- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons -This Right May Also Be Reasonably Regulated
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:02 am
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:02 am
I got my hands on an advance copy of “On the Mark,” a history of punctuation and how it has evolved and shaped the world we know today.
A section dives into the impact of the commas in the 2nd Amendment, and the comma placement after “well regulated militia.” SCOTUS determined this exact placement makes it a prefatory clause, which in turn grants individual Americans the right to weapons.
I agree with this.
However, if we are going to take the clause as written (regardless of different grammatical norms of the day) then we have to also take “well regulated” militia at face value, as well.
This has always been the best argument for responsible (see: common sense) gun control.
It’s why you can’t buy a tank or a tactical nuke. To those who read the 2A to truly grant an “ininfringed/unrestricted” right to weapons, these restrictions would be unlawful, which is not practical.
At bottom, individuals are entitled to weapons, because the people have the right to form a militia against a tyrannical government if needed. However this militia can be “well regulated.”
The founders endorsed an individual right that does naturally adapt to better arms, but embedded in a culture of responsibility and regulation — not an absolutist free-for-all. The debate today often projects modern ideologies onto them. The historical reality was more nuanced.
Now another question is how much “well regulation” is reasonable when regulation comes from the very people you would be overthrowing.
Maybe this is a moot point. If there was a need to overthrow the modern government, there’s no way personal arms can reasonably counter the modern DoD.
A section dives into the impact of the commas in the 2nd Amendment, and the comma placement after “well regulated militia.” SCOTUS determined this exact placement makes it a prefatory clause, which in turn grants individual Americans the right to weapons.
I agree with this.
However, if we are going to take the clause as written (regardless of different grammatical norms of the day) then we have to also take “well regulated” militia at face value, as well.
This has always been the best argument for responsible (see: common sense) gun control.
It’s why you can’t buy a tank or a tactical nuke. To those who read the 2A to truly grant an “ininfringed/unrestricted” right to weapons, these restrictions would be unlawful, which is not practical.
At bottom, individuals are entitled to weapons, because the people have the right to form a militia against a tyrannical government if needed. However this militia can be “well regulated.”
The founders endorsed an individual right that does naturally adapt to better arms, but embedded in a culture of responsibility and regulation — not an absolutist free-for-all. The debate today often projects modern ideologies onto them. The historical reality was more nuanced.
Now another question is how much “well regulation” is reasonable when regulation comes from the very people you would be overthrowing.
Maybe this is a moot point. If there was a need to overthrow the modern government, there’s no way personal arms can reasonably counter the modern DoD.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 6:04 am
69
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:07 am to RFK
quote:
It’s why you can’t buy a tank
Why then did the FF's think it was ok for private citizens to own the most dangerous weapons of the time? War ships, cannons, explosives and such.
And private citizens can still buy a tank today.
quote:
“well regulated militia.”
The word regulated, in this phrase, does not mean what you think it means.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:07 am to RFK
quote:I have no delusions about overthrowing the government. I just want to have the right and means to take out a few who may one day decide to overthrow me.
If there was a need to overthrow the modern government, there’s no way personal arms can reasonably counter the modern DoD.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:18 am to RFK
If the people decided they needed to overthrow the government we would be the ones with all the weapons. You do realize that it’s the people that form the military right?
The military would choose sides just like they did in the civil war.
The military would choose sides just like they did in the civil war.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:20 am to RFK
If you are in the camp that believes there should be no regulations on what type of weapon or who can possess such weapons, then you are fine with a 3 year old owning a gun. If you are not fine with a 3 year old owning a gun, then you support federal oversight and restrictions on gun ownership.
I use this example to point out that the OP is correct - the 2A should be reasonably regulated by the federal government.
I use this example to point out that the OP is correct - the 2A should be reasonably regulated by the federal government.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:20 am to UtahCajun
quote:
Why then did the FF's think it was ok for private citizens to own the most dangerous weapons of the time? War ships, cannons, explosives and such.
Ding.
2A isn't about hunting.
2A isn't about self-defense.
2A is about the people having the tools/means to repel/fight its own government if necessary.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:20 am to RFK
So the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to help protect the constitutional rights of the citizens from a tyrannical government, but the government should be allowed to “regulate” based on “common sense” measures?
1) No congressman has shown to have any common sense.
2) Where have we heard common sense over and over from?
3) Why let the ppl who are meant for it to keep in check, define the rules for regulation? Seems self serving?
