A virtual cottage industry has emerged among people finding James Talarico clips espousing everything from declaring his campaign meat-free to there being six genders to God being non-binary. One recently uncovered video from a meet-and-greet, however, attracted my interest and deepened my concerns about Talarico. It shows Talarico explaining why sweeping gun control laws do not violate the Second Amendment. The reason, he declared, is that the Second Amendment expressly embraces gun controls by referring to the right as “well regulated.”
In the clip, Talarico mocks those opposing gun control measures and bans as not taking the time to actually read the Amendment:
“A lot of politicians like to talk about the Second Amendment. Very few have actually read the Second Amendment, because, if they did, they would know that the words ‘well regulated’ are right there in the text of the amendment itself.”
What he omits is the word following “well regulated”: “militia.”
It is hardly a long read, so here is the language:
“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 term “well regulated” was not a reference to regulation in the contemporary sense. It was used to mean orderly or well-maintained. Militias were considered the backbone of the American military, particularly by those who feared a standing army. Some militias were less capable than others in the Revolutionary War. A well-regulated militia meant state militias that were combat-ready.
The individual right to possess guns was viewed as central to maintaining such militias. However, the Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a “well regulated militia” was not a limitation but a justification for the individual right.
Notably, Talarico’s rationale is different from the classic interpretation against reading the Second Amendment as an individual right. Under that construct, it is the word “militia” that conditions the rest of the amendment, stating the purpose of the right to possess firearms. It is not that the militias are “well regulated,” but rather that possessing guns was protected in order to (and to the extent of) maintaining militias.
Many of us reject that view and believe that the drafters were protecting a long-held and cherished individual right. The reference to the militia was to a common rationale or justification for protecting that individual right.
Talarico made the comments in support of a ban on certain commonly used guns such as an AR-15. Notably, those bans will soon be before the Supreme Court after the justices accepted review in Viramontes v. Cook County and Grant v. Higgins.
The grant of certiorari follows the Court striking down Hawaii’s “Vampire Law” in Wolford v. Lopez, which barred gun owners with concealed-carry licenses from bringing guns onto private property unless they had explicit permission from the owner. That decision again reaffirms the individual right under the Second Amendment and clearly does not embrace Talarico’s “well regulated” rationale for gun control.
Jonathan Turley is a law professor and the New York Times best-selling author of “Rage and the Republic: The Unfinished Story of the American Revolution.”
This column also ran on Fox.com
Our founding father had just recently fought a war to throw off the rule of a tyrannical king. That war was fought largely by militias. The Battles of Lexington and Concord were fought by local militias. The founders were NOT talking about hunting when they penned the Second Amendment. They were talking about weapons of war – the kind militias use when fighting tyrants.
Jeff, state militias evolved into state national guards. And they, state national guards, are the contemporary equivalent of ‘well-regulated militias’.
Even though the US had relied on militias to fight its wars from the beginning, the Spanish-American War revealed their many deficiencies. In 1903, Congress passed the Dick Act, which established the National Guard a “select” militia. From then on, the Guard formed the organized militia where every other able-bodied man 17-45 is in the unorganized militia
I’m still wrestle with ambivalence about the assassination of Charlie Kirk. I think we could have had Charlie Kirk, and a nation with bountiful personal freedom, if we had a policy requiring young gun owners to have an older adult sponsor who co-signs for liability should the firearm be used illegally. That would introduce an element of very localized responsible supervision, and mentally unstable (or criminal) young men would not be able to own firearms. Which older adult would sign up as their sponsor?
I miss Charlie and his voice. I want to see these immature-man-boy massacres end. Older adult sponsorship is a possible way to accomplish it, because what we’re missing is an element of responsible use attached to the right.
All rights come with responsibilities. Those who argue for the pure individual gun right with no responsibility favor what is called radical individualism, which ultimately expresses as anarchy, criminality and loss of societal cohesion.
If you want to restrict “young” gun owners, you must agree that anyone you consider too young to be allowed to be armed without “adult supervision” must also be too young to vote. Raise the voting age to whichever age under which you would require supervision of gun ownership.
The Supreme Court in every gun law case acknowledges the interest of The People in public safety, and that it must be kept in balance with individual gun rights. That’s why it’s illegal for civilians to own RPGs and machine guns. And nobody credible in the gun rights movement wants those gun restrictions relaxed. We might ask ourselves why?
A crazed, militant attacker holds first-strike advantage by virtue of surprise. The kill rate of weapons he wields therefore is reasonable to put limits on. Self-defense from criminal predation (e.g., carjacking, home invasion, store robbery) does not require such a killing machine for a large body count.
Reasonable people are neither willing to give up the right to self-defense ceding to criminals the upper hand, nor to tolerate indefinitely the weekly mass shooting of innocents by the deranged, lone-wolf misanthrope (predominantly young men).
The key to the phrase “well regulated militia” is that there was authority to discipline the use of firearms vested in the Militia Captain. It was NOT a centralized government intent on overtaking control of firearms. The supervisory authority was distributed widely among older, more responsible men. They did not want to see criminality sprout from pockets of volunteer fighters. They did not want to see drunkards and the mentally ill in control of weapons. They could intervene to prevent such irresponsible use of firearms.
We no longer have Militias, but adult supervision of firearm use — so long as it is widely distributed close to the individual, and precluding any centralized authoritarian commandeering of citizen weaponry — that in my mind passes Constitutional muster.
