Guns, Guns Guns

I am not a lawyer(INAL) but ...

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/311

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and


(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So the militia still exists last amended in 1994. To this INAL anyway.

Also for those not as knowledgable any part of the constitution is valid until amended via the established process. Congress and the President can't change it unless the sovriegn (the people) do so.

So there is no snap your fingers to ignore it though the Supreme Court can establish how it is interpreted. Much like the fourth amendment has mostly gone away in way too many respects. Another topic.<shrug>

Wish there were easy answers in life but generally easy is either inconsequential or wrong.

Have fun,
T2M

gcomeau wrote:If the militia part is not null and void then neither is the "well regulated" part.

And yet *every damn time* anyone so much as breathes a whisper about gun regulations the NRA and its crowd scream bloody murder about their "constitutional right to bear arms" being infringed.

So what does "well regulated" mean in 18th century English? You know when an "s" looked like an "f".

It certainly isn't the same as it is today. Lots of lawyers get employed to argue their clients cases all the way up the USSC and we still don't get anywhere.

Again it is not simple. And seeing as how the incident from 1775 to 1783 started blood letting in an organized fashion with the attempt to sieze arms it gets even murkier.

Good luck with that,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:

gcomeau wrote:If the militia part is not null and void then neither is the "well regulated" part.

And yet *every damn time* anyone so much as breathes a whisper about gun regulations the NRA and its crowd scream bloody murder about their "constitutional right to bear arms" being infringed.

So what does "well regulated" mean in 18th century English? You know when an "s" looked like an "f".

It certainly isn't the same as it is today.

Yeah, it was a hell of a lot stricter.

Try reading the Militia Acts of 1792 that imposed said regulation sometime.

gcomeau wrote:

T2M wrote:So what does "well regulated" mean in 18th century English? You know when an "s" looked like an "f".

It certainly isn't the same as it is today.

Again it is not simple. And seeing as how the incident from 1775 to 1783 started blood letting in an organized fashion with the attempt to sieze arms it gets even murkier.

Yeah, it was a [i]hell of a lot stricter[i].

Try reading the Militia Acts of 1792 that imposed said regulation sometime.

I added in the part of my quote you snipped without marking.

So the well regulated meaning in a 1787 document is provided afterwards.

Interesting. Cause and effect seem a little muddied to me. Which is why we all pay so much for lawyer's services.

Good to know,
T2M

I don't disagree that how guns are to be used are subject to regulation. The ability to actually own guns is not subject to regulation without due process. The distinctions are very real.

I recalled reading about restrictions on the use of guns in the early 19th century. Concealed carry was frowned upon in the east coast cities and had ordinances to that effect. They preferred open carry as carrying openly was more honest.

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose, eh?

gcomeau wrote:

PeterZ wrote:
The militia part is not null and void. It is simply not used as thoroughly as it once was.

If the militia part is not null and void then neither is the "well regulated" part.

And yet *every damn time* anyone so much as breathes a whisper about gun regulations the NRA and its crowd scream bloody murder about their "constitutional right to bear arms" being infringed while quoting the second half of the 2nd and pretending the first half doesn't exist.

thinkstoomuch wrote:

gcomeau wrote:Yeah, it was a [i]hell of a lot stricter[i].

Try reading the Militia Acts of 1792 that imposed said regulation sometime.

I added in the part of my quote you snipped without marking.

It doesn't change anything, but if it makes you feel better...

So the well regulated meaning in a 1787 document is provided afterwards.

Interesting. Cause and effect seem a little muddied to me.

You do understand that the Constitution set up the framework of establishing the government that would by necessity have to pass the legislation instituting said regulation? So OF COURSE it preceded that government actually instituting said regulation? There is no muddying of cause and effect here.

Please note as well that many members of that Congress were also members of the Constitutional convention and knew damn well what they meant by "well regulated".

gcomeau wrote:
You do understand that the Constitution set up the framework of establishing the government that would by necessity have to pass the legislation instituting said regulation? So OF COURSE it preceded that government actually instituting said regulation? There is no muddying of cause and effect here.

Please note as well that many members of that Congress were also members of the Constitutional convention and knew damn well what they meant by "well regulated".

Context always matters unless you can read my mind and tell the importance to me of what you snipped. Not marking a snip is just plain rude and dishonest. IMNSHO.

We are just going to have to disagree. I don't agree with your reading of the 2nd. Or with the importance what you are quoting.

I'll leave it at that.

Enjoy the summer,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
You do understand that the Constitution set up the framework of establishing the government that would by necessity have to pass the legislation instituting said regulation? So OF COURSE it preceded that government actually instituting said regulation? There is no muddying of cause and effect here.

Please note as well that many members of that Congress were also members of the Constitutional convention and knew damn well what they meant by "well regulated".

Context always matters unless you can read my mind and tell the importance to me of what you snipped. Not marking a snip is just plain rude and dishonest. IMNSHO.

Oh bullshit. Particularly when the post you are replying to is literally the one displayed DIRECTLY ABOVE your reply. Everything you wrote is still right there for the reading.

I quoted what I was interested in replying to. The rest of your comment was, and remains, irrelevant to that reply. So I didn't bother quoting it. If it makes you feel better to have it displayed twice on the same page instead of just once that's your issue. It is not incumbent on me to reproduce your every word in this situation when responding to it.

If I was quoting your words from elsewhere, where those reading my reply did not have easy and convenient access to them and would thus not know what else you had written then you could try making a argument to this effect. But when the full text of what you wrote is 6 inches above my reply on the screen it's just being ridiculous.

We are just going to have to disagree. I don't agree with your reading of the 2nd.

But have not presented any alternative reading. Posting a rhetorical question about who knows what "well regulated" meant in the old days when they spelled words funny is not providing any alternative meaning of the amendment it's just muddying the waters through an appeal to imagined ignorance. Imagined, because the Militia Acts make it perfectly clear what "regulation" looked like in that time period.

gcomeau wrote:
Oh bullshit. Particularly when the post you are replying to is literally the one displayed DIRECTLY ABOVE your reply. Everything you wrote is still right there for the reading.

...snip...

As you obviously are unable to try to understand ofher people and what they value. My conversation with you is over.

Snipped where I stopped reading.

Whatever,
T2M

thinkstoomuch wrote:

gcomeau wrote:
Oh bullshit. Particularly when the post you are replying to is literally the one displayed DIRECTLY ABOVE your reply. Everything you wrote is still right there for the reading.

...snip...

As you obviously are unable to try to understand ofher people and what they value. My conversation with you is over.

Snipped where I stopped reading.

Whatever,
T2M

The comedy value of not bothering to read someone's entire reply to you and then complaining they are not interested in understanding your position is priceless.