I'm a liberal on this one.

5/4/2017 10:59:27 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
ludlowlowell Panama City, FL 64, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	I'm pretty conservative on most issues but I do favor gun control, especially in not allowing people to easily buy assault rifles. Handguns? What if their manufacture was outlawed? The second amendment? If anybody will bother to read it they will see that it applies to well regulated militias only. Meet singles at DateHookup.dating, we're 100% free! Join now!
5/5/2017 2:45:21 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
starfox22 Castle Rock, CO 59, joined Jan. 2009	People can argue till the end of time as to what a well regulated militia means. But personally I don't give a shit. There are bad people in this world and I am not one of them but I have seen them, dealt with them and know that I will have a gun to defend my family and I don't give a damn shit whatsoever what anyone else opinion is of that. Even if liberals made guns illegal in any and all forms, I would still have one. Period.
5/5/2017 4:19:15 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
condor_0000 Tampa, FL 59, joined Feb. 2013	Quote from starfox22: Even if liberals made guns illegal in any and all forms, I would still have one. Period. No, you wouldn't. Did you not notice how America's ruling-class treated the people of Iraq? Nightly house to house searches. Lots of detaining and torturing of people. Lots of killing any and all who resisted. America's ruling-class doesn't have any more love for you than they do anybody else who gets in their way. At the moment that they see an armed America as a threat to their existence they will come after you with the same violent, ruthless, disregard for human life that they always use and they will confiscate your guns. Extraordinary violence is their only real card for controlling and dominating the masses and history proves that they have no problem using such violence against the American people when needed. [Edited 5/5/2017 4:20:22 AM ]
5/5/2017 4:44:11 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
rocky_dennis Mechanicsburg, PA 38, joined Nov. 2013	We've the only Constitution in the world, that specifically indicates this. I'm not interested in interpreting something that's not meant too be. I'm American on this one.
5/5/2017 6:30:58 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
naprinciple West Plains, MO 48, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from ludlowlowell: I'm pretty conservative on most issues but I do favor gun control, especially in not allowing people to easily buy assault rifles. Handguns? What if their manufacture was outlawed? The second amendment? If anybody will bother to read it they will see that it applies to well regulated militias only. You can get daddy government to protect you, Snowflake.
5/5/2017 6:37:15 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012 online now!	Regardless of legality, people are going to be able to get guns. It's kind of like drugs that way. You can make it illegal but all you are really doing is punishing responsible adults. Besides, they make kits where you can make your own gun, and then buy the parts you need to complete the gun. No gun license needed, and no serial number on the gun. You can build a glock for as little as $200 with the kit and secondhand parts. It's incredibly illegal and also incredibly easy to do. I just don't see the point of making something like a gun illegal when it's so easy to make one.
5/5/2017 6:40:36 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
naprinciple West Plains, MO 48, joined Feb. 2014	Quote from progrocknic: Regardless of legality, people are going to be able to get guns. It's kind of like drugs that way. You can make it illegal but all you are really doing is punishing responsible adults. Besides, they make kits where you can make your own gun, and then buy the parts you need to complete the gun. No gun license needed, and no serial number on the gun. You can build a glock for as little as $200 with the kit and secondhand parts. It's incredibly illegal and also incredibly easy to do. I just don't see the point of making something like a gun illegal when it's so easy to make one. Never mind 3D printers.
5/5/2017 6:42:30 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012 online now!	Quote from naprinciple: Never mind 3D printers. I've always mentioned how interesting it will be when 3d printers become common place. It will happen eventually. They are already pretty affordable, it's just that you're limited by the type of material, some of which are no good for guns. But eventually it will get there, and getting a gun will be as easy as hitting control p.
5/5/2017 7:52:06 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
beanhammer Denton, TX 52, joined Jun. 2014	Quote from ludlowlowell: I'm pretty conservative on most issues but I do favor gun control, especially in not allowing people to easily buy assault rifles. Handguns? What if their manufacture was outlawed? The second amendment? If anybody will bother to read it they will see that it applies to well regulated militias only. With due respect you left out. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
5/5/2017 8:36:58 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
sinceresammy Dayton, OH 62, joined Mar. 2014	I have three guns, one in each car and the last in my bedroom. I sleep well at night, and I have good locks on the doors. However, Ohio has plenty of crime especially drug addicts looking for a fix or burglars who are usually drug addicts. Yeah, I'll give them a fix if they ever break into my home. Recently, I have noticed a lot of reported shooting and killings of scumbags breaking into Ohio homes. They have mostly been declared justified by the authorities. BTW, I have a plaque on my front door: No Soliciting! That should tell any bad guy I'm a mean person!
