Virginia Gov. Abigail Spanberger is reportedly “fuming” this week after the state failed to get a single justice on the Supreme Court to support her after she violated the state constitution in her attempted gerrymandering of the state. However, Spanberger may have just guaranteed another trip to the Supreme Court when she said the quiet part out loud about the new state gun ban.
After the Democrats took power recently, they went on a frenzy of tax and liberal legislative measures. The sharp move to the far left is out of sync with a purple state that remains roughly evenly divided. While Spanberger (who ran on being a moderate) has pushed forward many of these measures, she sought to moderate one bill banning so-called “assault firearms.”
Spanberger released a statement that:
“I am signing this bill into law because firearms designed to inflict maximum casualties do not belong on our streets. We are taking this step to protect families and support the law enforcement officers who work every day to keep our communities safe. While the General Assembly chose not to adopt my amendment that specifically carves out certain firearms frequently used for hunting, I will work with the patrons to clarify this language.” (emphasis added)
The governor’s acknowledgment that the law covers common hunting models will likely be cited in Second Amendment challenges. If the law is not amended, she could prove the main witness against her own signed legislation.
Even with such an amendment, the bill is problematic. I have previously written about my skepticism over bans on AR-15s and other so-called “assault weapons,” though some courts have upheld such bans.
We have a Second Amendment protection of gun ownership, with over 490 million guns in private hands, as of 2022. In 2008, the Supreme Court handed down a landmark ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller, recognizing the Second Amendment as encompassing an individual right to bear arms. The Supreme Court further strengthened the right in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. Bruen.
The AR-15 is the most popular gun in America and the number of these guns in private hands is continuing to rise rapidly, with one AR-15 purchased in every five new firearms sales. There are an estimated 32 million currently in private hands in the United States, according to the National Shooting Sports Foundation.
AR-15s are purchased for home protection as well as target shooting and hunting. Many gun owners like the AR-15 because it is modular; depending on the model, you can swap out barrels, bolts and high-capacity magazines, or add a variety of accessories. While it does more damage than a typical handgun, it is not the most powerful gun sold in terms of caliber; many guns have equal or greater caliber.
Not only are they commonly used for hunting, but they remain statistically uncommon choices in homicides. Rifles are used in only about 3% of such cases, according to experts.
Again, lower courts are divided on both the bans on semiautomatic weapons and the magazine bans. Eventually, the Supreme Court will have to resolve the question. If the Virginia law remains unchanged, Spanberger may find that her signing statement will feature greatly in the appeal.
NOT ONLY MAY CITIZENS KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
CITIZENS MUST KEEP AND BEAR ARMS
The Individual Mandate: Under early state laws and the subsequent federal Militia Act of 1792, every enrolled citizen was legally required to “provide himself” with a proper military-grade firearm (a musket or rifle), a bayonet, a knapsack, and a specific amount of gunpowder and lead bullets.
Professor Turley in analyzing Spanbergers statement should have noted that Virginia has the following severability provision. https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacode/title1/chapter2.1/section1-243/
Would you kindly explain the relevance to today’s topic of the severability statute you linked to?
If the the provisions that Spanberger wants amended are ruled unconstitutional, then the rest of the statute will remain. So her statement does not appear to be as bad as Professor Turley makes it out to be.
Fair enough, but what else is in the act that would remain in force? And is any of it relevant to today’s topic?
Exactly how is that applicable in this case?
The Government (State and Fed) just wants another legal-pathway to pry into Your life. The Gun isn’t the issue, it’s your rights to self privacy that is.
Everyone is a potential suspect. They (The Gov.) is just trying to codify it into Law.
Your right.
I believe any law-abiding US citizen should be able to own and carry any firearm that the US government can use against its own citizens,
More importantly the government has no business knowing what kind or even if I own any firearms. A registry is nothing more than a pre-made confiscation list in waiting.
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.
A few comments below clarify that (a) at this nation was founded, “militia” meant the body of armed citizens that could be called upon to repel invaders or throw off an oppressive government, and (b) well regulated meant the thing worked well.
Seen through that lens, the prefatory clause is logically connected with the operative clause, which in turn is powerful evidence that that is precisely what was meant by the people who framed and ratified the Second Amendment.
“A few comments below clarify that (a) at this nation was founded, “militia” meant the body of armed citizens that could be called upon to repel invaders or throw off an oppressive government, and (b) well regulated meant the thing worked well.”
Even the notorious leftist Lawrence Tribe was reluctantly forced to agree with that interpretation after researching the matter. As much as I dislike Tribe, it seems that even he is less dishonest than the commie trolls here.
Are you old enough to have been taught how to diagram a sentence? If you are the meaning of the 2nd is clear and unambiguous.
Perhaps we should consider updating and clarifying the second amendment by either removing the introductory clause or by adding “and for other purposes” at the end of the clause.
Wjile there is no need to – the militia clause is not a limiting clause.
Still we did – the privileges and immensities clause of the 14th amendment was intended to confer broad rights to firearms to newly freed blacks and to specifically preclude the states from infringing.
The establishment of a standing military means that this is no longer relevant. The DoD is exactly opposite to what the founders intended.
Wrong on both counts.
Want to try again?
The Individual Mandate: Under early state laws and the subsequent federal Militia Act of 1792, every enrolled citizen was legally required to “provide himself” with a proper military-grade firearm (a musket or rifle), a bayonet, a knapsack, and a specific amount of gunpowder and lead bullets.
NOTE TO SUPREME COURT: Strike down Spamburger’s bullfeathers with extreme prejudice!
When the CIA says extreme prejudice it means wet work. Taking life. We have a lot of trouble with that when Article ll people do it. Ought we go there with our Article lll people?
As a lawyer, I’ve never seen the phrase “with extreme prejudice” used in a legal context. So I looked it up. Here’s the so-called AI overview:
The expression is typically used in the following contexts:
Military & Espionage (Assassination): Popularized by the film Apocalypse Now, the longer phrase “terminate with extreme prejudice” is a euphemism for extrajudicial killing or assassination.
General Ruthlessness: Outside of espionage, it is a dramatic figure of speech used to describe carrying out a task or eliminating an obstacle with absolute finality and zero mercy.
Legal Misconceptions: While the concept of “with prejudice” is a real legal term—meaning a case is permanently dismissed and cannot be refiled—there is no formal legal designation called “extreme prejudice.” It is sometimes incorrectly used by the public as a dramatic way to express severe legal finality.
When striking down spamburgers and bullfeathers, extreme prejudice likely means intense bias or animus.
