Libertarian's Forum
Libertarian Forum to discuss politics and free market economics.
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19 Send TopicPrint
Very Hot Topic (More than 25 Replies) Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms? (Read 886 times)
DontTread44
Libertarian Full Member
***
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 55
Joined: Nov 22nd, 2016
Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Jan 6th, 2018 at 4:35pm
Print Post  
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is of course, as follows:

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 want to focus more on the "well regulated militia" part rather than the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Does this give government the authority to regulate firearms?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1679
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #1 - Jan 6th, 2018 at 4:59pm
Print Post  
DontTread44 wrote on Jan 6th, 2018 at 4:35pm:
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is of course, as follows:

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 want to focus more on the "well regulated militia" part rather than the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Does this give government the authority to regulate firearms?


No, but neither does it give individuals the right to bear arms.  That right is a natural right and it protected by ninth and tenth amendments to the constitution. 
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 24992
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #2 - Jan 6th, 2018 at 5:46pm
Print Post  
DontTread44 wrote on Jan 6th, 2018 at 4:35pm:
The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution is of course, as follows:

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 want to focus more on the "well regulated militia" part rather than the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed".

Does this give government the authority to regulate firearms?
The idea is that local and state governments will cooperate to make sure that the community can be protected if necessary by a fairly well trained  force of people from the community they wanted to protect...

Do you see it differently? How?
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7026
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #3 - Jan 6th, 2018 at 6:39pm
Print Post  
Break free from your dogmatic positions on guns before it's too late. It won't affect your rights in any negative way and may actually enhance rights for many more people if guns controls are enacted.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1679
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #4 - Jan 6th, 2018 at 9:13pm
Print Post  
Don_G wrote on Jan 6th, 2018 at 6:39pm:
Break free from your dogmatic positions on guns before it's too late. It won't affect your rights in any negative way and may actually enhance rights for many more people if guns controls are enacted.


The right to live in counties with high murder rates, you mean?  Those are the ones with the strongest anti-gun laws, as Jeff pointed out to you . . .

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Don_G
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 7026
Location: British Columbia
Joined: May 8th, 2017
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #5 - Jan 6th, 2018 at 11:56pm
Print Post  
Burnsred has gone over the edge to the dark side.

http://www.businessinsider.com/us-vs-western-homicide-rates-2014-11
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
SkyChief
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Online

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 4966
Joined: Aug 18th, 2014
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #6 - Jan 7th, 2018 at 2:47am
Print Post  
Many Anti-gun activists will argue that the Second Amendment is NOT absolute - it's actually conditional:

"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."

They ask where the "well regulated Militia" is.  They believe that the right to keep/bear arms applies only to a Militia. There are many Militia organizations [276 active militias] in the US, and, while most of them are well organized, they are not regulated. The Militia represent a very small percentage of the civilians who own guns.

What can we do to make all gun owners Militia?  Or should we? If the Militia was regulated (by government), that would defeat the purpose of having it. The purpose of Militia is to keep "the security of a free State".

If the reason we have a Militia is to keep the government at bay, it doesn't make much sense to have the government regulate it.  Isn't that like having the fox guarding the hen house?

I propose amending the amendment. Something more like this:

In order to maintain the Security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Jeff
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 24992
Location: USA
Joined: Feb 26th, 2014
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #7 - Jan 7th, 2018 at 6:58am
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jan 7th, 2018 at 2:47am:
Many Anti-gun activists will argue that the Second Amendment is NOT absolute - it's actually conditional:

"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."

They ask where the "well regulated Militia" is.  They believe that the right to keep/bear arms applies only to a Militia. There are many Militia organizations [276 active militias] in the US, and, while most of them are well organized, they are not regulated. The Militia represent a very small percentage of the civilians who own guns.

What can we do to make all gun owners Militia?  Or should we? If the Militia was regulated (by government), that would defeat the purpose of having it. The purpose of Militia is to keep "the security of a free State".

If the reason we have a Militia is to keep the government at bay, it doesn't make much sense to have the government regulate it.  Isn't that like having the fox guarding the hen house?

I propose amending the amendment. Something more like this:

In order to maintain the Security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
Your modification would be better, but isn't it absurd to imagine that people who just fought a war of independence against a government who's first inclination was to disarm the rebellious colonists would create a government for themselves and give it the power to disarm them?