5/5/2017 8:47:13 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
mr_bad_robot Cincinnati, OH 42, joined Jul. 2014	As soon as someone thinks like a liberal all of the facts are discarded for opinion.
5/5/2017 9:00:48 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cherisays Bloomingdale, GA 52, joined Dec. 2014	From dictionary.com: Militia: noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. Bold is my addition What ya say now ludlib?
5/5/2017 9:48:12 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
mz_jeannie_baby Rochester, MI 57, joined Sep. 2012	Quote from mr_bad_robot: As soon as someone thinks like a liberal all of the facts are discarded for opinion. Not so. Gun ownership should always carry the word "responsible" in front of it. My father was an avid pheasant hunter here in MI (they're all but gone now) and to this day coming up I have no idea where those guns were when he wasn't hunting. Common sense gun laws would demand that sensible persons own them, not Jon Doe with a felony conviction for B&E. I would suggest to you even a staunch NRA member wouldn't rest easy knowing they are next door to them. common sense, ya know. gun show loop-holes need to go.
5/5/2017 9:49:56 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
texasproud52 Dallas, TX 56, joined Jul. 2012	ARLINGTON - All day long, people stopped by Zona Caliente on South Cooper in Arlington with flowers and heavy hearts. It's still unbelievable to them that 37-year-old Cesar Perez, the bar's well-liked manager, is gone. "As soon as I hear the pop, I looked that way, Cesar hit the ground," said one eyewitness, who didn't want to be identified. He was still too shaken by what he witnessed Wednesday night. "It was something crazy," he said. "Crazy." Police say 48-year-old James Jones, of Grand Prairie, walked into the bar and started yelling incoherently. "He was saying, 'Oh, who worked for the cartel?'" the witness said. "'F Mexicans. You deserve to die.'" As Perez approached him to calm him down, police say Jones fatally shot him in the face and chest. It was then, police say, a customer who was carrying a concealed gun returned fire on the suspect, killing him. The restaurant has what the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission calls a "blue sign," indicating that concealed handgun license carriers can indeed carry concealed weapons in their establishment. "We don’t have any plans to charge him," said Lt. Chris Cook, and Arlington police spokesman. Cook said that man's actions likely saved other lives. Police say Jones had a second loaded handgun in his pocket, as well as two knives. They also said the second handgun had its serial number scratched off, which could indicate it was stolen. "We don’t know what his motivation was but clearly if he wanted to do additional harm, he definitely had the weapons to do that," Cook said. No one answered the door to the suspect's south Grand Prairie home Thursday, and neighbors had little insight. County records show the Jones household receives a disabled veteran tax exemption. "A guy with a gun saved us, but a guy with a gun went and tried to kill us," said the eyewitness. It's a lot to process for him. He lost a friend in Perez, a young man who was a father and a staple in the Arlington restaurant community. A vigil was held at the restaurant for Cesar Perez Thursday evening: http://www.wfaa.com/news/police-say-arlington-sports-bar-shooter-had-four-weapons-on-him/436870614
5/5/2017 9:52:49 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
mz_jeannie_baby Rochester, MI 57, joined Sep. 2012	@texas the wild west never impressed me much. thank God we've evolved. well, some of us.
5/5/2017 9:59:57 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
beanhammer Denton, TX 52, joined Jun. 2014	Quote from mz_jeannie_baby: Not so. Gun ownership should always carry the word "responsible" in front of it. My father was an avid pheasant hunter here in MI (they're all but gone now) and to this day coming up I have no idea where those guns were when he wasn't hunting. Common sense gun laws would demand that sensible persons own them, not Jon Doe with a felony conviction for B&E. I would suggest to you even a staunch NRA member wouldn't rest easy knowing they are next door to them. common sense, ya know. gun show loop-holes need to go. There is no such thing as a gun show loop hole the exact rules apply inside or outside of a gun show
5/5/2017 10:09:20 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
mz_jeannie_baby Rochester, MI 57, joined Sep. 2012	Not so, do your own homework.