___________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
“Extreme prejudice” has a few distinct technical or semi-technical senses depending on context:
Military / intelligence euphemism
“Terminate with extreme prejudice” means to kill or assassinate a target.
This usage became widely known through intelligence and military fiction, especially the movie Apocalypse Now.
Legal / procedural sense of “prejudice”
In law, “with prejudice” means permanently or decisively, such that the matter cannot be reopened.
Example: “case dismissed with prejudice.”
“Extreme prejudice” is not a standard legal term, but it rhetorically intensifies the idea of finality or severity.
Ordinary-language sense
“Prejudice” can mean bias, hostility, or preconceived judgment.
In that sense, “extreme prejudice” simply means intense bias or animus.
Etymologically, the legal and military senses are related through the older meaning of “prejudice” as harm, injury, or adverse effect. The military phrase effectively implies causing irreversible harm.
So to summarize, “prejudice” is used two ways in the law:
– dismissed with prejudice means the complaint or petition cannot be amended and refiled, it’s done with; by contrast dismissed without prejudice means the court is giving the plaintiff or petitioner a fixed amount of time to amend the complaint and refile, curing any errors that formed the basis for the dismissal.
– otherwise, “prejudice” means harm to the party’s ability to win the law case. A trial error can be harmless or prejudicial. Evidence that is otherwise admissible can be excluded because its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
I forgot to sign in above.
-OMFK
I’m guessing the Supreme Court rarely does “wet work” on bills.
You mean on acts? Scotus doesn’t get involved with bills, only Congress does. Only after a bill becomes law – i.e., an act – can Scotus deal with it, and only then if it’s challenged in court.
Scotus is supposed to do “wet work” on acts that violate the Constitution, so I have no objection to that.
Who would find this woman to be “smart”? except in some elections where too many voters FOOLishly voted for her.
Audit the election
Yeah— any time MAGA loses, there MUST be fraud, according to MAGA media.
Why does Turley write MAGA attack crap like this? The CITIZENS of Virginia VOTED for redistricting in response to Trump commanding that red states rig the vote via creating new districts that would favor Republicans. Voters in Texas weren’t even given an opportunity to vote— the same is true in other red states. In Louisiana, the MAGA governor simply tossed out over 40,000 early votes after the Trump SCOTUS green lighted gerrymandered redistricting to eliminate Democrats and minorities from having a voice.
The reason why Virginians wanted redistricting is simple—-polls show that voters have had it with MAGA, Trump and Republicans’ failure to stand up for them and against Trump. We were promised no new wars, but Netanyahu saw Trump’s unpopularity and needed the US’s help to cover Israel attacking Lebanon— Democrats were poised to win the midterms, so Trump started bombing, lying about Iran being on the verge of nuking us. Now gas and grocery prices are soaring, 13 Americans are dead and hundreds more were injured— all based on a Trump lie. We are blowing $1 billion a day and still losing.
Turley’s argument relies on the assumption that Virginia is a purple state. Not anymore. Trump has done such a lousy job of pretending to be President that former purple states are skewing blue. Just look at the referendum results.
So, if Republicans can’t win on their record or Trump’s record, which they know they can’t, then they have to resort to rigging by trying to gerrymander away Democratic votes and attacking Democratic office holders, all while ignoring Trump’s failures. It’s not working.
Wow! Delusional much?
Gigi pops by around this time every day to demonstrate her mental illness to anyone willing to read her ramblings, of which there are few people left.
What do you think of the wailing wall, anon? What of Moses? I’m just curious about your thoughts.
Spanburger most likely requires an exorcism.
GAME OVER
The “fundamental law” here simply means the operative legal rule expressed in mandatory language.
What is the operative legal rule (the enforceable command in the sentence)
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This is the only part written in the form of a binding prohibition (“shall not be infringed”). Grammatically and structurally, it is the amendment’s rule statement.
What is not an operative legal rule
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
This is a prefatory clause. It:
does not contain a command or prohibition,
does not assign rights or duties,
does not itself state a legal requirement.
It functions as a stated rationale or contextual frame within the sentence structure.
Bottom line (purely textual/grammatical)
Law-structured (operative): the prohibition on infringement of “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.”
Not law-structured (prefatory): the militia clause, which is descriptive/contextual rather than directive.
wrong, wrong, and wrong again. Very clear that “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,” COMMA, followed by “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms,” COMMA, followed by “shall not be infringed.” PERIOD
there are TWO equal noun-clauses in the amendment–both of them NOT TO BE INFRINGED.
They are not equal. One is a dependent clause the other is an independent clause.
wrong again. BOTH are dependent clauses. NEITHER ONE stands alone as a complete sentence or independent clause –PROVEN by the comma after right to bear arms.
Don’t try to use big words to show off your ignorance.
“to keep and bear arms” is NOT an operative verb, goofball. The “verb” for BOTH DEPENDENT clauses is “shall not be.” You shouldn’t make a fool of yourself with waxing prolix on something you apparently know very little about.
You’re right to focus on the punctuation and parallel structure, because the Second Amendment is famously compressed—but the conclusion you’re drawing (“two equal noun-clauses, both not to be infringed”) doesn’t match either the grammar or the way English legal drafting works.
Let’s stick strictly to structure.
The sentence is:
“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.”
1) There is only one operative verb phrase
The only finite, enforceable command in the sentence is:
“shall not be infringed.”
Everything before that is syntactically a subject (with modifiers), not additional commands.
If there were two equal independent prohibitions, you would expect something like:
“shall not be infringed, and shall not be denied,” or
two separate “shall not…” clauses
But there is only one modal verb (“shall”) governing one prohibition.
2) The first clause is grammatically subordinate, not co-equal
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”
That phrase is a participial / explanatory preface. It is not a standalone noun clause asserting a right or duty. It cannot be read as something that is “not to be infringed” because it contains:
no subject-right
no verb of obligation or prohibition
no legal directive structure at all
It functions like a justification embedded in the sentence.
3) The second clause is the actual legal subject
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”
This is the grammatical subject of the operative verb phrase. The structure is:
Subject: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms”
Predicate: “shall not be infringed”
So the prohibition attaches to that right, not to both earlier and later clauses as independent legal units.
4) Why the “two equal clauses” reading doesn’t hold
In English legal drafting (18th century and modern), commas do not create multiple independent prohibitions. Co-equality would require:
repeated verbs, or
coordinated independent clauses
Instead, the Amendment has:
one prefatory justification
one operative right
one prohibition
That is a classic “preface + operative clause” construction.