4) Anytine gvt is given a chance to do anything, they will take it to the extreme for taking away from its citizens because there is power in “No”.
5) As long as there are idiots like AOC and Biden, and evil like Obama, I’ll take a hard no on regulating the 2nd amendment. There is a reason that the most gun crimes occur in the most concentrated Democrat areas. It’s no coincidence either that this is also the same party that wants to regulate the guns but knowing it will only affect the responsible gun owners.
1) No congressman has shown to have any common sense.
2) Where have we heard common sense over and over from?
3) Why let the ppl who are meant for it to keep in check, define the rules for regulation? Seems self serving?
4) Anytine gvt is given a chance to do anything, they will take it to the extreme for taking away from its citizens because there is power in “No”.
5) As long as there are idiots like AOC and Biden, and evil like Obama, I’ll take a hard no on regulating the 2nd amendment. There is a reason that the most gun crimes occur in the most concentrated Democrat areas. It’s no coincidence either that this is also the same party that wants to regulate the guns but knowing it will only affect the responsible gun owners.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:21 am to RFK
quote:
Now another question is how much “well regulation” is reasonable when regulation comes from the very people you would be overthrowing.
How on earth do you think the government can “regulate” when there are 500mm guns on the streets currently?
Curious.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:22 am to RFK
I'm not reading all that drivel.
You're the classic "smartest guy in the room."
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward.
You're the classic "smartest guy in the room."
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 6:22 am
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:22 am to BamaScoop
quote:Recent polling says otherwise.
The military would choose sides just like they did in the civil war.
Their loyalty is to the constitution, not the regime.
Also, the consequences of refusing to follow orders in this instance are too grave for most to reasonably consider.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:23 am to RFK
quote:
The military would choose sides just like they did in the civil war.Recent polling says otherwise. Their loyalty is to the constitution, not the regime. Also, the consequences of refusing to follow orders in this instance are too grave for most to reasonably consider.
Boy id hate to be collecting all the firearms.
Everyone thought Fallujah and the likes were bad. Imagine going door to door here. Fun times.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 6:24 am
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:25 am to RFK
There by the Grace of God goes you and you aren't in charge and never will be. We go this. Now go back to your corner.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:27 am to wryder1
quote:
1) No congressman has shown to have any common sense.
2) Where have we heard common sense over and over from?
3) Why let the ppl who are meant for it to keep in check, define the rules for regulation? Seems self serving?
4) Anytine gvt is given a chance to do anything, they will take it to the extreme for taking away from its citizens because there is power in “No”.
5) As long as there are idiots like AOC and Biden, and evil like Obama, I’ll take a hard no on regulating the 2nd amendment. There is a reason that the most gun crimes occur in the most concentrated Democrat areas. It’s no coincidence either that this is also the same party that wants to regulate the guns but knowing it will only affect the responsible gun owners.
Some intelligence exists in Birmingham.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:30 am to RFK
I didn't read any of it.
Just wanted to let you know that when I'm in the mood to read 'stupid', just for a laugh, you're waaaay near the top of my list of go-to's.
Just wanted to let you know that when I'm in the mood to read 'stupid', just for a laugh, you're waaaay near the top of my list of go-to's.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:36 am to nealnan8
quote:
you are in the camp that believes there should be no regulations on what type of weapon or who can possess such weapons, then you are fine with a 3 year old owning a gun. If you are not fine with a 3 year old owning a gun, then you support federal oversight and restrictions on gun ownership. I use this example to point out that the OP is correct - the 2A should be rea
Why would a 3 year old have a gun?
How did the 3 year old get a job to afford to buy the gun?
Curious, I’m looking for a job.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:37 am to Shorty_price
quote:
"Shall not be infringed" is pretty straightforward.
Serious question: do you think a 3 yr. old should have the right to own a firearm?
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:37 am to RFK
quote:
The 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons
This is a false statement.
quote:
This Right May Also Be Reasonably Regulated
Also, false.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:38 am to RFK
quote:
It’s why you can’t buy a tank
You absolutely can.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:39 am to Tchefuncte Tiger
quote:
You absolutely can.
Not armed though right?
For the record I’m perfectly fine with tank ownership in this country.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 6:40 am
Posted on 5/31/26 at 6:40 am to RFK
Why are the Left so hell
bent on controlling people when it comes to self defense but NOT protecting the most vulnerable?
bent on controlling people when it comes to self defense but NOT protecting the most vulnerable?
Page 1 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News