5/5/2017 10:11:05 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
fishnthec Mesquite, TX 65, joined Oct. 2010	Quote from beanhammer: With due respect you left out. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED Infringed? Let me tell you what is not infringed! The stiff arm of the Law! And that has to do with federal, state, and local laws. The 2nd amendment is just one federal law! Many state and local laws supersede that law! Even many federal laws supersede it. One such federal law prevents felons from having the right to bear arms. For instance, if you carried a gun into Tombstone, and Wyatt Earp caught you with it violating his "ban of firearms in the city", there is going to be a shootout at the OK corral! Look people, No one wants to take away your f**king rights to your owning guns. What people want is sensible gun laws and responsible ownership and sale of weapons. So get off your soapboxes, turn off the fake news, use your common sense, and quit politicizing everything!
5/5/2017 10:11:41 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
texasproud52 Dallas, TX 56, joined Jul. 2012	Quote from mz_jeannie_baby: @texas the wild west never impressed me much. thank God we've evolved. well, some of us. If you were in the restaurant you might think different.
5/5/2017 10:23:38 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
beanhammer Denton, TX 52, joined Jun. 2014	Quote from mz_jeannie_baby: Not so, do your own homework. Go ahead and list the differences between the law. Standing outside of a gunshow Or standing inside a gunshow
5/5/2017 10:41:39 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Lud, in the era of the writing of the "right to bear arms" amendment the Founding Fathers were speaking of US citizens having the right to own, have in their possession, and use firearms for self-protection AND since the militia was a gathering of armed US citizens from hill, dale, farm, city -- they were granted protection to have weapons. The US militia is still in effect in every state of the Union. It's called the National Guard. Would you have the state militias be restricted in bearing arms and fighting insurgents in Iraq & Afighanistan or the US to protect your "I'm liberal on this issue" ass? In addition to the US militia coming from the ranks of the US public citizen would you want your kinfolk to be robbed, raped, murdered, vandalized, burned out of their homes, stripped of their property because they were not allowed to protect themselves, even at the thought of having to use a gun to do so? It happened, LUD! The US Civil War! The men were away fighting and the elderly, children and women were subjected to mauraders committing havoc and mayhem throughout the country: rape, murder, all manner of unimaginable degredation occurred. Would you want that for your kind? There is a difference in self-protection and arming for criminal acts. Assault weapons are only needed for military actions, not for taking the bank bag to night deposit. I will never surrender my weapons nor give up one single right guaranteed by the US Constitution, and any weak-kneed do-gooder that thinks this RIGHT is negotiable, like what toilet to use, can see my bullets -- one-at-a-time.
5/5/2017 10:53:47 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
beanhammer Denton, TX 52, joined Jun. 2014	I am still waiting on A list of laws state and Federal that change once You have entered into a gun show. Misd Jeanie?
5/5/2017 11:03:52 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
fishnthec Mesquite, TX 65, joined Oct. 2010	Quote from beanhammer: Go ahead and list the differences between the law. Standing outside of a gunshow Or standing inside a gunshow I love these gunshows that are combined with guitar shows. People trade their best guitars for guns and vice a versa! So, I keep a little of both on hand! But, I do plan to get a dealers license and do it legally and follow all the rules!
5/5/2017 11:05:39 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
texasproud52 Dallas, TX 56, joined Jul. 2012	Quote from fishnthec: I love these gunshows that are combined with guitar shows. People trade their best guitars for guns and vice a versa! So, I keep a little of both on hand! But, I do plan to get a dealers license and do it legally and follow all the rules! Guitar show coming up in Dallas... http://www.guitarshow.com/
5/5/2017 11:12:52 AM	I'm a liberal on this one.
fishnthec Mesquite, TX 65, joined Oct. 2010	Quote from texasproud52: Guitar show coming up in Dallas... http://www.guitarshow.com/ Yes! YES! Can't wait. Next year. I'll have a booth, but this year, I 'll just walk around and work deals without a booth.
5/5/2017 12:13:35 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
muldoon1959 Vallejo, CA 58, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Quote from beanhammer: With due respect you left out. THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED What part of WELL REGULATED don't 'you' understand? Kind of funny how they always ignore that part and pretend it isn't there. It's in the first sentence.
5/5/2017 12:15:02 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012 online now!	Quote from muldoon1959: What part of WELL REGULATED don't 'you' understand? Kind of funny how they always ignore that part and pretend it isn't there. It's in the first sentence. But they didn't actually mean regulated. Or it was a suggestion. Or written in invisible ink. I don't know.