5) What courts and textual grammar both converge on
The mainstream legal reading (including in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008)) is exactly this structural distinction:
prefatory clause = purpose/context
operative clause = enforceable rule
Even if one disagrees with policy implications, the grammatical architecture is still the same: only one “shall not be infringed” governs the sentence.
Wow!!!!!
Too bad SCOTUS agrees with me, not you. And BTW, the two noun-clauses are “a well regulated militia” and “the right of the people. Your over-analysis, attempting to use big words, shows compensatory protection of your conclusion.
And the possessors of that right is the people, not some militia.
The people. Those are choke words for totalitarians.
It’s against the law for the people to have a ‘militia’.
*if you want a ‘well-regulated’ militia join the National Guard .. . or ICE.
TY, I joined!
That was not the meaning of “militia” at the time the Constitution was written. It was understood that the militia was the body of armed citizens that could be called upon in times of need. That went back to the days of the Roman Republic.
Indeed ” well regulated” in this context means well drilled. Not govt regulated in the 20th century context.
Yes. Exactly! To expand your statement, the term “well regulated” in this context means that “it works well”. Not the modern meaning of regulation, such as laws or rules. At the time of the writing, a watch, clock, or a time piece was called a regulator. In the context “well regulated” means “well working”. So that the people have the right to a well working militia, it is essential that the people’s right to own and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Without arms, no militia.
The biggest reason for the second amendment was the repressive governments of Europe one of which the colonists had just overthrown
The second amendment was to prevent that from happening here, and it still could do just that.
The militia in the context of the second amendment is all armed citizens of the United States. No need to join just buy a gun and some ammunition.
The Individual Mandate: Under early state laws and the subsequent federal Militia Act of 1792, every enrolled citizen was legally required to “provide himself” with a proper military-grade firearm (a musket or rifle), a bayonet, a knapsack, and a specific amount of gunpowder and lead bullets.
That one landed in the X ring.
Banning “assault” weapons is like banning “some cans of fruit.” The expression doesn’t clearly define its object and is likely unenforceable in any sensible way. Of course that won’t stop Democrats from trying to enforce it.
I think that ‘assault weapon’ does have a definite historical meaning. During WW I the Germans had specific units trained to make high risk but fast assaults on protected positions. Weapons that were fully automatic and easily reloaded, reliable and easy to carry were favored by assault or storm troops.
In that context the civilian AR-15 is clearly not an assault weapon. It is not fully automatic.
In law definitions can matter [though less lately with woke judges]. An AR-15 is not an actual assault weapon.
By the way, for an interesting memoir by a German soldier in WW I read STORM OF STEEL. I forget the author’s name.
THE LAW IS CLEAR AND IMMUTABLE
“…courts…must…declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void.”
“…men…do…what their powers do not authorize, [and] what [their powers] forbid.”
_________________________________________________________________________________________
“[A] limited Constitution … can be preserved in practice no other way than through the medium of courts of justice, whose duty it must be to declare all acts contrary to the manifest tenor of the Constitution void. Without this, all the reservations of particular rights or privileges would amount to nothing … To deny this would be to affirm … that men acting by virtue of powers may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid.”
– Alexander Hamilton
_________________________
2nd Amendment
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.
Is the Democratic party grooming Spanberger, not that they need to do much, for a presidential run? She is a female that toes the party line and has proven she can deceive the public easily. She has pushed the limits of the law on redistricting and guns which is in line with the party goals. She checks a lot of the boxes except for one. During the next 2 or 6 years can they hide the fact that she ran as a moderate and then went hard left? The populace it seems has a short memory span and the press will help to conceal her chameleon traits.
Spermburger is a liberal clown.and a Communist.
“Is the Democratic party grooming Spanberger, not that they need to do much, for a presidential run? She is a female that toes the party line and has proven she can deceive the public easily. ”
Are you trying to say that she is Kamala Harris, bleached white ;>?
I hadn’t thought of that but yea I guess that would work out.
Dear Prof Turley,
Virginia is still gerrymandered. Thanks to SCOTUS, you can now vote for Republicans or Democrats in hastily redrawn (i.e. gerrymandered) Republican districts.. . take your pick.
It helps if Republican and Democrat candidates have a lot of cash-on-hand and media surrogates. For example, Massie R, 4th district Ky. Republican ‘primary’ campaign is approaching a record $30 million dollars . .. one can only imagine how much the election will cost the Democrats!
Also, this is the 21st century .. . on the modern battlefield of ideas, 1789 2A musket militias don’t amount to a brain-fart in the wind.
*in 1775 the King of England did not even have an internet connection. .. I’m not sure he does now!
‘So through the night rode Paul Revere;
And so through the night went his cry of alarm
To every Middlesex village and farm,—
A cry of defiance, and not of fear,
A voice in the darkness, a knock at the door,
And a word that shall echo forevermore!
For, borne on the night-wind of the Past,
Through all our history, to the last,
In the hour of darkness and peril and need,
The people will waken and listen to hear
The hurrying hoof-beats of that steed,
And the midnight message of Paul Revere’. ~ Henry Wadsworth Longfellow
The only solution to gun violence is bigger ballrooms.
The shooting at the White House Correspondents Dinner was yet another tragic example of a lone wolf shooter attempting to carry out a horrific attack against innocent people.
This senseless act highlights the country’s desperate need to finally do the one thing that will prevent gun deaths:
We need to build bigger ballrooms.
The only way to actually stop gun violence is by building gaudy Neoclassical ballrooms the size of a Walmart. That way, the shooters will get so tuckered out from sprinting across the entire length of the foyer that they’ll be too exhausted to pull the trigger.
Every church, school, and public gathering place in America should have an opulent event hall big enough to land a plane in.
Problem solved.
Clearly the only answer!
My question is, why didn’t anyone think of this solution sooner?
All the politicians were too busy thinking and praying!
We are remodeling our county library with a ballroom.
It saves a lot of money rather than starting from the ground up and, bonus points, we get to host a lavish book burning party as the first official function.
I think it’s a brilliant plan.
Think of all the jobs that would be created demolishing houses and clearing sites and building ballrooms all over the country!
I’m sure everyone wants to be part of that, right?
Right.
The answer to gun violence is to cure all the mentally ill liberals of their sick hate.
BREAKING NEWS
“Associated Press Warns That Trebuchets Are Exempt From U.S. Gun Laws”
https://babylonbee.com/news/associated-press-warns-that-trebuchets-are-exempt-from-us-gun-laws
Noone
In Other News: “Politician Warns that Concealed Carry of Trebuchets Threatens Public Safety”
~+~
After hearing the news from collegues that trebuchets are exempt from the National Firearms Act, A Member of Congress claimed that these weapons will find their way into the hands of criminals who will then use them in armed robberies. She elaborated…
“This is why we banned the importation of certain foreign firearms years ago. French-built handguns are a menace. The trebuchet can be concealed in a pocket, just like a Chauchat. But the trebuchet shoots bigger bullets.”