Best to consider original intent. The Founders gave the responsible, disciplined, safe use of firearms as a right. It did not throw public safety under the rug as “the cost of freedom”. They left us with the task of balancing public safety and individual gun possession for legitimate, legal usage.
Actually, you can own a machine gun. I have several friends who own them. You just have to get a license. RPG? Not allowed.
“You just have to get a license.”
You have to buy the license. Used to be $200, I don’t know if that remains the cost. Of course, in the process of purchasing a license, the applicant is also entered into a Federal registry of the owners of such weapons. If any usurper in Federal office ever decides to institute martial law, I guarantee you that every residence of anyone on such a list would receive a peremptory visit from Federal authorities beforehand for purposes of confiscation. I also guarantee you that any resistance to such a visit would result in immediate arrest; possibly summary execution. Since the main purpose of the Second Amendment is to forestall authoritarian action by the Federal government to curtail the Liberty of its citizens, please tell me how that purpose is not eviscerated by requiring automatic weapons to be registered.
Your fantasy image of Americans shooting one another in a civil war is quite deranged.
You know that the military and police swear allegiance to the Constitution, not any political leader or faction. That allegiance was tested and validated on Jan 6 2001. Trump had to fold his hand when it became clear the military would not back his plan to declare a national Emergency.
Those who fantasize participating in a shooting civil war would be wiped out in the first 24 hours.
The original intent was about state militias, not individuals. Since states were required to have militias for their own security it often used citizens as their militias and required them to have arms ready when the call to muster came. This was not about individuals having a right to bear arms. It was about those who were members of state militias being free from having their arms confiscated by the federal government as in disarming militias.
The original draft of the 2nd amendment makes that clear.
“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person”.
This was one of the earlier drafts clearly showing the intent of Congress. It was never meant to be about an individual right.
geoge
This was one of the earlier drafts clearly showing the intent of Congress. It was never meant to be about an individual right.
________________________________
Sure george.
I’m quite sure our founders were far smarter that you.
You don’t know what you are talking about. State militias at the time of the founding, and subsequent, were made up of ordinary citizens who were males, of age, and who owned a musket or rifle. These “militia” were not active duty military. They were not given military training. When the reason for their need by the government was over they went back to their family, farms, or profession, taking with them their musket or rifle. It was strictly voluntary service by civilians for only as long as necessary.
This is the first time I’ve heard that something edited out of the final draft of a document somehow still has effect.
That is garbage. The right was ALWAYS seen by EVERYONE as an individual right, until the 1950s. That’s when this “state right” theory was invented. The last time the Supreme Court considered the 2A before Heller was in Miller in 1936. Miller explicitly regarded the 2A as an individual right, but ruled that it only protects those weapons that would have a purpose in militia service. Weapons that would never be used in war under any circumstances were not protected. It wasn’t until the 1950s that some liar came up with the idea that there was no individual right.
As for the draft version, I don’t know what you imagine it proves. All it adds is to explicitly define the militia as being made up of individuals, not some professional elite, and to make sure it couldn’t be twisted into requiring people to bear arms against their own conscience. These were left out of the final version because they were both thought to be too obvious to need stating.
You sure can botch anything.
No the states were not Required to have militias – Where is that in the constitution ?
The 2nd amendment notes militias as a necessity for a free state – but that means State like “Georgia” in the same way it means “free” like Georgia – i.e. not at all.
Regardless the militia clause is a justification not a direction. No rational person has ever claimed it imposed a requirement on the states to have militias.
The operative clause grants the right to “the people” not “the state” – just as the rights in the first amendment – rights of “The people” are not rights of states.
“This was not about individuals having a right to bear arms.”
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Was the first amendment not about individual rights ?
” It was about those who were members of state militias being free from having their arms confiscated by the federal government as in disarming militias.”
Every male between the ages of 16-65 was a member of the militia in 1787 and subject to being called up – even today the militia of the people remains a valiud constitutional construct.
First your “first draft does not say what you want it to” – further – changes between drafts and the final wording are required by logic and the rules of statutory construction to be meaningful.
If as you claim they draft actually meant something different – then the differences in the final version means that the framers REJECTED what is in the draft you think is significant.
“This was one of the earlier drafts clearly showing the intent of Congress. It was never meant to be about an individual right.”
False, the change from the draft to the final versiuon shows the opposite – that they wanted to make CLEAR this was an individual right.
The ONLY valid question about the meaning of the 2nd amendment is NOT the nonsense you are claiming, but whether that individual right was subject to strict scrutiny – as the other rights in the bill of rights are, and whether the 14th amendment incorporated it with respect to the states.
The past 2A cases that have allowed restrictions are NOT based on your nonsense claims.
They are based on the level of scrutiny the 2nd amendment is subject to and whether it was incorporated against the states.
The US has laws restricting the private ownership of machine guns – just like making ordering a murder a crime is an allowed infringement on speech – the courts have found that restricting machine guns is an allowed restriction on the right to bear arms.
The current SCOTUS has repeatedly found that TEMPORARY restrictions on gun rights of those who are mentally incapacitated, ro under the influence of drugs or alcohol are acceptable infringements.
In 250 years the court has never questioned whether it was an individual right – because the argument it is not is idiotic.