5/5/2017 12:18:39 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
muldoon1959 Vallejo, CA 58, joined Feb. 2008 online now!
5/5/2017 12:18:50 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Quote from fishnthec: Infringed? Let me tell you what is not infringed! The stiff arm of the Law! And that has to do with federal, state, and local laws. The 2nd amendment is just one federal law! Many state and local laws supersede that law! Even many federal laws supersede it. One such federal law prevents felons from having the right to bear arms. For instance, if you carried a gun into Tombstone, and Wyatt Earp caught you with it violating his "ban of firearms in the city", there is going to be a shootout at the OK corral! Look people, No one wants to take away your f**king rights to your owning guns. What people want is sensible gun laws and responsible ownership and sale of weapons. So get off your soapboxes, turn off the fake news, use your common sense, and quit politicizing everything! You're wrong, Fish. State and local law may be AS STRICT AS FEDERAL LAW BUT THEY CANNOT SUPERCEDE THE POWER OF FEDERAL LAW. Better check your facts on that one, dear.
5/5/2017 12:21:56 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
61falcon New Hope, PA 76, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	A tank is nothing but a very big gun, should everyone be driving around in tanks??
5/5/2017 12:25:03 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Quote from fishnthec: Infringed? Let me tell you what is not infringed! The stiff arm of the Law! And that has to do with federal, state, and local laws. The 2nd amendment is just one federal law! Many state and local laws supersede that law! Even many federal laws supersede it. One such federal law prevents felons from having the right to bear arms. For instance, if you carried a gun into Tombstone, and Wyatt Earp caught you with it violating his "ban of firearms in the city", there is going to be a shootout at the OK corral! Look people, No one wants to take away your fking rights to your owning guns. What people want is sensible gun laws and responsible ownership and sale of weapons. So get off your soapboxes, turn off the fake news, use your common sense, and quit politicizing everything! You now realize you really FKED up by POSTING this Bullshit, don't you, Fish? You also set yourself out as the whining female you actually are, dear. You figure out what you did.
5/5/2017 12:38:51 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
stellar007 Plymouth, MI 41, joined Dec. 2013 online now!	Quote from ludlowlowell: I'm pretty conservative on most issues but I do favor gun control, especially in not allowing people to easily buy assault rifles. Handguns? What if their manufacture was outlawed? The second amendment? If anybody will bother to read it they will see that it applies to well regulated militias only. I'm pretty much a conservative and as such, I'll keep my guns, money and freedom... You can keep the change! The right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon!
5/5/2017 12:49:02 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	I don't think they know what the hell it means, Stellar. The LAW shall not be actively set upon to break it. That includes Trump, liberals, conservatives, Jane & John Doe. I have the right to bear arms, I do, and I shall continue to do so.
5/5/2017 12:55:14 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
mr_bad_robot Cincinnati, OH 42, joined Jul. 2014	Quote from mz_jeannie_baby: Not so. Gun ownership should always carry the word "responsible" in front of it. My father was an avid pheasant hunter here in MI (they're all but gone now) and to this day coming up I have no idea where those guns were when he wasn't hunting. Common sense gun laws would demand that sensible persons own them, not Jon Doe with a felony conviction for B&E. I would suggest to you even a staunch NRA member wouldn't rest easy knowing they are next door to them. common sense, ya know. gun show loop-holes need to go. How can we have common sense gun laws when no one in Congress has any common sense? There is no such thing as a gun show loophole. That 's a liberal lie. We already have laws prohibiting felons from owning fire arms.
5/5/2017 12:57:31 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
nycman530 New York, NY 63, joined Dec. 2010	Quote from ludlowlowell: I'm pretty conservative on most issues but I do favor gun control, especially in not allowing people to easily buy assault rifles. Handguns? What if their manufacture was outlawed? The second amendment? If anybody will bother to read it they will see that it applies to well regulated militias only. Actually, less than 2% of gun crimes are committed with assault rifles.
