- 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
re: The 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons -This Right May Also Be Reasonably Regulated
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:29 am to RFK
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:29 am to RFK
quote:
What “shall not be infringed” is the right to a “well regulated militia” - this plainly indicates that while the people’s right to bear arms cannot be infringed, in general, the militia can be “well regulated.”
You are absolutely incorrect. I'm sorry you don't understand sentence structure. It's unfortunate that you have built your ideas around an incorrect premise.
There is case law settling this ridiculous notion that you can refer to. All it takes is some self-education, and a willingness to form an opinion based in fact, not your emotions.
0
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:39 am to nealnan8
quote:
I use this example to point out that the OP is correct - the 2A should be reasonably regulated by the federal government.
Except that a 3-year-old CAN own a gun, though it is controlled by a custodian, because he lacks contractual capacity. This is determined at the state level, not federal.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:39 am to RFK
You can personally come get mine any time you feel froggy. Leap at your leisure.
Oh wait, you radical leftists will call on mommy government to do that for you.
ETA. Mess hall marine getting it done
Oh wait, you radical leftists will call on mommy government to do that for you.
ETA. Mess hall marine getting it done
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 3:04 pm
Posted on 5/31/26 at 10:47 am to RFK
quote:
Your approach is why the right loses credibility, which is striking because it’s the same approach the left takes. You are selectively reading one clause by itself, without the context of the entire amendment.
Which is exactly what you did in the OP, never once did you include the phrase "Shall Not Be Infringed". I will acknowledge you briefly touched but if you are going to argue you conveniently left it out.
Now I will say that I read the "Well Regulated Militia" as being a Well Trained Militia or General Public.
Without you analyzing the complete statement your argument is invalid.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 11:11 am
Posted on 5/31/26 at 11:21 am to Barneyrb
I’ve touched on that clause several times so far.
“Shall not be infringed” refers to the right to bear arms in order to form a “well regulated militia”. This therefore indicates the militia can be “regulated” in some fashion.
Bear in mind punctuation was not as conventionalized when the constitution was written as it is now, and there were different versions of the amendment with two, three, and even four commas.
The counter argument is the Founders obviously meant that all clauses in amendments, regardless of how many, should be read together.
If that’s what you substitute be to, it’s clear they intended citizens to be able to bear arms to serve in a militia, not just for any reason they want.
“Shall not be infringed” refers to the right to bear arms in order to form a “well regulated militia”. This therefore indicates the militia can be “regulated” in some fashion.
Bear in mind punctuation was not as conventionalized when the constitution was written as it is now, and there were different versions of the amendment with two, three, and even four commas.
The counter argument is the Founders obviously meant that all clauses in amendments, regardless of how many, should be read together.
If that’s what you substitute be to, it’s clear they intended citizens to be able to bear arms to serve in a militia, not just for any reason they want.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 11:23 am
Posted on 5/31/26 at 11:28 am to RFK
Why do you want to take away our guns so badly? What could you possibly want to do this for?
Get back in the corner with the rest of the gay retards and shut up
Get back in the corner with the rest of the gay retards and shut up
Posted on 5/31/26 at 11:33 am to RFK
quote:
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.
quote:
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.
It's a prefatory clause to explain the reason for the citizenry to be able to keep and bear arms, not a precursor to being able to own a firearm (which many anti-2A people try to portray). The "well regulated" aspect was included for two main reasons:
1. To assuage the concerns of the Anti-Federalists who were worried of the despotic potential of a standing army under control of a strong, central government.
2. The need for an effective domestic militia to deter both domestic despotism as well as foreign invasion.
quote:
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.
The vast majority of the gun control debate essentially centers around the gun being the problem, not the mindset of the user. It also implies the firearms were obtained legally, which is contrary to reality when we look at how those who have used firearms to commit violent crimes have obtained their firearms (the vast majority are not through legal sales). LINK
This is why those "common sense" stances are often the exact opposite of sensical. It's like trying to regulate hammers to lessen the amount of shoddy constructions.
quote:
It’s why you can’t buy a tank
That's patently false. Not only can I buy a tank, there is a path to legally enable its weaponry ( LINK).
For a citizen militia to be as effective as what was envisioned by the Founding Fathers, that militia needed to be able to be similarly (or better) armed as the troops they would be facing. During that period they had no concept of air warfare nor missiles so arguments against nukes are somewhat valid. But this then brings me to another point you made:
quote:
Now another question is how much “well regulation” is reasonable when regulation comes from the very people you would be overthrowing.
That's one of the most salient points there is for this debate.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 11:39 am to RFK
quote:
The counter argument is the Founders obviously meant that all clauses in amendments, regardless of how many, should be read together.
If that’s what you substitute be to, it’s clear they intended citizens to be able to bear arms to serve in a militia, not just for any reason they want.
That counter argument is highly flawed and we know this through studying the history of the time. Militia membership was never a prerequisite to owning firearms, owning firearms was a prerequisite for militia membership. Those who make that argument haven't read history and have no concept of how ubiquitous firearm ownership was at the time (it was on par with cell phone ownership in today's society).
Posted on 5/31/26 at 11:43 am to RFK
quote:
It’s why you can’t buy a tank
There’s are hundreds privately owned in Texas you can pay to shoot them.