Pfft. I have total IRS command of the battlefield, a THAAD high altitude air defense system, state of the art hypersonic rocket launchers and, of course, a bevy of FPV drones.
And that’s just the back 40acres.
*my front lawn is protected by lethal autonomous AI robots. .. can’t be too careful these days.
Yes, the current SCOTUS, the majority, is capable of reading with comprehension. Well regulated militia is a statement of fact, declaring States have militaries. They are NECESSARY to SECURE a FREE State. That is declarative as fact. Well regulated military includes armed and ready.
The second clause is declarative as (RIGHT) FREEDOM of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms. SHALL not be infringed (eaten away, worn away).
States weren’t always that pleased with a federal system and its military might. Declarative as we the people will fight to the death if anyone tries to remove our freedoms.
Me
Sorry, comrade, America nullified “our freedoms” and went full communist a very long time ago.
The entire communist American welfare state is unconstitutional, including, but not limited to, admissions affirmative action, grade-inflation affirmative action, employment affirmative action, quotas, welfare, food stamps, minimum wage, rent control, social services, forced busing, public housing, utility subsidies, CRT, DEI, WIC, SNAP, TANF, HAMP, HARP, TARP, PBS, NPR, Fed, Health and Human Services, Housing and Urban Development, Environmental Protection Agency, Agriculture, Education, Labor, Energy, Obamacare, Social Security, Social Security Disability, Social Security Supplemental Income, Medicare, Medicaid, “Fair Housing” laws, “Non-Discrimination” laws, etc.
Article 1, Section 8, provides Congress the power to tax for ONLY debt, defense, and “general Welfare”—ALL or THE WHOLE WELL PROCEED through governmental provision of security and basic infrastructure—omitting and, thereby, excluding any power to tax for individual Welfare, specific Welfare, particular Welfare, favor, or charity. The same Article enumerates and provides Congress the power to regulate ONLY “the Value of money,” “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes,” and “land and naval Forces.”
Further, the 5th Amendment right to private property was initially qualified by the Framers and is, therefore, absolute, allowing no further qualification and allowing ONLY the owner the power to “claim and exercise” dominion over private property.
I must agree. The government is now into childcare??? That’s a personal responsibility last time I checked. Quite amazing it is.
Bravo. Scamberger is a loon.
PS: AOC’s Level of Idiocy Has No Bounds and is Frightfully Discomforting to Watch.
https://torrancestephensphd.substack.com/p/aocs-level-of-idiocy-has-no-bounds
@Dogon
I could be wrong, but tin foil hat me thinks the dems might put her out to pasture – it is clear to many she was hired, it’s clear to everyone she has a double digit IQ and a spurious economics education, and the message isn’t landing like it used to. Wouldn’t mean they would not try to make her some other type of ‘influencer’, but perhaps her days in Congress are done. I suppose they might still be dumb enough to run her as VP, but I have doubts about that, personally. Guess time will tell.
Spam burgers name is The Albino.
Right, and Xi Xian is NOT a loon. The world pays no attention to the US anymore with the silly nonsense incompetence in government with am I a girl or boy and which bathroom puts the US dead last with China doling out favors , you nincompupes.
Excuse me while I smoke some weed and stare in the mirror.
Lets see how this plays out if it goes to the USSC. If the VA bill gets slapped down, once again, leftist gun control grabbers will only strengthen precedent for the 2ndA.
As the good professor notes, long guns are rarely used in criminal acts. Your local Chicago gang banger prefers a Glock handgun with a Glock switch. IIRC the ATF recently seized like a thousand Glock switches coming from China.
Was there any demands for gun control coming from leftist Democrats when Charlie Kirk was assassinated or the attempt on President Trump’s life?
Sallysallysally,
A militia is composed of everyday people who come together to repel invaders or throw off an oppressive government. In order for the militia to function properly, to be “well-regulated”, the people must be armed. The 2A could easily become a flashpoint if the lefties get their way. You as a lefty should hope that never happens.
That the 2A protects an individual right to have guns is a right wing lie. 2A is about state militias.
You are incorrect! Settled law by SCOTUS.
I’m dumber for having read this comment. ‘Well regulated’ at the time of the drafting meant ‘well supplied’ and of course, the Amendment is about individual citizens’ rights.
iirc it meant “functioning properly”
I have searched gutenberg.org for contemporary instances of “well-regulated.” As used, it means “to function per expectation,” as workshops, households, kitchens turning out tasty and nutritious meals on time — even Henry James’ marriageable young lady, and Anna Leonowens’ muddy-pawed small boy.
“Regulated” here comes from the same root as Regulator clocks, which keep accurate time. Neither clocks, nor small boys, nor even young ladies were subject to govt regulation two centuries ago.
The modern equivalent to “Well regulated” is found in US Code Title 10 that gives the military departments (Navy, Army and Air Force) the statutory responsibility to “organize, train, and equip” military forces
Points, anon!!
Tha is different than a militia in colonial times. The only reason the militia was effective is individually the people possessed arms with free use outside of the militia. The militia organized individuals with weapons into effective fighting forces when group action was necessary.
Sort of an expanded version of when the sheriff calls for a posse.
🙂
There was no.modern equivalent when the Constitution was written which means it means exactly what it says. As a matter of fact it prohibited a standing army because it could be used against the citizens. Only a Navy was allowed to stop.smugglers. You should brush up on US history and the Constitution. Fools.
The Founding Fathers expressed their concerns about a standing army in the U.S. Constitution, specifically in **Article 1, Section 8, Clause 12**, which allows Congress to raise and support armies but limits appropriations for that purpose to a maximum of two years. This reflects their intention to prevent a permanent military force that could threaten liberty.
The various clauses in the constitution do not change their meaning because times have changed.
The meaning of a clause in the constitution (or any law) is set by its understood meaning by those who crafted it at the time it was crafted.
You can change the law or constitution through normal processes anytime you want – and that is how you adapt law and constitution to modern times.
US Code Title 10 does NOT and can not modify the constitution.
To do that you must amend it.
You are free to do so.
I would further note that this idiocy that the meaning of laws and constitution changes with the times is lunacy.
That would make your rights, government powers and the law in a state of chaos changing as the meaning of words changed.