Left wing loonies – like you constantly forget that one of the purposes of the 14th amendment was to extend the INDIVIDUAL right to bear arms to nearly freed slaves
No matter what you wish to claim with respect tot he 2A text – the history of the 14th amendment is undisputed – the Framers of the 14th amendment over and over made clear that ONE of the purposes of the privileges and immunities clauses was to assure that Freed slaves could have firearms to protect themselves from the whites in the south.
Just like our founders they understood that freedom on paper was worthless without the right to use guns to defend it.
Also, I think it’s the case that everywhere a provision used the language “the right of the people,” it was understood to mean every person, not just a subset such as those persons constituting a militia.
Including the mentally ill? The paranoid senile? The immature teenager? The drunkard? The convicted gangster?
The right of the people refers to responsible people — people who can own firearms without using them illegally.
That constitutes the majority of people, but allows for reasonable exclusions such as those mentioned.
*. What about the duel at sunrise? Robinson should have challenged Kirk to a duel. Fair is fair…
Dueling has always been illegal.
pbinca – the right of the people refers to everyone – but no right is absolute. Just as there are a FEW limits on free speedch that are allowed – there are a few restrictions on the right to firearms allowed.
All of those you mentioned – excluding gangster – are currently acceptable infringements by THIS supreme court – so long as they are temporary – i.e not lasting significantly longer than the incapacity.
With respect to “gengstgers” – the court appears to be moving toward tolerating permanent infringements for those convicted of VIOLENT crimes, but not those who commit non-violent crimes.
Whern YOU say gangster – does that mean violent criminals. ?
RigelDog, When the Founders wrote “the people,” they were referring to the political community—a specific group of citizens with full civic rights. In 1791, this “political body” excluded a massive portion of the population. Enslaved people, Native Americans, women, and white men without property were entirely stripped of the civic and political rights granted to “the people.” Therefore, historically speaking, “the people” was always a subset of the total population.
The Second Amendment does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in a vacuum. It begins with a prefatory clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
The Framers did not add words by accident. By placing the phrase “the people” immediately after “a well regulated Militia,” they explicitly tied the right to that specific civic subset. The historical drafting process proves this: the August 1789 House draft explicitly defined “the people” in this context as “the body of the militia”
The claim that “the people” always means an individual, independent person fails when looking at the First Amendment: “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.
“An individual person cannot “assemble” by themselves. Assembly inherently requires a collective group of people acting together. Just like assembly requires a group, “bearing arms” in the 18th century was an idiom that strictly meant serving in a collective military body or militia.
If “the people” meant every single person had an uninfringeable right to arms, then the Founders violated their own Constitution immediately after writing it. Under the Militia Act of 1792, the federal government defined the militia subset as “each and every free able-bodied white male citizen” between 18 and 45.
Furthermore, during the Revolutionary era, states systematically disarmed anyone who refused to swear loyalty oaths to the state. These individuals were physically “persons,” but they were stripped of their firearms because they were excluded from the trusted political body of “the people.
” Therefore, historically speaking, “the people” was always a subset of the total population.”
Correctish – and the 14th amendment extended “the people” to a larger subset. And the 19th extended “The people” even further.
We have tolerated SOME infringements on the rights of SOME subsets of the people – Generally children have MOST of the same rights as adults – but not to the same degree.
SOME restrictions on the free speech rights of children are allowed that would not be allowed on adults.
Numerous rights have allowed SOME infringement for people with mental health or substance abuse issues.
“The Second Amendment does not say “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” in a vacuum.”
Correct -it exists int he context of the times it was written – there comes that pesky original-ism again.
“It begins with a prefatory clause: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State…”
Which is non-operative. It is an explanation – it is not a command or a constraint.
By placing the phrase “the people” immediately after “a well regulated Militia,” they explicitly tied the right to that specific civic subset. ”
False – and a stupid argument – the meaning of militia at the time was every able bodied white male from 16-65
You are free to argument that the 2nd amendment does not apply to women or blacks – though the 14th settles that.
You are not free to argue that “militia” was the standing army – first that did not exist in 1787 and 2nd there is zero doubt that was not what the founders meant.
Next – the differences between draft and final versions are always significant – whatever is removed is what was REJECTED.
““An individual person cannot “assemble” by themselves.”?
Correct – but an individual person Can join an assembly. The right to assemble is individual. Just like the right to free speech.
An assembly of one is about as meaningful as a church of one – yet both are individual rights and protected by the first amendment.
““bearing arms” in the 18th century was an idiom that strictly meant serving in a collective military body or militia.”
ROFL – the opposite. Both in the US and in the UK the right to arms was ALWAYS individual. In the UK absent a written constitution that was eventually changed MUCH Later, first because the english restricted hunting on private property and in the UK there is nothing like a US national park.
If your argumnent is that the right to bear arms in 1887 was not a right of blacks, women or children – you are correct.
The claim that a prefatory clause has zero constraining power is a modern invention, not originalism. In 18th-century legal drafting, a prologue or preamble explicitly declared the purpose and scope of the statute. As renowned jurist Thomas Cooley wrote, preambles are used to declare the intent of the framers and act as a guide to interpreting the text. The Framers did not waste words; they included the militia clause precisely to anchor the right to a specific, collective civic purpose: the security of a free state.