You utter dimwit.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 11:43 am
Posted on 5/31/26 at 12:22 pm to texag7
quote:
There’s are hundreds privately owned in Texas you can pay to shoot them. You utter dimwit.
Your relegation to insults showcases the insecurity in your own position.
Modern M1 Abrams tanks are unavailable to private buyers because they are still in active U.S. military service and highly controlled.
So, by your rationale that “shall not be infringed” is an absolute, any restriction, however minor, would be unconstitutional.
Yet there are thousands of restrictions on “arms” which are lawful under our system.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 12:34 pm to RFK
quote:
Your relegation to insults showcases the insecurity in your own position.
This about sums up your entire existence as a weak and gay adult man. Someone said something mean, therefore you will affirm ANYTHING else in opposition.
This is how you've managed to find yourself on a wild spectrum crying about nazis all the way down to renovation projects as being a threat to your well being - while supporting people who implement mass illegal immigration and transgender exploding ketchup packet underwear.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:12 pm to rocksteady
quote:Honestly have to say this is one of the stranger melts I’ve seen.
while supporting people who implement mass illegal immigration and transgender exploding ketchup packet underwear.
Regardless, getting back to point.
Scalia’s opinion/rationale actually makes it easier to argue for some sense of restriction on the right to bear arms. He laid it out for future generations that are going to have to grapple with AI weapons over the next 2 generations.
None of us will be here, but by 2126, the 2A will likely be interpreted as securing a strong but not unlimited individual right to keep and bear arms in common use for self-defense, with the Supreme Court continuing to apply a history-and-tradition test from Bruen while allowing more regulations on high-capacity magazines, assault-style weapons, and emerging technologies like autonomous or AI-linked firearms.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:19 pm to RFK
quote:The Bill of Rights does not "give" rights to the people. It recognizes them.
The 2A Gives Individuals the Right to Weapons
A right granted by government is only a licensed permission, and licensed permissions can be narrowed, suspended, or revoked by the same authority that issued them. The Bill of Rights assumes the people already possess certain liberties, then places legal boundaries around the government’s power to interfere with them.
The First Amendment does not create speech. The Fourth does not create privacy. The Fifth does not create due process. And the Second does not create the right to keep and bear arms. These amendments are acknowledgments and restraints. They mark off areas where government power is not supposed to reach.
So when you say the Second Amendment “gives” individuals the right to weapons, you have the relationship backward. The people are not asking the state for a privilege. The state is being told there are limits on what it may do to the people. That is the entire purpose of a bill of rights.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:26 pm to RFK
The 2A doesn't give anything. It acknowledges that right exists and the government SHALL NOT INFRINGE upon it.
This post was edited on 5/31/26 at 1:27 pm
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:28 pm to RFK
Not saying I am correct. But for decades as a kid, I always figured the militia was the military. And to ensure they are capable, it is a good idea to allow them to have guns at home so that if they are called up they will know how to use them.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:34 pm to RFK
Takes like this are why the word retarded is making a comeback
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:39 pm to omegaman66
quote:The key phrase is “necessary to the security of a free State.”
Not saying I am correct. But for decades as a kid, I always figured the militia was the military. And to ensure they are capable, it is a good idea to allow them to have guns at home so that if they are called up they will know how to use them.
So the first question is: free from whom?
A “free State” does not mean a state with a well-funded federal army. It means a political community whose people are not reduced to subjects. The threat being guarded against is government power becoming hostile to the liberty of the people.
That is why reading “militia” as “the military” makes no sense. The federal military is one of the very things a free people might need protection against if government turns abusive. It would be bizarre to read the amendment as saying, “Because a federal army is necessary to liberty, the people shall have the right to keep arms.” That reverses the logic.
The sentence says a militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and then it protects “the right of the people” to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the Army. Not the right of the government. The right of the people.
So even if someone wants to emphasize the militia clause, they still have to explain why the operative protection is assigned to “the people.” The text does not say the government may arm soldiers. Governments already do that. It says the government shall not infringe the people’s right to arms.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:39 pm to RFK
quote:
well-regulated" meant being properly organized, disciplined, equipped, and functioning in proper working order (like a "well-regulated clock")
This is why the right was meant to not be infringed.
quote:
"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."
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:47 pm to northshorebamaman
quote:
The sentence says a militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and then it protects “the right of the people” to keep and bear arms. Not the right of the Army. Not the right of the government. The right of the people.
So even if someone wants to emphasize the militia clause, they still have to explain why the operative protection is assigned to “the people.” The text does not say the government may arm soldiers. Governments already do that. It says the government shall not infringe the people’s right to arms.
Just to be clear. I said I was stating what I was thinking when I was a child.
Second I never even hinted that the second amendment saw about arming the military and no the average citizen.
Posted on 5/31/26 at 1:59 pm to Captain Rumbeard
quote:Very well.
SHALL NOT INFRINGE upon it.
Explain the requirement for a background check.
Or to be of a certain age to purchase arms.
Or to register weapons, depending on the state.
Or to take a class/certification to possess weapons.
These are all “infringements.”
Page 6 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News