Tanks, Bob…
Citizens militia Sally…
The 2nd Amendment is about protecting our freedom from tyranny and tyranny by these progressive tyrants is on full display.
While they open our borders, flood us with unvetted criminals and fail to enforce our laws, do you seriously believe anyone gives two chits what they are trying to do?
You are incorrect, First you do not understand the concept of militia as understood at the founding,
And 2nd the militia clause is gramatically irrelevant.
The 2nd amendment could say “blue whales being necescary for the health of the oceans, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”
The first clause does NOT constrain the 2nd, it merely provides ONE of potentially thousands of justifications for the following right.
If the first amendment said – “free expression being necsescary for elelections; ……”
That would not change the first amend,ent one iota
But equally important possibly MORE is the 14th amendment.
The ONE right we KNOW that the drafters of the 14th amendment intended to convey to INDIVIDUALS – specifically freed black slaves was the right to firearms for their personal defense against southern whites.
The only lies told here are by the left.
I would further note that the Pennsylvania Rifle was the “AR-15 of its time – it was the state of the art weapon – instrumental in winning the revolution – the British had nothing equal – it was accurate to 300yd at a time when most rifles were at best accurate to 100yds and it fired a ball that would kill or seriously disable you it you were hit.
The Pennsylvania rifle was such a good weapon that they were in production through the 19th century.
Again it was the AR-15 of its time.
I would further note that neither then nor NOW is the private ownership of Cannons barred.
My community has one of the largest collection of privately owned revolutionary and civil war cannons and they are used every fourth of july
Not only can you own one – but you are free to make your own.
And they have no serial number
John, I have to contradict you one more time. The Pennsylvania rifle was not the assault rifle of its day.
That honor goes to the smoothbore musket. A skilled marksman could fire a musket three rounds a minute. The riflling grooves made loading PA rifles take longer, and extracting a ball after a misfire took an eternity.
Opposing infantry lines during the Revolutionary War typically stood 50-100 yards apart.
Michealdix
Wrong
Smooth bore muskets with a round ball are highly inaccurate, and I mean by feet even at 100yd. Rifling in a barrel produces spin on the projectile, think of a spiraled pass in football versus a punt kick. One of the main reasons why the Confederacy was at disadvantage in the civil war was smooth bore cannons versus the Federals rifled cannons. Confederate artillery could hit a barn at 500 yds while the Federal artillery could repetitively hit the barn door, accuracy wins of quantities in battle.
Do you think that, say, machine gun fire, is known for its accuracy?
You need to read up on infantry tactics during the Revolutionary War, which was the origin of the order, “Don’t fire till you see the whites of their eyes.”
I think Carlos Hathcock (God rest his soul Semper Fi) killed a NVA at a distance of 0ne mile with a.50 caliber machine gun that he attached a Scope to. The longest kill shot ever recorded to that date. Machine gun fire is as accurate as needed and upon the setting.
The question was rifling versus smooth bore, Americans fought both a conventional war and a guerrilla war during the Revolutionary War. The British actually complained that the American troops were targeting Officers, which they did not do. American militia also saw how stupid it was to go head to head in stacked skirmish lines., using hit and run tactics. Very familiar with history of it, a grandfather fought in it and lost a family member in South Carolina to Torrie troops.
No one said the Pennsylvania rifle was the 1770’s equivalent of a machine gun or an assault rifle.
The issue was lethality – I am not sure of the statitics from the Revolutionary war – but I would bet that significantly more british were killed at distances over 100yds than americans.
It is still likely that the majority of casualties on both sides were at close range from muskets.
I do not know what weapons were used at lexington and concord but purported;y the first shots at lexington were by the british at short range and were devastating,
But in the end the british after advancing to concord were forced to retreat all the way back to boston and suffered significant casualties in that retreat.
Whether it is because of greater or because you are fighting an enemy that is dispersed behind trees and walls and homes – you do NOT want your forces having to move and reload while under enemy fire when your enemy has the luxury of reloading safely.
The engagement at Lexington and Concord was NOT the norm for the revolution.
But it was quite common against the british when moving through the hudson river valley, and a significant factor in Why every british effort to separate new england from the rest of the colonies failed.
It was also more common in battles later in the south.
A similar successful tactic – again used frequently in the battles in the south was to face off against the advancing british with less well trained backwoodsmen – who were also better marksmen.
To set them up as the first and 2nd line with instructions to fire ONCE and then retreat behind the third line. That third line being the more disciplined soldiers who AFTER the first two lines shot holes in the advancing british and then retreated – giving the british the impression that they had broken colonial lines,
suddenly found themselves against the better trained colonials with muskets who stood their ground against advancing forces that had lost cohesion.
You talk about revolutionary tactics – as if there was ONE set of tactics used.
Washington deserves credit as possibly the best general in the world ever.
Not because he made no mistakes – he made lots.
But because from the begining to the end he understood that the goal was to make the cost of remaining in the colonies unacceptably high for the British and that his most important objective was to preserve his army.
A variety of strategies and tactics were used by different revolutionary generals in different engagements.
Absolutely there were more traditional set peice battles fought at close range, were most of the conflict turned on high rate of fire. But even in those battles – less well drilled members of the colonial forces harrassed british forces at ranges greater than a musket – often targeting officers and non-coms.
Further in many – though not all cases – colonial soldiers joined the armies with their own rifles – which were more likely to be pennsylvania rifles than muskets.
The colonists fought the war with the men and weapons they had.
And the colonists had significantly greater proportion of long range hunting rifles than muskets than the British and that impacted the outcome of SOME conflicts – and SOMETIMES was the reason for british defeats.
I think both sides used brass Napoleon cannons which were smoothbore. The rifled cannons, Parrots, were used by both sides as well and at Antietam the Confederates had only a few less rifled Parrott cannons than the Union forces did.
Young
Check out Chicamagua
The Federals also possessed multi cartridge carbines that I believe some 15 men destroyed about 100.
Grapeshot came into being used in the Revolutionary war.
That is correct. The smooth bore was an improvement over the blunderbuss and the rifled bore over the smooth bore. The blunderbuss was more akin to todays shotgun, it spread the shot, so highly inaccurate, but devastating at closer ranges.
Think of the smooth bore as a erratic knuckleball and the Pennsylvania rifle as the fastball with stabilizing spin, the sniper rifle of its day.
While you are correct about the difference in capabilities between the musket and the Pennsylvania long rifle,
I still disagree.
The Pennsylvania rifle was initially a hunting rifle – it was intended to be lethal at distance.
While both the americans and the british used weapons similar to the pennsylvania rifle – they were more common among colonists.