Claiming the militia was just “every able-bodied male” ignores the most important word in the amendment: “well-regulated.” In 1789, a militia was not an informal mob of private individuals acting independently. It was a state-controlled military entity. Under the Militia Act of 1792, citizens were enrolled by state officers, required to appear at mandatory government musters, and penalised by the state if their weapons did not meet strict military specifications. The militia was an arm of government authority, not an individual hobby.
Laughing at the idiomatic meaning of “bear arms” does not change 18th-century linguistics. Comprehensive corpus linguistics studies analyzing millions of words from the Founding era show that “bear arms” was used almost exclusively in a collective, military context. In the 18th century, if an individual went into the woods to hunt or shoot a pest, they were said to “carry a gun” or “hunt.” They were only said to “bear arms” when marching under the command of a military officer.
Invoking British history actually defeats your point. The English Bill of Rights (1689)—which the Framers used as a model—did not grant a universal individual right to weapons. It explicitly stated that “Subjects which are Protestants may have Arms for their Defence suitable to their Conditions and as allowed by Law.” It was explicitly restricted to a preferred religious and political subset of the population and heavily regulated by Parliament.
If you have to redefine “well-regulated” to mean “unregulated,” and “assemble” to mean “standing alone,” you aren’t practicing originalism—you are rewriting history to fit a modern narrative.
“Furthermore, during the Revolutionary era, states systematically disarmed anyone who refused to swear loyalty oaths to the state”
False and irrelevant.
Absolutely loyalists disarmed revolutionaries and revolutionaries disarmed loyalists.
They also confiscated each others property and murdered each other.
These were not state actions and more importantly these were not acts of law.
On March 14, 1776, the Continental Congress passed an official resolution directing all local committees and assemblies to immediately disarm anyone “who are notoriously disaffected to the cause of America, or who will not associate, and defend, by arms, these united Colonies.”
Following this directive, colonies passed formal legislation known as “Test Acts.” For example, the Pennsylvania Test Act of 1777 legally required all white male inhabitants to take an oath of allegiance. Those who refused were stripped of their right to vote, hold office, and crucially, were legally ordered to surrender all of their firearms to state officials.
In Virginia, the Statute of 1777 (Chapter III) explicitly laid out the legal mechanism: any person refusing the oath of allegiance was to be disarmed by the local county militia officers or justices of the peace.
This history is highly relevant because it directly disproves the modern notion of an absolute, unalienable individual right to own weapons.If the generation that wrote the Constitution believed that firearm ownership was an inherent individual right belonging to every single human being, they would not have passed laws stripping firearms from thousands of peaceful citizens (such as Quakers and pacifists) simply for refusing to sign a political loyalty oath.
By using the power of the state to disarm those deemed a threat to public safety and political stability, the Founders established a clear legal precedent: gun ownership in early America was a civic privilege tied to political allegiance and community obligation, not an absolute personal entitlement.
You keep saying these facts are false, show your evidence. Just saying so is not an argument.
Perhaps you too have some evidence? If what you assert is true was, in fact, true then there should be a massive legal and legislative record of local, state, and Federal case law successfully arguing against an individual right to possess firearms. I don’t think that exists. Indeed, the record of America is a record of unquestioned and assumed individual American gun ownership with case law in fringe questions concerned with other matters.
This column is one of those rightwing bubble mysteries. Whatever rage or bewilderment the reader is supposed to experience depends on how much exposure they have to rightwing media.
But for those of us outside the bubble, this column reads like a puzzle. Like, “Try to guess what this candidate said that we be ‘chilled’ about”.
Though we can be sure two or three of Estovir’s puppets will promptly tell us what the ‘obvious’ controversy is.
I wonder if the people of Iran had the protection of a 2A would they so easily be taken from their homes and publicly executed? I wonder if the up and coming communist democrats are thinking the same thing? Just a thought.
When James Madison first introduced the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, his phrasing was significantly different. Crucially, he placed the “right of the people” clause before the militia clause, and included a highly specific exemption for religious pacifists.
This was one of the first drafts. It shows the intent of the writers of the 2nd amendment were not talking about an individual right.
“ “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
The reason the amendment is poorly phrased could be because it went through a number of revisions in the House of Representative and then more in the Senate before it was sent to the states for ratification. The Second Amendment that the House passed 24 to 22 read: “A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”
Like any law or amendment. It goes through multiple revisions and changes. Clearly they meant “the people” as a the state. Not individuals.
Madiso0n, was concerned about the disarming of his people, the slave patrols that kept plantation owners safe, especially when many of them and whole states like South Carolina were outnumbered by those they enslaved. When the Constitution was being debated, Southern states feared that the new federal government would gain control over, or even abolish, their state militias. Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia delegates said this openly during ratification debates.
“When James Madison first introduced the Bill of Rights to the House of Representatives, his phrasing was significantly different”
To the extent that matters it means the CHANGES must be read as important.
The amendment did go through numberous revisions.
You are actually argument that spending time to get something right means it is poorly written ?
During the drafting process, the Framers had multiple opportunities to include explicit language protecting individual gun ownership for personal self-defense or hunting. For example, Pennsylvania’s dissenting delegates had proposed language protecting a right to kill game and carry arms “for the defense of themselves and their own state.” The Framers rejected that individualistic language completely, choosing instead to tie the final text exclusively to a “well regulated Militia” and the “security of a free State.”