5/5/2017 1:01:22 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
clarity101 Aurora, CO 66, joined Oct. 2008	Quote from progrocknic: Quote from muldoon1959: What part of WELL REGULATED don't 'you' understand? Kind of funny how they always ignore that part and pretend it isn't there. It's in the first sentence. But they didn't actually mean regulated. Or it was a suggestion. Or written in invisible ink. I don't know. A Well Regulated Militia? (Last updated by Robert Kluver on July 25th, 2016) What exactly is a "Well Regulated" Militia? Some of you may recognize that the Second Amendment contains the protections for certain rights of gun owners. Yet many neither understand nor fully take to heart the first part, which reads, "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." To answer the question presented, we must start out by telling you that there are several opinions as to what the meaning of "well regulated militia" actually means. Some think that this means the Army or the Army National Guard in each State, which is regulated basically by the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Others however, believe that this refers to the Militias of the Several States which are made up of all the people within them, citizen soldiers who are well prepared and organized for the exercise of their duty to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions. Here are links to some of the wide and differing opinions of how "well rugulated" in the context of the Bill of Rights should be interpreted: Regarding that pesky term "Well Regulated" - Thom Hartmann Well Regulated - The Electric Law Library Various Opionions - Snopes.com Message Board What IS a well-regulated militia? Daily Kos These varying opinions exposed in the above links represent the views of American society on this question. However we would like to simplify at least the historic context of the term when it was ratified by the States as the Second Amendment. First, none of us could disagree that the term "well" means simply "good". Second, while some disagree as to whether all people or certain volunteers in the National Guard are the "militia", all can accept the fact that this is some assembly of citizen soldiers. Finally, this leaves us with the ambiguation regarding the word "regulated". We know that this is basically a verb or an action that is in the past, meaning it has been completed or has been done. In the context of the protected right, its safe to say that "A well [blank] militia" is the resulting act completed by "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". Hence, we must ask which definition of "regulate" would be the effect of the people bearing arms? Here are some definitions for the word, "regulate": regulate -Merriam Webster's Dictionary (transitive verb) a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning (regulate the industries of a country) to bring order, method, or uniformity to (regulate one's habits) to fix or adjust the time, amount, degree, or rate of (regulate the pressure of a tire) So, how could the people being armed cause the militia to be governed or directed according to rule or law? Well, I guess you could simply say that since the people are the enforcers of law, that the fact that they armed, would enforce that the militia is governed by the rules that they make, since they have the guns. You might also say that we should read only that everybody should have arms in order to meet the obligations necessary should you be called forth according to the rules governing the militia, which makes it good. If we consider the second definition, its quite plain to see how everyone having arms would mean the militia would be in good order and in fact brought into uniformity, as to what makes a good fighting force, being one which has the effective means to conduct militant actions. The third definition could also leave you to assume that everyone being armed fixes the time as while the Constitution is in force, and the amount being everyone constitutes what it means for a militia to be well regulated. In every one of these definitions however, there is no doubt that it involved the people being armed, making it hard for any common sense evaluation of the clause that the government can pick and chose who can or can not be armed. In fact, the words "shall not infringe" could never be more clear as to the intent of the Amendment. Simply, that the government can not break this law. So, if the government broke this law, the militia would not be well regulated, and the States would not be able to secure freedom. Since the Second Amendment is well known to have the purpose of protecting rights, its practical to assume that those rights would have the intent and the design to secure those rights, and that rights are freedoms. This Amendment therefore says that this freedom is protected by all of the people who can bear arms in order to secure this liberty, providing them with the capability to doing so. This capability is what makes the militia in good proper order and uniformity, thus the riddle behind the meaning is fully resolved. A "Well Regulated" American Militia is the entire population free to possess arms in order to secure the liberty of the place in which they live, in their own homes, in their communities across each State and ultimately encompassing the entire nation. Without any Amendment to the contrary, this means that the militia must contain every person capable of bearing arms. Just who is capable or authorized? The people, which are every individual which make up each one of these United States, who in accordance with the rights granted by the laws of nature and force of arms may fully execute their sovereign authority over their domain to secure liberty, period!