In numerous engagements during tyhe revolution – starting with lexington and concord, Colonists would either harrass retreating british from out side the range of the musket or would harras advancing british as the colonists retreated from outside the range of the musket.
Colonists would fire from 2-300yards away – separate and reload, and fire again – all from outside the range of british muskets.
While this was NOT the norm for ALL engagements – it was a significant factor in inflicting high casualties on british who in engagements with colonists – particularly those that were NOT set peice engagements in open fields it WAS the norm for engagements in the woods or outside of battlefields.
Further even in battlefield engagements it allowed the colonists to pick off british officers and noncoms.
causing a breakdown in command and control.
The british considered this a violation of their concept of the rules of war.
It was bad form to pick off the other sides officers.
Though as the war progressed both sides did it.
This tactic also made it easier for colonial generals to make use of less poorly trained and drilled farmers and hunters. Little training was needed to teach them – pick off redcoats – particularly officers and sargents from outside musket range. After you fire – retreat to Further outside of range and reload.
Finally I did not compare the Pennsylvania rifle to an assault rifle – I compared it to an AR-15.
Again a failure of terminology on the left.
The prefered attributes of an assault rifle are high rate of fire and ease of use.
In the revolution – that would be a musket. Before machine guns that would be a carbine.
While there are near infinite variants of AR-15’s NONE are automatic weapons.
An AR-15 is a hunting rifle – the goal is not rate of fire, and it is a home defense weapon – forcing attackers to keep their distance.
An M16 would be an assault rifle – and AR-15 is a poor choice among modern rifles for “assaults”
It’s rifle or carbine? Barrel length references, either or.
Assault rifle ? Umm ok
John Say,
Interesting comment. I enjoyed reading it.
I think describing the Pennsylvania long rifle as the AR-15 of its day might need some elaboration. I own one by the way.
No army of the era would have equipped its regular troops with the Pennsylvania long rifle. It is relatively difficult and slow to load and tended to foul faster than smooth bore muskets. At the Battle of Cowpens some militia boiled water to clean their rifles during the battle according to some reports. You clean them with hot water by the way.
The better weapon for the tactics used by regular troops was the Brown Bess, a smoothbore musket that could be loaded fairly quickly using a disciplined drill. It would also take a bayonet. [I don’t have a Brown Bess but would like tojust for the history]. If a militiaman fired his long rifle at an advancing unit of Redcoats there would come a point when he couldn’t reload before getting a bayonet in the guts…so he fled. Disciplined regular troops in line could stand fast, reload, and then attach bayonets when the enemy closed.
At Cowpens, Daniel Morgan used both regulars with smoothbore muskets trained to remain in line and fire volleys and he used militia riflemen instructed to position themselves in advance and with some cover. Using their ability to fire with deadly accuracy at long range he told them to take out the officers and non-coms. He asked for just two shots at leaders then they could fall back behind the regulars. Some stayed forward longer knowing they could retire at their own discretion.
“Bloody” Tarleton tried using cavalry to scatter the rebels but after a few attempts only to hear the crack of long rifles and watch officers and other leaders tumble from their saddles, the horsemen declined to attempt any more charges. Then his regulars, on foot, advanced in formation.
At some point the officer in charge of the American regulars decided to move the troops a little further back and had them turn and in a disciplined way march back. The Redcoats thought they were fleeing and charged, losing formation, towards the Americans who under orders turned and fired a full, shattering volley into the Redcoats.
It was a great American victory. But both muskets and long rifles, and trained regulars with irregular militia won the day using their respective strengths.
I say the above from memory so it is possible, even likely, that you will find omissions or discrepancies if you read an actual history of the battle.
But thank you for the interesting comment and the nudge into history.
Young
In that era of warfare
Artillery against Infantry
Cavalry against Artillery
Flanking and disrupting
Overwhelm and over run the enemy
Good summary.
Eight all,
There also was such a thing as artillery duels, guns against guns.
It is very hard to summarize the revolutionary war,
Nearly every engagement was fought with different tactics, and different colonial forces.
Snipers?
How much longer is a long rifle than a rifle? Does this improve accuracy?
Anon: “Snipers?”
Yes, to some degree. At the battle of Sarasota Americans could see a British general who was far too capable for comfort so Dan Morgan asked one of his riflemen to take him out. The shooter climbed a tree, took careful aim, and missed. The general seemed to think a bug had gone by him and was unconcerned. The rifleman fired again and killed the officer. It may have altered the outcome of the battle which was an American victory. Benedict Arnold’s courageous action also helped win.
Read “Saratoga” where spellcheck had me write “Sarasota.”
The longer the barrel of any gun GENERALLY the higher the speed of the projectile and the greater the range.
That is true then and today.
GENERALLY rifled weapons are significantly more accurate than smooth bore weapons, because the projectile spins rather than tumbling through the air.
Please do not respond with counter examples – there are some, but GENERALLY the above is true.
Why the descriptive long rifle and not simply rifle? Is there a short rifle?
Young, your description of regular troops “trained to remain in line and fire volleys” and of efforts to have militia do their best along the same lines, is precisely what “well regulated” meant to the founders in the 18th Century. The very meaning of “Regular” soldiers was that they were troops who were “well regulated” in being able to quickly load and fire their weapons and being able to advance in line and perform the similar small unit tactics of the day. That was why the 2nd Amendment makes reference to the need for a “well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. It had nothing to do with the modern concept of government regulations or of regulating gun ownership, as many anti-2A people try to infer. It had everything to do with a free State needing a militia that could be as close as possible to the same quality in core military competencies and weapons handling as regular troops, so that they could stand up to regular troops if and when the time came. At the very least, they would have enough of the basics down so they could quickly gain the competencies they would need to face regular troops.
Anon–
Thoughtful remark. Thanks. Another way to look at the militia is as a posse called up in times of emergency to assist when regular authorities need help. They keep their own weapons, powder and bullets and, hopefully, step forward when the call for assistance sounds.
I don’t know what you mean about quickly gaining competencies to face regular troops. Fighting in the regulars then meant more than shooting. They had to learn the manual of arms and how to maneuver as a military unit. Von Steuben established that essential core training at Valley Forge and helped make the American army formidable to European foes.
The militia had trouble facing an advancing regular army. Read “The Road to Guilford Courthouse.”
They could fight Indian or frontier style which more closely resembles modern infantry tactics using cover while advancing. The techniques then and now were shaped by the battle space and the tools and weapons available. At Cowpens a mix of regulars was stunningly successful. At King’s Mountain it was pretty much all militia on the American side. We won both battles.
