Forums

[husky4evr]

the 2nd amendment says "well regulated" people that are on the no fly list should not be able to buy guns....people should not be able to buy guns without a backround check.....if you believe in the 2nd amendment you should believe it all....

[JimDandy75]

Wow this gets old. The Well Regulated Militia clause has been examined by SCOTUS several times. They have determined the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, not dependent on militia service. See the Heller And MacDonald cases if you require more information.

[-Alex]

It sounds like his post was referring to the "well-regulated" part, not the "militia" part and didn't talk about a militia membership. The Heller decision did rule that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited.

[JimDandy75]

It sounds like his post was referring to the "well-regulated" part, not the "militia" part and didn't talk about a militia membership.

And not the "a" part, or the "being" part? How about the "necessary" or "security" or "free state" part? Allow me a little hyperbole in the point that since the beginning of time people have divided this amendment into only two parts.

As for the unlimited part, Neither is Speech. Schenck v. United States. While that has since been "fixed", it set a precedent for further limitations on speech that we are very careful to broach.

[-Alex]

Ok, you're allowed hyperbole.

And it seems we're all on the same page now, that you understand he wasn't talking about militia. And also on the same page regarding the rest.

[JimDandy75]

No.. I believe he was talking about the militia. There are two parts to the Second. And when people refer to "Well Regulated" like that, they're refering to the first clause which is often referred to as the militia clause. Its what SCOTUS referred to as the Preamble clause in their decision.

[-Alex]

No.. I believe he was talking about the militia.

But he didn't mention a militia at all. If he was talking about the militia, he would have made reference to the militia.

There are two parts to the Second. And when people refer to "Well Regulated" like that, they're refering to the first clause which is often referred to as the militia clause.

Right, he was referring to something specific in that clause - the "well regulated" part.

So, he was talking about the regulation part. Not saying something like the right to bear arms should be dependent upon enlistment in a militia.

[JimDandy75]

Then what exactly was well-regulated?

[-Alex]

Then what exactly was well-regulated?

I believe husky4evr would state that the right to bear arms is what was/is well-regulated. That we should have regulations against people on the no-fly list to buy guns, that we should have regulations against buying guns without a background check.

Again, he was referring to his understanding that guns should be well regulated, not that gun ownership is dependent upon militia service.

[JimDandy75]

I think you're being intentionally dense. "well regulated" was in quotes, implying a direct quote of the amendment. In the amendment the militia is well regulated, the right to bear arms is what shall not be infringed. The Well-Regulated Militia clause was long a go-to argument for people in favor of gun control. It still is by those not up to date with the Heller decision.