5/5/2017 1:04:27 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
clarity101 Aurora, CO 66, joined Oct. 2008	“Well-Regulated” Posted at 1:25 pm on June 24, 2014 by Bob Owens militia We hear it constantly from droning citizen control cultists. The argument goes something like this. “You want to listen to the last part of the Second Amendment where is says ‘shall not be infringed,’ but you ignore the part where it says you have to be a ‘well-regulated militia.'” Invariably, they argue that “well-regulated” means “subject to extensive government regulations.” But what does “well-regulated really mean? Constitution.org argues: The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations.” 1714: “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.” 1812: “The equation of time … is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial.” 1848: “A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor.” 1862: “It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding.” 1894: “The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city.” The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. Daniel J. Schultz further expounds upon the meaning well-regulated at the time the Second Amendment was written, and in the context of the rest of the Constitution. Settle in and really read this, and make sure that you grasp the full weight and meaning. We begin this analysis by examining how the term “regulate” was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term “regulate” is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being “regulated.” However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term “well regulated” to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it. It is also important to note that the Framers’ chose to use the indefinite article “a” to refer to the militia, rather than the definite article “the.” This choice suggests that the Framers were not referring to any particular well regulated militia but, instead, only to the concept that well regulated militias, made up of citizens bearing arms, were necessary to secure a free State. Thus, the Framers chose not to explicitly define who, or what, would regulate the militias, nor what such regulation would consist of, nor how the regulation was to be accomplished. This comparison of the Framers’ use of the term “well regulated” in the Second Amendment, and the words “regulate” and “regulation” elsewhere in the Constitution, clarifies the meaning of that term in reference to its object, namely, the Militia. There is no doubt the Framers understood that the term “militia” had multiple meanings. First, the Framers understood all of the people to be part of the unorganized militia. The unorganized militia members, “the people,” had the right to keep and bear arms. They could, individually, or in concert, “well regulate” themselves; that is, they could train to shoot accurately and to learn the basics of military tactics. This interpretation is in keeping with English usage of the time, which included within the meaning of the verb “regulate” the concept of self- regulation or self-control (as it does still to this day). The concept that the people retained the right to self-regulate their local militia groups (or regulate themselves as individual militia members) is entirely consistent with the Framers’ use of the indefinite article “a” in the phrase “A well regulated Militia.” This concept of the people’s self-regulation, that is, non-governmental regulation, is also in keeping with the limited grant of power to Congress “for calling forth” the militia for only certain, limited purposes, to “provide for” the militia only certain limited control and equipment, and the limited grant of power to the President regarding the militia, who only serves as Commander in Chief of that portion of the militia called into the actual service of the nation. The “well regula[tion]” of the militia set forth in the Second Amendment was apart from that control over the militia exercised by Congress and the President, which extended only to that part of the militia called into actual service of the Union. Thus, “well regula[tion]” referred to something else. Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army. It is quite clear that the Founders used the phrase “well-regulated” to denote that militia forces should be skilled with arms of contemporary military utility and relevant military tactics, so that they can serve in the defense of Republic against both foreign invaders and the threat of domestic tyrants commanding a national army against the liberty of the citizenry.
5/5/2017 1:07:45 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
texasproud52 Dallas, TX 56, joined Jul. 2012	Quote from fishnthec: Yes! YES! Can't wait. Next year. I'll have a booth, but this year, I 'll just walk around and work deals without a booth. I will be looking for you next year...
5/5/2017 1:09:02 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
texasproud52 Dallas, TX 56, joined Jul. 2012	Quote from progrocknic: Quote from muldoon1959: What part of WELL REGULATED don't 'you' understand? Kind of funny how they always ignore that part and pretend it isn't there. It's in the first sentence. But they didn't actually mean regulated. Or it was a suggestion. Or written in invisible ink. I don't know. What is a militia without guns??
5/5/2017 1:11:39 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
clarity101 Aurora, CO 66, joined Oct. 2008	From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia The Second Amendment (Amendment II) to the United States Constitution protects the right of the people to keep and bear arms and was adopted on December 15, 1791, as part of the first ten amendments contained in the Bill of Rights.[1][2][3][4] The Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that the right belongs to individuals,[5][6] while also ruling that the right is not unlimited and does not prohibit all regulation of either firearms or similar devices.[7] State and local governments are limited to the same extent as the federal government from infringing this right per the incorporation of the Bill of Rights. The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense, resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[8] In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence" and limited the applicability of the Second Amendment to the federal government.[9] In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."[10][11] In the twenty-first century, the amendment has been subjected to renewed academic inquiry and judicial interest.[11] In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Supreme Court handed down a landmark decision that held the amendment protects an individual right to possess and carry firearms.[12][13] In McDonald v. Chicago (2010), the Court clarified its earlier decisions that limited the amendment's impact to a restriction on the federal government, expressly holding that the Fourteenth Amendment applies the Second Amendment to state and local governments to the same extent that the Second Amendment applies to the federal government.[14] In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding" and that its protection is not limited to "only those weapons useful in warfare".[15] Despite these decisions, the debate between various organizations regarding gun control and gun rights continues.[16]
5/5/2017 1:21:56 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
muldoon1959 Vallejo, CA 58, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Quote from texasproud52: What is a militia without guns?? You're not a militia.