James Madison’s early drafts included a clause exempting anyone “religiously scrupulous of bearing arms” from mandatory service. The Senate eventually removed this clause, but its presence in the working drafts proves the original context of the phrase “bear arms.” You do not need a religious exemption to hunt deer or defend your home from a burglar; you only need a religious exemption if “bearing arms” means being drafted into a state-regulated military body.
In September 1789, the Senate voted on a motion to insert the words “for the common defence” right after the words “to keep and bear arms.” The Senate voted this down because they believed it was entirely redundant—the prefatory clause already explicitly anchored the right to the “security of a free State” and a “well regulated Militia.
You are exactly right the changes matter. The fact that the Framers spent months systematically stripping out individualistic language and leaving a final text that focuses entirely on a state-regulated military institution proves that the “collective right” view isn’t a modern rewrite—it is exactly what they spent time getting right.
The Founders believed in anthropogenic intelligence to learn, develop, and practice moderation in pursuit of improving and defense of individual, family, and community. They were pro-Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness under a personal and State order. #BabyLivesMatter
The people make up the state so its illogical to assume that the “collective right ” doesn’t also include an individual right.If the people cant own arms then the state cant either. Unless of course one believes the state is all powerful then it can do anything.
So a founder like Jefferson condoning an abortion would just be the exception to the rule? According to historians Sarah Hougen Poggi and Cynthia Kierner, and the surviving letters from the period, Martha Jefferson Randolph visited her cousin Nancy Randolph, who appeared pregnant. Martha recommended gum of guaiacum, an herb used to treat “menstrual obstruction” — a period euphemism for pregnancy — and later sent her the herb, telling her it could “produce an abortion.” Jefferson condoned the action saying, “I see guilt but in one person, and not in her.”
EB – various forms of early abortion were commonplace prior to the mid 20th century. They were also a leading cause of death for women.
These means of abortion are still possible today – though they may kill you.
Regardless, you are off on a tangent. There is a constitutional right to bear arms – there is no constitutional right to an abortion.
Jefferson clearly was not so Keen on abortion as to draft an constitutional amendment to make it a right.
Separately SCOTUS in 1927 fanously found in Buck Vs,. Bell that the state had the power to sterilize people. That decision is still good law, and was even cited during Covid as a justification for forced vaccines and masks and …
The post I nwas responding to, as opposed to what you may think I was talking about, suggested that the Founders were diametrically opposed to abortion and indeed they may kill women, more likely than need be today thanks to SCOTUS. There is room to debate as to whether abortion is a Constitutional Right, yet the same people that can’t find that right in the Constitution, invented presidential immunity and declared corporations are people.
There is room to discuss what the Founders intended with the 2nd Amendment which never conceived of the popular AR-15’s Turley mentioned. Let’s not pretend the well-regulated militias didn’t include the slave patrols that Madison, Patrick Henry, and others were determined to protect. Today we have pardons and failure to prosecute for the Proud Boys which are close to the same thing.
The “tangent” you believe I’m on requires you to assume things I’ve never said.
The 2A providing an individual right to guns was made up about 40 years ago to get the redneck vote.
I approve that message.
That was human rites performed by liberals for social, clinical, criminal, political, and climate progress under the Pro-Choice religion at The Twilight Fringe with handmade tales published to farm women and girls under RAAT doctrine. Let us bray. In Stork They Trust. #MeToo
1941 was the first time the “collective right” hypothesis showed up in a federal court case, although it had been discussed in law review articles previously.
United States v. Tot, 131 F.2d 261 (3d Cir. 1942)
At least Bobby Francis O’Rourke had the courage (stupidity?) to say “Hell yes, we’re going to take your guns” when he was spending all of that Democrat campaign money to try and win against Ted Cruz.
O’Rourke got trounced, yet outspent Cruz by millions.
Now the Dems put a gay dude living at home with his parents up against a well-proven Texan, Ken Paxton.
Of course, they lie about Paxton without fact, logic, reason or shame.
I can’t imagine how the DNC keeps finding these losers like Platner, Talarico and Jism Crappit, but they do.
Hopefully, they will waste even more million$ on his hopeless campaign.
6-Gender Talafreako never had a chance anyway – this is TEXAS – but his ridiculous misinterpretation of 2A is just the icing on the cake. 😉
Jonathan Turley and modern gun-rights advocates frequently assert that the Second Amendment was originally intended to protect an individual’s right to private gun ownership. However, a closer look at the historical, linguistic, and legal framework of the Founding era reveals that this “classic” view actually distorts the Framers’ original intent.
In the architecture of the Constitution, the phrase “the people” fundamentally differed from the word “persons.” While individual legal rights and criminal liabilities applied to distinct “persons,” the Framers used “the people” to describe a collective, sovereign political body—the state itself. We still see this legal linguistic tradition in criminal court dockets today, such as The People v. John Smith, where “The People” explicitly denotes the government or the collective jurisdiction. Therefore, the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms” was originally understood not as an individual entitlement, but as a collective civic right safeguarding state-regulated militias.
This collective framework becomes undeniable when viewed through the lens of early American racial and social hierarchies. Gun ownership was strictly tied to political citizenship; enslaved people, and even free Black Americans, were systematically banned from possessing firearms, proving the right was never treated as a universal individual liberty. Furthermore, in the Southern states, the preservation of state militias was driven by a grim, practical necessity: suppressing slave revolts. As enslaved populations swelled in regions like Virginia, Southern delegates fiercely protected their local militias to maintain domestic security. Within this true historical context, the Second Amendment was drafted as a mechanism of state control and collective defense, not an unbridled license for individual weaponry.