In fact they didn't. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted any power that could be construed as giving them the power to disarm anyone.

Get rid of the entire Bill of Rights. It is being used as the anti-Federalists imagined it would be used, to make a spurious claim that our Rights are limited to those few enumerated in the Bill of Rights and that the government has power to do anything not specifically forbidden to it by the Bill of Rights.
  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1679
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #8 - Jan 7th, 2018 at 10:33am
Print Post  
SkyChief wrote on Jan 7th, 2018 at 2:47am:
Many Anti-gun activists will argue that the Second Amendment is NOT absolute - it's actually conditional:

"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."

They ask where the "well regulated Militia" is.  They believe that the right to keep/bear arms applies only to a Militia. There are many Militia organizations [276 active militias] in the US, and, while most of them are well organized, they are not regulated. The Militia represent a very small percentage of the civilians who own guns.

What can we do to make all gun owners Militia?  Or should we? If the Militia was regulated (by government), that would defeat the purpose of having it. The purpose of Militia is to keep "the security of a free State".

If the reason we have a Militia is to keep the government at bay, it doesn't make much sense to have the government regulate it.  Isn't that like having the fox guarding the hen house?

I propose amending the amendment. Something more like this:

In order to maintain the Security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.


I used to think that one person could be a militia and could "organize" himself as he saw fit.  Therefore the right to bear arms under the 2nd does apply to individuals.  But I was wrong about that.  Because the constitution also mentions the militia in talking about the powers of congress to raise armies and of the president to command them:


 US Constitution, article 1, section 8, clause 15

    Congress shall have the power ... 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

 
US Constitution, article II, section 2, clause 1

    The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offences against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.


There's no reason to think that the second amendment is talking about a different definition of militia.  So unless you belong to a militia that is under control of your state but also available for federal service, the 2d amendment wouldn't apply to you.

The right to bear arms is a natural one, but so is the right to free speech and the founders protected that explicitly.  Why did they not do the same for an individual right to bear arms?  I'd have to say that was a result of negotiation with states who may have feared the idea of armed citizens.

The constitution isn't a sacred document produced by incredibly wise men who were all of a libertarian mindset.  It was a "deal" negotiated among politicians with different goals and different ideas about how to strengthen the federal government without weakening the power of state governments. 





  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
burnsred
Libertarian Freedom Member
*****
Offline

Libertarian's Forum

Posts: 1679
Joined: Sep 11th, 2017
Re: Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Reply #9 - Jan 7th, 2018 at 10:41am
Print Post  
Jeff wrote on Jan 7th, 2018 at 6:58am:
Your modification would be better, but isn't it absurd to imagine that people who just fought a war of independence against a government who's first inclination was to disarm the rebellious colonists would create a government for themselves and give it the power to disarm them?

In fact they didn't. Nowhere in the Constitution is the government granted any power that could be construed as giving them the power to disarm anyone.

Get rid of the entire Bill of Rights. It is being used as the anti-Federalists imagined it would be used, to make a spurious claim that our Rights are limited to those few enumerated in the Bill of Rights and that the government has power to do anything not specifically forbidden to it by the Bill of Rights.


Exactly!  Well stated.

The government seems to take special interest in figuring out ways to limit even those enumerated freedoms.  There are literally thousands of federal regulations each and every one of which infringes our right to bear arms as individuals.  So whether the USSC rules that RTBA is for individuals or not, congress and the president act as if it is not. 

The USSC upheld the first amendment right to spend money on free speech and the Democrats are furious because it means that corporations can spend as much as unions can on political ads.  They will not stop trying to get those limits on freedom back.

I actually have a guest bedroom set up for the day when the government announced that we will have to quarter soldiers in our homes (due to exigent circumstance, of course).  I also have locks on drawers with sharp objects in case I get stuck with National Guard folks.  *rimshot*

  
Back to top
 
IP Logged
 
Page Index Toggle Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 19
Send TopicPrint
 
Libertarian's ForumLibertarian's ForumFreedom Forum › Does "a well regulated militia" allow the gov't to regulate firearms?
Libertarian's Forum

Libertarian's Forum Information Rules, Agreement and Privacy Policy