I visited both battlefields and climbed King’s Mountain going straight up the slope as our ancestors did. It would be almost impossible for regular troops to fight in their style on that slope but was perfect for Indian style fighting. Conditions were similar when General Braddock was ambushed, largely by Indians. He complained to Washington when colonial troops advanced into the brush to confront the attackers but they were right to do so. Braddock’s body was buried in the new road and marched over to conceal his grave so the Indians couldn’t dig it up and desecrate it as they were wont to do.
Young – Generals must fight with the troops and weapons they have – not the ones they wish they had.
Throughout the war there were sort of two groups of colonial soldiers – the backwoodsmen and farmers who would come and go frequently and usually supplied their own weapons, and these were more likely to be rifled hunting weapons – primarly the Pennsylvania Rifle, and the somewhat more professional soldiers who stuck arround, drilled and trained.
In nearly every engagement US generals had to make use of a mix of forces.
Often engagements turned on how well a general used the usually better marksmen with hunting rifles who were less disciplined and often broke and ran under pressure and the better trained “professional” soldiers usually equiped with muskets.
It is Wrong to claim that specific tactics were universal throughout the war.
Every battle was fought differently.
In many engagements the Pennsylvania rifle was not much of a factor.
In others it was pivital.
As I keep repeating – colonial forces were a mix of people who showed up for a battle or for a season, and then left returning after their crops were harvested or planted, and more professional soldiers.
The colonials could not have prevailed without BOTH.
And in many many engagements success or failure hinged on whether the “backwoodsmen” were used to their best advantage or not.
Contra myths the revolutionary war was NOT a guerilla war.
But there were significant elements of guerilla warfare.
Anyone studying the war will note that with few exceptions the british faired very badly outside of major cities.
British troops traveling long distances particularly through wooded regions – and much of the colonies were wooded at the time. We constantly harrassed from out of range of muskets.
Several people point out that muskets had 3 times the rate of fire of the pennsylvania rifle – but they have 1/3 the range.
A pensylvania rifle can fire twice accurately before a musket gets in range.
At that point the militiamen can separate denying the british soldier a shot.
To be clear – that is NOT the only tactic colonial forces used.
It was also only the primary tactic in a FEW engagements.
But significant portions of colonial forces were skilled marksmen but unskilled soldiers,
They frequently broke and ran as soon as they were under British fire.
But they often got two shots away first.
John Say: “It is wrong to claim that specific tactics were universal throughout the war.”
I don’t think anyone has said that tactics were universal.. The three battles I mentioned were very different.
It must be said, though, that regular units on both sides tended to fight with the tactics of European armies. Namely with a large number of troops drilled to the point that they could maneuver and shoot on command as a solid unit. Volume of fire at relatively close range was prized more than pinpoint accuracy. When your enemy is near and closely packed together it is like shooting at a barn door…you likely will hit something.
That type of fighting, closely packed troops trained to maneuver as if they were a single organism had its roots in ancient times with the Greek phalanx and the Roman legion.
When Xerxes looked upon the few Spartans facing him at Thermopylae he asked the exiled Spartan king with him if the Spartans were truly better than his best soldiers. He was told that one on one they probably were not, but they were trained to fight as a coordinated unit and as that they were better. And so it proved to be.
As I said elsewhere the battle was shaped by the battle space and the tools and weapons available to both sides.
Demeratus was the exiled Spartan king with Xerxes. Just remembered his name.
What latitude does a State have under the Supremacy Clause, and therefore the Heller, McDonald and Bruen decisions to decide what arms We The People have, confessed in the 2d Amendment right to keep and bear arms? Justice Scalia’s Heller analysis of the 2d Amendment’s prefatory clause, militia purpose, has, among, others, two telling points. One, the English Stuart kings disarmed opposing political groups. Two, the militia clause is about a citizen formed militia of the people, separate from government forming an organized militia like the Stuart kings had. There is discussion about the value of government organizing, training and arming its militia. There is no discussion of the value of disarming the citizen militia in whole. Nor part. Heller confirms that the operative clause in the 2d Amendment is a natural right to keep and bear arms of each individual. It carries the the citizenship militia purpose clause. If a government is derailed by a mass assassination, or it goes off the rails on its own, and the citizen militia are carrying flintlocks to a machine gun fight, does that confess the State’s ugly answer that” Well, our desire for public order is just more important than the natural right you brought into the more perfect union”?
Points!
Well regulated as in–BORTAC is today. Well trained and supplied.
Mike
100%
The government militia National Guard, possesses every type of military weapon in the armory. The Citizens militia would be groups like Oath Keepers or other local groups that have formed to defend themselves against what they may see as off the rails tyranny. Small arms are nothing more than a disruption compared to what would be unleashed against them to quell an uprising. The key to it all is in the indoctrination of our military and LEO service members, think of guys like Comey and Milley or the opposite like Flynn and Kristol. Would they fire upon their fellow citizens or see the same enemy that their country men would be standing against? This division IS the result of Obama’s sedition and treason, that is why it is so important to hold those accountable.
I would believe it to be the same lstratification of division along the lines as we find our current political system has devolved into.
When did you ever think that Americans would cheer the death of a fellow countrymen due to their political views or worse yet wish for the death of their own President?! Or worse, root for the enemy responsible for killing innocent people and Americans?!
Even Washington – the ONLY “commander in cheif” – president, to lead troops in battle while president put down rebellions during his term.
Regardless, you are absolutely correct – a citizens militia is USELESS in a set peice battle against any military.
That was MOSTLY true even during the revolution.
But that presumes that there will be a conflict solely between these militia and the professional military.
The left rants that J6 was an “insurection” – is there ANYONE that beleives that if Trump had ordered Miley to storm the capital or too tried to use the military to keep him in office past jan 20, 2021, that they would not have obeyed ?
The purpose of an armed populace is NOT to defeat a professional military – that did not happen even in the revolutionary war.
While the citizens militia was critical to winning the revolution – it would not have happened had Washington not spent years building a professional military.
The purpose of a citizens militia is to put down a tyrant.
The expectation is that the US military will NOT take up arms to defend an actual tyrant.
Nuremberg established that “I was just following orders” is NOT a valid defense for troops engaged in unacceptable conduct.
the VC was a lot more like a militia than people want to admit
they lost every battle and won the war
VC means VIET CONG NOT VENTURE CAPITAL
Sal Sar
Mike, I must confess, I am impressed. You have an attorney’s precision with the structural logic of an engineer who provides an exact blueprint. In a professorial manner, you cover an immense amount of territory, leading to well-fortified conclusions. I shouldn’t ask, but are you an attorney with undergraduate studies in STEM and engineering?