Historian Carl T. Bogus has written extensively on this topic, notably in his book Madison’s Militia: The Hidden History of the Second Amendment. He argues that James Madison drafted the amendment specifically to satisfy Patrick Henry and George Mason at the Virginia Ratifying Convention. Henry and Mason feared that Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution gave the federal government the power to dissolve or disarm state militias, leaving the South completely defenseless against slave insurrections.
The Bill of Rights mentions “the right of the people”in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments. The right of the people not to have their bodies unjustifiably searched is obviously an individual right — there are no collective bodies.
Michael, The claim that “there are no collective bodies” in the Fourth Amendment is historically incorrect. The Fourth Amendment was not written to protect modern individual privacy; it was written specifically to ban General Warrants and Writs of Assistance.
Under British rule, these general warrants allowed crown officials to search entire neighborhoods, communities, and ships at will without naming specific suspects. The Founders viewed this as an assault on the community as a collective whole. By securing “the right of the people to be secure… against unreasonable searches and seizures,” they were protecting the general populace from systemic, mass government surveillance, not just isolated individuals.
We use “the people” as a collective noun every day in the American legal system. In every criminal case—such as The People v. John Smith—”The People” does not mean a collection of random individuals’ bodies. It means the collective political body of the state, represented by the government.
Furthermore, the Preamble of the Constitution begins with “We the People.” This did not mean “We the individual persons, acting independently.” It meant “We, the collective citizenry, acting as a single sovereign body to form a government.”
The Fourth Amendment actually proves that the Founders knew the difference between a collective group and an individual. Look at the exact text:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects… and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
Notice the shift in language. When referring to the broad, overarching constitutional right, they use the collective “the people.” But when they shift to the mechanics of a specific police search targeting a single human body, they switch to the individual word “persons.”
Even if we look at the First Amendment (“the right of the people peaceably to assemble”), assembly requires a collective group of people; a single individual cannot “assemble” by themselves.
More importantly, the phrase “bear arms” in the Second Amendment is a distinct idiom. In 18th-century English, “bearing arms” was a strictly military term meaning to wage war or serve in a militia. A person hunting or defending their home from a burglar was said to be “carrying a weapon,” not “bearing arms.” Therefore, placing “the people” next to “bear arms” inherently restricts the meaning to a collective civic duty, unlike the privacy rights outlined in the Fourth Amendment.
Sophistry thy name is X
You don’t even know what sophistry is. Is anything I’ve posted proven to be wrong? I don’t see you or anyone else showing it’s wrong.
“Is anything I’ve posted proven to be wrong?”
POretty much EVerything you have posted is proven to be wrong. Further like the typical left wing nut, you ignore the proof of your error.
You do not rebut it , most of the time – you just pretend as you are now – that no one pointed out your errors.
First they have.
But even if for a few milliseconds no one has – False is false – When you are wrong – you are wrong whether someone has taken the time to prove that or not.
Do you argue in ANYTHING that is not some form of stupid fallacy ?
John, you haven’t shown what I posted is wrong. Prove it. Just saying it’s wrong is not an argument.
Show us why it’s a fallacy? Show evidence. Nobody has been able to except post cherry-picked quotes out of context. I’m sure you can do better.
“Sophistry thy name is X”
You’re right.
It and its sock puppets is a sophist. In this case, it manipulates the meaning of word such as “collective, people, persons” (among others). And it deceives as a means to an end: to gut 2A of its individualism.
That is textbook sophism.
Then, in typical sophist fashion, it whines: but you didn’t refute me. One does not try to refute a fraud. One names the fraud (as you did). Then refuses to swallow it.
If this BS is true we truly have no individual rights whatever and will be subjagated in due time.
You still have individual rights where they are spelled out in the constitution. The ‘individual right to bear arms’ is not one of them, based on the fact that history does not support that conclusion. Even by the standard set by SCOTUS to interpret the constitution. Originalists in the Supreme Court only practice it when it suits their views and discard it completely when it doesn’t.
Here, take some of your own medicine, moron. This is what Google AI says about long-time liberal icon Laurence Tribe’s conclusions regarding 2A and the individual right:
“AI Overview
For over 20 years, Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe advocated for a “collective right” interpretation of the Second Amendment. However, he later reversed his stance, concluding that the Constitution does recognize an individual right to bear arms for self-defense and home protection.”
Blow it out your shorts, you clueless carnival clown.
Don (anonymous), clearly you don’t know how to read for comprehension and most important how lazy you are.
Copying a snippet from an AI summary without reading the actual source material doesn’t change the underlying constitutional history.
It is true that Harvard Professor Laurence Tribe updated his treatise American Constitutional Law in 1999 to recognize a limited individual right to bear arms, BUT… you left out the crucial second half of his conclusion. Tribe explicitly stated that this individual right is not absolute and remains subservient to comprehensive state regulation. He publicly warned that gun lobby groups intentionally twist his words to manufacture an “absolute anti-regulation meaning” that he completely rejects.
A modern 20th-century legal scholar changing his mind to match evolving case law does not physically alter the 18th-century historical records. It does not erase James Madison’s original drafts focusing strictly on state militias, nor does it rewrite Patrick Henry’s explicit debates regarding Southern slave patrols.
