rights (the legal documents). I view that as a fatal mistake. Again, just thoughts for this writer. Edited to add: Hopefully we still consider this as discussion of "the law".
|
|
stl80
Wholenote
Posts: 216
|
Post by stl80 on Feb 17, 2021 11:29:00 GMT -5
Off to renew my permit today. Jim
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 17, 2021 11:30:07 GMT -5
^ I don’t disagree, but there’s also a lot of merit in just saying what you mean. I’m a lawyer and I read flowery language all day that could be replaced with a simple statement based on common sense. There is a much clearer way for 2A to be stated, one way or the other, or more likely, somewhere in between.
Regarding whether we’re still discussing “the law”, 100% we are, and I commend all of you for sticking to that. The subject matter has obvious political implications and I believe this far we’ve avoided that part of the argument nicely.
Spirited debate about the Constitution is not political, IMHO. If the conversation were to devolve into political parties or the impact of same upon the issues, elections, etc., then we will have crossed a line.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 17, 2021 11:50:04 GMT -5
there’s also a lot of merit in just saying what you mean. I’m a lawyer and I read flowery language all day that could be replaced with a simple statement based on common sense. I think it was to frame the "Right" in terms that gave it a common, obvious and meaningful purpose. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" ... I would argue the words "free State" are of equal or even more importance than the words "regulated Militia". It's clear to me the Writers viewed a Federal Government as an entity ripe for evil, but none the less necessary.
|
|
BigBadJohn
Wholenote
I Lurk, therefore I am.
Posts: 222
|
Post by BigBadJohn on Feb 17, 2021 12:47:56 GMT -5
My personal take on it has always been that Milita is "of the people". Standing army is "of the Government. Recognizing that difference is vital to freedom and liberty from less than wonderful governing control. This ^ The people must have the ability to push back if .gov goes off the rails. But, back on topic, Indiana offers a 5yr "free" permiit or you can pay a fee (I forget what it is) and get a lifetime (what I have). Used to be you had to pay a fee for either one. The one benefit of the 5yr is that the background check is waived when you purchase a firearm since you get checked every five years when you renew. That was not the case when it was not free. That was Indiana's way to dance around the permitless carry issue a few years ago although a new bill has been introduced this year and may have a pretty good chance of passing this time. Fun fact: Our permit is called a "license to carry a handgun" whether concealed or open.
|
|
|
Post by K4 on Feb 17, 2021 12:52:38 GMT -5
Ours is called Concealed carry deadly weapon.
We can carry anything legal to own. Including legal machine guns.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 17, 2021 12:55:05 GMT -5
Fun fact: Our permit is called a "license to carry a handgun" whether concealed or open. In Nevada it a "Concealed Firearms Permit", emphasis on the fact that it validates no other type of weapon. In the beginning it was so specific as to notate the exact firearm (by model and serial number) the permit covered. They found their way past that extreme specificity a few years ago.
|
|
|
Post by Seldom Seen on Feb 17, 2021 12:55:57 GMT -5
I’m not as “able bodied” as I once was. Do I need a permit to load muskets behind the line of defense? 😉
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 17, 2021 13:03:59 GMT -5
there’s also a lot of merit in just saying what you mean. I’m a lawyer and I read flowery language all day that could be replaced with a simple statement based on common sense. I think it was to frame the "Right" in terms that gave it a common, obvious and meaningful purpose. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" ... I would argue the words "free State" are of equal or even more importance than the words "regulated Militia". It's clear to me the Writers viewed a Federal Government as an entity ripe for evil, but none the less necessary. Regarding the bolded portion, I think that's probably accurate, but I also think it was far more likely to occur back then, in the nation's infancy, than it is today. Also, if 2A just read "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed", it would be a lot clearer. I don't like the word "infringed" either, though.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 17, 2021 13:29:20 GMT -5
I also think it was far more likely to occur back then, in the nation's infancy, than it is today. I would argue that time is the enemy of the original meaning. Many generations of interpretation of that original meaning tend to dilute it and make further, gradual, incremental deviation more likely.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 17, 2021 13:36:13 GMT -5
I also think it was far more likely to occur back then, in the nation's infancy, than it is today. I would argue that time is the enemy of the original meaning. Many generations of interpretation of that original meaning tend to dilute it and make further, gradual, incremental deviation more likely. Absolutely. But I believe it could be spelled out in such a manner that it would be clear, one way or the other. Doesn’t matter which side you fall on, even if you think the original version is clear, many, many years of debate about what it means says otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 17, 2021 14:04:18 GMT -5
many years of debate about what it means says otherwise. My guess is no matter how it was worded there would be those out there arguing it really means something different. Expediency in the moment too often takes over.
|
|
|
Post by Mfitz804 on Feb 17, 2021 15:47:18 GMT -5
many years of debate about what it means says otherwise. My guess is no matter how it was worded there would be those out there arguing it really means something different. Expediency in the moment too often takes over. Pretty sure you’re right.
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 18, 2021 16:45:26 GMT -5
"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've never had a problem with the language. I've always read it as a "two fer". It specifically guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, but also implicitly protects the necessary right of the people to form militias. Militias have been under attack at least as often as the individual right to bear arms.
If every school child was required to learn how passionately the Founders were trying to protect the country from the inevitable corruption of a centralized power structure (as I was), we wouldn't be having this discussion.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Feb 18, 2021 17:49:12 GMT -5
"^ Agreed, a well organized regulated militia isn’t really relevant to 2021."
Debatable.
It’s not, really. How many of you are part of a State militia? They don’t exist anymore. Many of you are. Idaho, like many states, has men 18-45 as members. ALL able-bodied men.
|
|
|
Post by reverendrob on Feb 18, 2021 17:51:32 GMT -5
And as far as the Founders and the 2a, I'd start with St. George Tucker's "View of the Constitution", from a gentleman who was there.
|
|
jtheissen
Wholenote
Montana lurker, mostly🎸
Posts: 203
|
Post by jtheissen on Feb 18, 2021 20:04:53 GMT -5
Montana governor signed it into law. Takes effect June 1. I already have a CCW and will be allowed to carry concealed in a few more areas than non-permit holders. Interesting in that it applies to knives as well.
|
|
dan
Quarternote
Posts: 47
|
Post by dan on Feb 20, 2021 20:49:56 GMT -5
My favorite part of this discussion was when we talked about the danger of arming bears.
But no one has brought up that the 2A was written in large part because the founders did not want a professional army, they thought an army was the enemy of a free people. Well there you go, the 2A has utterly failed!
|
|
|
Post by NoSoapRadio on Feb 21, 2021 15:41:35 GMT -5
But no one has brought up that the 2A was written in large part because the founders did not want a professional army, they thought an army was the enemy of a free people. Well there you go, the 2A has utterly failed! The Constitution provides for an army, who will command, and how it will be funded -- Article I, Section 8, Clause 12. The 2A, as part of the Bill of Rights, was finally adopted two years later. The two are not related. What has utterly failed is our public school system.
|
|
|
Post by Larry Madsen on Feb 21, 2021 17:44:33 GMT -5
But no one has brought up that the 2A was written in large part because the founders did not want a professional army, they thought an army was the enemy of a free people. It would seem you missed my earlier post which was to that exact point. My personal take on it has always been that Milita is "of the people". Standing army is "of the Government. Recognizing that difference is vital to freedom and liberty from less than wonderful governing control.
|
|
BigBadJohn
Wholenote
I Lurk, therefore I am.
Posts: 222
|
Post by BigBadJohn on Feb 23, 2021 6:50:09 GMT -5
|
|