My dad was an aeronautical engineer. He was behind Lee Atwood as his Assistant Project Engineer on the Douglas DC-3. His wing root assembly that joins wing to fuselage can be seen anywhere you can get eyes on the shipset. Like American Airlines C.R. Smith Museum at the Flight Academy on the campus here in Texas. He was the Chief Engineer on the Douglas C-47. He advised that pursuing law was a good choice for me. After 55 years in the Texas Bar I am satisfied that he knew whereof he spoke. My undergraduate degree is Adam Smith. Economics.
That explains your brilliant use of the word airframe in a previous discussion. The economics gear you into a STEM direction. Keep up the good work. I like reading what you have to say; I prefer substance that is well linked, rather than words.
Mike, it seems clear that the State has no right to decide what arms citizens may possess, subject to some limitations such as the citizen is law-abiding, of sound mind, and so on. Also, since the right is an individual right, it should apply to individual arms but not crew-served arms such as heavy machine guns, artillery, and so on. However, it should be noted that citizen-formed militia units prior to the Civil War, and there were many of them North and South, often did possess cannon, and were organized and funded privately and many were not under any government control until they were called up to service at the start of the war. Since citizen militias may have to face regular troops, their individual right to keep and bear arms should include weapons that are as close to those carried by regular troops, so an M4 Carbine today should not be impossible to obtain, or at least the semi-automatic equivalent.
One of the limiting principles looks at weapons that scare people not used to seeing something in a public place like a market. Like a Dane axe. We’ll have to see how Bruen unpacks looking ahead. All l can say is I’d hope for any limiting principle to come out of the head of a Clarence Thomas.
Like most leftists, you embarrass yourself by your ignorance of U.S. History. Do yourself a favor and read up on the topic at hand before posting.
@Sally
Is this AOC? Who do you think comprised those militias of yore, pray tell? Pfft. Never fear though, as apparently, for the left, this is ‘just the opening silo’.
Sally, you should read more than just your own left wing bubble’s intentionally-ignorant misinterpretation of 2A.
Many of the Framers elaborated quite beautifully on “the militia” being composed of all citizens who were not in the military.
And “well regulated” just meant “well trained”. Look it up. It’s all there in their writings.
You see, back then, you hoplophobes were few and far between. And, although your right to exist would have been respected, your right to confiscate our weapons (the current Democrat Party intent) didn’t exist and would have been met with very unpleasant circumstances for the hoplophobe.
So the phrase “the right of the people” means one thing in the First and Fourth Amendments, but nothing at all in the Second Amendment?
“People” must mean individuals in the Fourth Amendment — one could hardly search the entire stste of New York.
Why wouldn’t the Framers alert us to these abrupt switcheroos? They were careless draughtsmen? They had no sense they were writing for the ages?
Wrong
Sally, you lefties would outlaw militias five minutes after you outlawed guns, so spare us.
We already know if you take our guns, you won’t protect us. You’ll blame us. You already do.
The hundreds of milliions of guns in the country’s civilian hands, perhaps much greater than the population, tells us you are wrong. Get over it. Guns are hear to stay and are necessary to protect the people from your meddling.
That’s funny. Are you a comedian?
Sally – not even close to true. First as numerous others pointed out – there is not the textual or logical structure of the 2A.
But more importantly they have pointed out that the militia in 1787 was NOT the army, or national guard or state militia.
It was all able bodied white men from 16 to 60.
Further, in the event there was any doubt,
The 14th amendment priviledges and immunities clause was specificially intented to extend the INDIVIDUAL right to firearms to recently free blacks so they could defend themselves against southern whites.
There is massive legislative history on this as well as public discussion during ratification.
Why doesn’ t the text refer specifically to firearms ?
Because the priviledges and immunities clause intended to extend more that the rights in the bill of rights.
It was essentially a restatement of the 9th amendment – bassically telling the judicial branch AGAIN that the people are protected by infringement from government for significantly more than the enumerated rights in the constitution and bill of rights.
The priviledges and immunities clause restates once again – that we have limited governemnt of only enumerated powers and everything else falls under the liberty of the people.
If that were the case, the amend would say “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the MILITIA to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Easily understood by people who comprehend English. Not so much by leftists, democrats, and the Karens populating anti-2A groups.
Keep — feds cannot take, states cannot take
Bear — use them if needed
Necessary to freedom , to secure freedom if needed
Sorry, trolls. We don’t serve Spanbergers here:
“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”
The first part of the Amendment explains why we have the 2nd. Liberals have claimed for decades that the first part is not an explanation but rather a condition for bearing arms. That is a lie. Read it, Anonymous. The Supreme Court has held multiple times and for decades that the first part is not a condition for bearing arms, and that reading makes perfect sense when I read it.
Maybe if liberals spent more time teaching English and less on drag-queen story time, they’d understand that.
The ordering of the Amendment matters, too. It’s second only to freedom of speech and religion, and all three provide the foundation for protecting all the other Amendments. That explains the priority.
Diogenes,
“Maybe if liberals spent more time teaching English and less on drag-queen story time, they’d understand that.”
It would be funny if it were not so true.
Uneducated people, like Sally, just blindly believes the gun grabbing leftist talking point and ignores all the other rulings by the SC concerning the 2ndA.
Apparently, Sally only reads her own comments, not ours. Nor does she read the Supreme Court’s.
Sally may think or believe the wolves will protect her. 😉. Sweet girl huh?
“Uneducated people, like Sally, just blindly believes the gun grabbing “
Upstate, I like the direct answer. Sally is uneducated.
If Democrats are so sure certain weapons are unnecessary for self-defense, why don’t they agree to limit the weapons carried every day by their personal security details? If some “assault” weapons are truly “weapons of war” that “have no place on the streets of America,” why not remove them from the hands of their own Praetorian Guard? Oh, right. Because it’s not true, and they value their own lives much higher than everyone else. They deserve to be protected with the most effective weapons available, but not you and me.
Again, the militia clause implies that citizens need to be able to own “weapons of war,” at leasr the current service rifle. How else could the citizenry suppress insurrections and repel invaders?
“the militia clause implies that citizens need to be able to own “weapons of war,” at least the current service rifle. How else could the citizenry suppress insurrections and repel invaders?”
There is quite a bit more to it than that. The Founders had just finished prosecuting a successful revolution against a government that had been abusing its people here, and they understood full well that it could well be necessary to do that again here in the future. So, a more appropriate concluding question would be “How else could the citizenry overthrow an authoritarian and abusive government”.