For the vast majority of American history, the judicial and academic consensus aligned with the civic/collective right interpretation. Even after legal shifts, Supreme Court decisions like District of Columbia v. Heller explicitly noted that the right is heavily limited, allowing for the banning of weapons in public spaces and prohibitions on entire classes of people.
So Don…you didn’t show the facts I posted are wrong.
These folks obviously believe whatever rights we do have cone from the government not from nature or ” nature’s God.”
X – these are the most looney arguments.
There are no collective rights – no founder ever spoke of collective rights.
The p[prohibition against general warrants is a protection of individuals against over broad government powers – ONE AT A TIME.
The people means “EACH ONE”
There is no collective rights, there is no collective justice.
Everything about humanity starts with the individual. We sometimes CHOOSE to act jointly with others – that is an individual CHOICE.
Humans are NOT the borg.
We are also not ants or bees or other supposedly social creatures. We CHOSE to work with other humans, we are not instinctively required to do so.
Rights have no meaning outside the individual context.
Anything that can be collectively restricted is not a right.
John Say, claiming the Founders never spoke of collective rights ignores the entire philosophical foundation of the American Revolution: Civic Republicanism. The Founders did not just read John Locke; they were deeply influenced by thinkers like Montesquieu and Blackstone, who emphasized the common good and the body politic. The Declaration of Independence itself is a collective document, declaring “the right of the people to alter or to abolish” a tyrannical government. A single individual cannot abolish a government; that is a collective political right belonging exclusively to the sovereign body of the people acting together.
If “the people” means “each individual person one at a time,” then the Preamble to the Constitution makes no sense: “We the People… do ordain and establish this Constitution.” An individual person, acting alone, cannot ordain a national constitution or establish a sovereign government. “We the People” meant the collective citizenry acting as a singular, unified political body to build an American state.
Conflating the Founders’ worldview with modern, 20th-century extreme individualism is a historical error. The Founders separated rights into distinct categories: natural rights (like freedom of thought) and civic rights (like serving on a jury, voting, or bearing arms in a militia). Civic rights were explicitly tied to political citizenship and duty to the community. You could not serve on a jury “one at a time” by your own choice; it was a state-regulated, collective institution. The Second Amendment’s focus on a “well regulated Militia” places it squarely in this civic, collective category.
Your claim that a right cannot be collectively restricted completely collapses when looking at early American law. The founding generation routinely passed collective restrictions on fundamental rights for the sake of public safety and the common wealth (salus populi).
For example:They banned the law-abiding majority from storing loaded firearms or loose gunpowder in major cities like Boston to prevent municipal fires.
They systematically disarmed thousands of peaceful citizens (like Quakers) during the Revolution simply because they refused to sign a political loyalty oath to the state.
Rejecting historical evidence just because it doesn’t align with your modern philosophical view of humanity doesn’t change the past. The Founders absolutely believed in individual liberty, but they also firmly believed that a free state requires collective duties, state-regulated institutions, and civic obligations.
Just like everyone else. Your reading comprehension is your biggest impediment to understanding the context of what was said in 18th century terms. You’re conflating modern views with those of that era. They were totally different. Given the atrocious poor education we have today I don’t expect most people to fully understand the context and meanings of words.
georgie, stay off of AI. You cannot see that you are stepping on your own foot.
You’ve not shown anything I have said is wrong. Obviously you don’t have an argument.
Yes, George, there is a counter-argument to your personal “take” on the law and Constitution.
Please avoid AI and Cliff’s Notes summaries and READ (and if you can, comprehend) the Heller decision in toto.
Why? Because Heller (and what follows) address your take and show where you are “wrong.”
Then come back and reframe your interpretation; and maybe at that point, some of the lawyers on this blog will take up argument/debate with you.
Why? Because, at this point your own take (which you summarize as “anything [you] said,”) is nothing more than layered AI which takes the form of a wandering glob of jello that cannot be grasped with a fingerless hand or a prong-less fork.. That may be either intentional on your part (unlikely) or simply a lack of basic comprehension and logical understanding of what you are reading and lifting. Thanks, X.
“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
-Thomas Jefferson, 1776, Draft 1 of the Virginia Constitution
Lin, If you want to move past automated summaries and engage in actual primary-source legal analysis, let’s look at the Heller decision in its entirety, along with the actual history of Thomas Jefferson’s drafts.
Even as the 5-4 majority in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008) established an individual right, Justice Antonin Scalia explicitly stated that this right is not absolute and does not grant a “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” The decision directly affirms that long-standing prohibitions on possession by specific classes of people, bans on carrying in sensitive places like schools and government buildings, and laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms are completely constitutional.
Invoking Thomas Jefferson’s 1776 draft of the Virginia Constitution actually defeats your argument. Jefferson proposed the line: “No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.” However, the Virginia Convention rejected Jefferson’s language and threw it out completely. They instead chose George Mason’s formulation, which tied arms explicitly to a “well-regulated Militia.” The Framers intentionally chose a collective, civic framework over Jefferson’s individualistic proposal.
Jefferson himself did not view gun ownership as an unregulated individual entitlement. As a lawmaker, he proposed a Virginia bill that penalized citizens who hunted with firearms outside of legal seasons, and as the founder of the University of Virginia, he strictly banned students from keeping or using firearms on campus for public safety.
Claiming an argument is “AI-generated” simply because it relies on documented legislative history is a weak deflecting tactic. The historical record remains clear: founding-era gun ownership was always tied to civic obligation and state regulation.
