Or rather after he was convicted of killing her. It would be an unfair violation of this poor man’s Constitutional rights if he was deprived of his guns just because he was charged with murder! /s
10 Likes
We need to amend the Constitution. It’s the only way to fix things.
3 Likes
I think getting SCotUS to start looking at the “well regulated” part of the amendment is going to be far easier than that.
3 Likes
“Well regulated” in the context of the Amendment and the times is an older meaning of the term. A “well regulated militia” is one that is properly equipped, drilled, and maintained. In proper working order.
An other example would be, “A well regulated watch keeps time.”
3 Likes
That was one alternative meaning of the word. It wasn’t even the primary meaning of the word at the time, as evidenced by the 11 other times the word “regulate/regulated/regulating” is used in the Constitution to mean “enforcement of laws.”
13 Likes
That seems very doubtful to me – the reason people used to speak of a well-regulated watch is not because it was a synonym for functioning, but because the part that kept regular time was called a regulator. But either way that would still be a very different thing from the unlimited gun ownership free-for-all that has been invented now.
11 Likes
6 Likes
The 2A is sacred above all else. /S
Maybe I should start a religion that make gun the devil that need to be banished from this world. Then I can claim all those gun nuts violate my 1A.
1 Like
“Well-regulated” in the sense of “properly drilled” implies military training, which is notably absent in ammosexuals. Especially the ones who treat firearms as props in their action-hero fantasies. If that was the original definition of the term it only re-inforces the interpretation of the Second Amendment as simply defining state national guards trained by regular army NCOs and officers rather than allowing any yahoo to own such a weapon for any purpose he wants.
Not that any of this matters to Alito or Thomas. As noted above, they’ll interpret it in any way that suits the scared little men in the base and elsewhere who need their masculinity totems.
15 Likes
just wait til the court learns there were no airplanes when the constitution was written… i guess we either can’t have planes, or can’t have any laws about planes. 
12 Likes
Militias weren’t private organizations. They were formed under the authority of the States - and controlled by the President.
“ The Commander in Chief Clause of Article II, Section 2 provides that “The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States”
It’s the National Guard. And I suppose an argument could be made that Guard members might need firearms to fulfill their duties; it no longer applies. The Guard and other services don’t allow members to carry the proper equipment needed and provided by the government necessary for their duties when not on duty. Carrying private military firearms no longer meets the properly equipped and well regulated needs for the military.
And the general population are no longer all Guard members. Non Guard individuals carrying firearms no longer supports the National defense or welfare. So they don’t meet all the clauses by the 2nd amendment.
And if they say they’re a militia- the President can just order them to store their firearms at a government facility until he decides they’re necessary for a military operation. He commands them.
12 Likes
It seems a bit odd that such a vivid metaphor was exclusively applied to self-organizing militias, and not to other social institutions such as penal institutions, schools and slave-labor camps.
3 Likes
So you’re saying that if you actually assault someone, the government will do something? Assault is, you know, actually a crime. And in the context of assaulting your domestic partner, that is actually domestic violence, and if they actually prosecuted that, then other provisions apply, that are on much firmer ground.
Rahimi is a bastard. The first order that was applied against him was from him shooting. He should have been prosecuted for that. No one is disputing that violent felons should not have a gun.
2 Likes
Some people seem to be arguing that it is fine for violent people to have access to guns up until the point they are convicted of a violent felony. Which is fucking insane, because that would mean waiting until it’s too late to prevent a tragedy.
Something like 65% of domestic violence deaths in America are the result of gun violence, usually committed by people who had no prior violent felony convictions. Supporting policies that allow that trend to continue, let alone worsen, is nothing short of monstrous.
13 Likes
The second and third words of the second amendment are literally “well regulated”. But who cares about that?
4 Likes
No - you threatened to. Just like he did. He wasn’t convicted yet - just like the pilot wasn’t.
6 Likes
Or at home under very strict rules (which also regulate, in the modern legal sense, the disposition of ammunition).
Which brings us once again to Switzerland, unless one believes (as one of the users here does) that their gun violence rate is lower than the U.S.'s despite having arms-bearing militias because (try not to laugh) they’re a “homogeneous society”.
It seems we have another entry for the “Guns don’t kill Americans” catch-all topic.
6 Likes
Switzerland has four national languages related to four ethnicities. Completely homogeneous. 
8 Likes
As we’ve seen here before, pants-pissing fear of having one’s gun collection taken away can suddenly put even a self-identifying progressive into the racial Identiarian camp.
For reference:
10 Likes
But the meaning fits the context. In other examples of the word use of the time for a well regulated army, well regulated soldiers, etc. it means equipped and drilled. Or well equipped and structured. Everything is in proper order to be an effective Militia.
What makes more sense:
:“A well equipped and drilled Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
or
“A Militia controlled by rules and laws, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
Which armed force sounds more ready to protect a nation?
Follow up question, re: the “getting SCotUS to start looking at the ‘well regulated’ part” - does everyone think every other lawyer is an idiot and hasn’t barked up this tree before? There is a reason states’ arguments in gun control cases aren’t using that term as a reason to uphold their laws and having success with it.
NOTE - Repeating what I have said in previous threads, this doesn’t mean I don’t think there can’t be ANY laws affecting the 2nd Amendment. There are hundreds of gun laws on the books at the local, state, and federal level. The NFA of 1934, GCA of 1968, FOPA of 1984, and the Brady Bill in 1993 being the big federal ones. There is even more restrictions in several states. Clearly there are limits placed on the 2nd Amendment.
In this case this guy had his rights restricted. I think he should have even more of them restricted, not just legal access to guns. I’ve repeatedly said DV should result in loss of gun rights, and it is currently horribly enforced. Like I said, we need to take DV way more seriously. It is the 2nd highest reason for homicides in the US (1st in some locations.)
You may want there to be more and/or different ones. That’s fine. But using “well regulated” as your reasoning isn’t going to win any court cases otherwise that is what these much smarter and much more experienced at practicing law lawyers would be arguing and winning.
Hey, that’s some neat examples, and actually is supporting my argument. They are all examples of a place or institution being in proper working order to function. For a work-house that would be physical facilities, staff, and structure for the people in it to theoretically rehabilitate them. For a militia that would be everyone having the proper arms, know how to use them, and the structure and drilling to function as a unit.
“A public and well-regulated work-house would have been a more proper remedy for this offence.”
So what is the meaning of well-regulated in this context? Structured and organized to properly function as a work-house, or controlled by rules and laws?
“Thus you preceive how necessary, to a well regulated government, it is, that young minds should grow familiar with servitude, that they should be inured to bodily pain, and become totally insensible to every species of indignity.”
Again, well regulated means a government that is in proper working order. A functioning government.
I don’t really feel like quoting the 3rd one, it’s distasteful. But it is saying the same thing, a plantation in proper working order.
I agree that structure and maintaining things in proper working order requires rules and procedures that are followed (clearly something present in the military), but that phrase is not intended to say that we “need to pass a bunch of laws to control the Militia as well as the individual right to bare arms.” It also doesn’t mean that there aren’t a ton of laws that DO control the Militia/military as well as the right to bare arms.
Again, as above, if that were the case it would be a slam dunk every time in the courts, and it is not, is it?
And so noone has to take my word for it that “to put in good order” (I guess used “proper working order”, but that is saying the same thing) isn’t a correct definition: from An American Dictionary of the English Language by Noah Webster in 1841, pages 684-685 (717-718 in the Google books PDF).