5/5/2017 1:41:45 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
texasproud52 Dallas, TX 56, joined Jul. 2012	Quote from muldoon1959: You're not a militia. That's what you think...
5/5/2017 1:46:31 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Any US citizen which can be called upon to defend their country in a time of unrest is a "milita" member. You all are uneducated or just plain stupid.
5/5/2017 1:49:01 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012 online now!	Quote from texasproud52: What is a militia without guns?? A militia. Do you honestly think there were no militias before guns? Lol.
5/5/2017 2:03:34 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Smoke on, Prog. Militia is a "civilian military". The first militia was firmed in the 1700s in the US when the British thought to disarm American citizens. Didn't happen then, sure as hell won't happen now.
5/5/2017 2:05:25 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cherisays Bloomingdale, GA 52, joined Dec. 2014	Quote from cherisays: From dictionary.com: Militia: noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. Bold is my addition What ya say now ludlib?
5/5/2017 2:10:04 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Careful, Cheri That's an online definition. You need the definition at the time the US Constitution was written.
5/5/2017 2:10:41 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012 online now!	Quote from cupocheer: Smoke on, Prog. Militia is a "civilian military". The first militia was firmed in the 1700s in the US when the British thought to disarm American citizens. Didn't happen then, sure as hell won't happen now. Derp on, Cup. Definition of militia a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency. I can assure you there were militias long before the 1700's.
5/5/2017 2:12:00 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	Name the nations that had those militias before the 1700s, Prog.
5/5/2017 2:15:27 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
muldoon1959 Vallejo, CA 58, joined Feb. 2008 online now!	Most of these overlook the "Well Regulated" part that's in the 2nd amendment. Just because you're in what you define as a "militia" does not necessarily mean you fall into the definition of a "Well Regulated Militia" Quote from cherisays: From dictionary.com: Militia: noun 1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies. 2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers. 3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service. 4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government. Bold is my addition What ya say now ludlib?
5/5/2017 2:15:50 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012 online now!	Quote from cupocheer: Name the nations that had those militias before the 1700s, Prog. Is this a serious question? It's like asking which nations had armies before the 1700's. Just for a reference, the first use of the word militia was documented in 1590. How would anyone know what a militia was if they didn't exist until 1700?
5/5/2017 2:20:44 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
4uijack New Port Richey, FL 81, joined Aug. 2013	Dem dar mofos will hav ta pry me gun from ma cold dead hands, I say!!!!
5/5/2017 2:34:04 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010	You're hedging, Prog -- you brought it up -- prove what you say. You can't. It didn't exist, did it?
5/5/2017 2:36:00 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
4uijack New Port Richey, FL 81, joined Aug. 2013	prog is a blocking little p*ssy boi!!!!
5/5/2017 2:36:12 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
4uijack New Port Richey, FL 81, joined Aug. 2013	Quote from 4uijack: prog is a blocking little p*ssy boi!!!!
5/5/2017 2:43:33 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
cupocheer Assumption, IL 68, joined May. 2010
5/5/2017 3:06:54 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012 online now!	Quote from cupocheer: You're hedging, Prog -- you brought it up -- prove what you say. You can't. It didn't exist, did it? Of course it did. What did Joan of Arc lead up until her capture? I'll give you a hint. It begins with the letter m and ends with ilitia.
5/5/2017 3:22:17 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
texasproud52 Dallas, TX 56, joined Jul. 2012	prog should I have said weapons? (guns being the primary weapon)... maybe that would have helped you understand...
5/5/2017 3:23:50 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
progrocknic Mount Arlington, NJ 33, joined Dec. 2012 online now!	Quote from texasproud52: prog should I have said weapons? (guns being the primary weapon)... maybe that would have helped you understand... Weapons would have been far more accurate. They had militias in the days of swordsmen. And no, this didn't help me understand what I know, because I already understood.
5/5/2017 3:24:51 PM	I'm a liberal on this one.
texasproud52 Dallas, TX 56, joined Jul. 2012	Based on your question I do not think you understood...

plentyoffish hookup

skipthegames one night stands