Consider yourself updated. You’re welcome.
yeah, X, that’s why all the people in early American shot their food with cap guns (deer, cattle, bison). Gunfire was also used to weaken and fell small trees as well as start fires. Whole lotta illegal guns out there, eh, parasite brain? Were there “exemptions” in your interpretation of the old existing law for food? I don’t remember reading any, and I taught history. Doesn;t look like Lin ever said what you imply, so typical of you making arguments where they don’t exist. You like to try to hurt the people who take you down the most. (Sam, Lin, Upstate, JohnSay) You really are a POS And I also have noticed how you try to adopt their styles, “right?” “thanks anyway” “failed to mention” and “conveniently omitted” “thanks for proving my point” “yup. nope.” You got ALL of that from here.
YOU are the idiot that said that individual rights interpretation was a 20th century thing and I assume she was responding to that. You are so FOS You irritate the he!! out of all of us. grow up.
The Heller decision absolutely needed Tony Kennedy’s buy-in, and that’s why all those prudential bits were included.
He’s gone, now.
Of all the fools on this blog, it never ceases to amaze how utterly stupid, ignorant and a pathological liar, ole George X is.
What is the lie? Show it sho we can debunk it or support it. Your frustration is only because you cannot show my post is wrong.
“. . . the Framers used “the people” to describe a collective, sovereign political body—the state itself.”
And right in line with the rampaging socialists, that is a collectivist rewriting of America’s founding.
The Founders believed in individualism, not collectivism. They embraced and systemized individual rights, not collective “rights.” They held that the *individual* is sovereign, not the state.
Sam, The history of the Second Amendment’s drafting shows its focus was on collective security, not unfettered individual rights:
James Madison’s 1789 draft Included a conscientious objector clause, focusing on avoiding state-mandated military service rather than private self-defense, indicating a militia-based context.
The House Draft (August 1789) Explicitly defined “the people” as the “body of the militia,” linking the right to state service.
Senate debates focused on ensuring the right was linked to the “common defence” and state-mandated militia drills. The founders’ focus was on the “well regulated militia” as a security measure for the state, not an absolute personal right independent of community safety.
Labeling historical analysis as “socialist” or “collectivist” ignores the 18th-century context of Civic Republicanism, which held that true liberty is balanced by civic virtue and obligations to the community—a concept often summarized by salus populi suprema lex.
Nobody is re-writing anything. It’s historical illiterates who have no idea what our founders really debated and said regarding individual rights. Reading comprehension is a serious issue with conservatives and MAGAs.
*. Of course Mr. Talarico’s reading is correct. It’s as plain as day as is the meaning of “born” in the jurisdiction is plain as day in the 14th. The progressives have unburdened us with the burden of nonsensical history and tradition metric. How can anyone argue such new insight.
Yoohoo censor. ☺
It becomes more urgent to disarm us now that the Commies have grown impatient, and stuck their necks out prematurely.
Europeans were disarmed. Now they get arrested and imprisoned for expressing their opinions on social media posts that differ from the official party line and narrative.
If TX elects Talarico, I’m going to see if Switzerland will take me.
Would that be the Switzerland in, err, Europe? Also, those European countries that have a significant hunting tradition still have plenty of rifles in private ownership. It is simply that most Europeans do not perceive a need for AR-15s or pink Glocks, or ten weapons per household to hunt Bambi. Also, the standard of marksmanship amongst gun-owning Europeans is considerably higher I suspect than amongst gun-owning Yanks.
Yes, they grow impatient.
What Turley is saying is that private militias are under the command of state governors or presidents. So Obama at one time was in command of all private militias like the Proud Boys.
“Well-Regulated” by governors or presidents. The official militia would be akin to the National Guard troops.
“Clean-up on Amendment Aisle 2” !!
Thank you, Professor, for always cleaning-up after the toddlers on the Left, and explaining their errors.
Absolutely agree some of the Dem Young Guns are whack jobs that appeal to low IQ District Voters who want to try something ‘new’ and will probably have voter remorse soon after. However the Repubs had / have their own whack jobs that have since been thrown to the curb e.g. Maj T. Green and Crazy N. Mace so eventually the madness clears but will surely return in this agitated world.
I like the way that Turley chooses to illustrate his piece with a painting of terrorist insurgents shooting at the lawful government forces.
Tory says what?
Traitor says what?
There is a difference between seeking freedom and liberty vs tyranny. The British government was the tyrant. Colonists sought freedom and liberty from a government that sought to control and infringe o their life through taxation and other punitive actions.
Trite nonsense – the so-called “Patriots” were traitors. Washington did not fight the Crown because of high principles but because he was upset that the Crown would not give a permanent commission to a mediocre colonial officer. If you are so keen on fighting “tyranny”, how about the orange shitgibbon who has no interest in your precious Constitution, and sought to infringe on your life through taxation – you know, the illegal tariffs that got passed straight on to you, the customer. Don’t see you chucking tea into the harbour…
It is clear that the far l left intends to gain and maintain power by fair means or foul. Only by removing from the people the means of self protection can that objective be attained.
I suppose he simply does not know that there is a thing called context, which much of the the progressive wing has never been able to use in any coherent manner. They also seem to lack understanding of history and the changes in meaning of words as languages evolve over time. No surprise there with the education of today being essentially meaningless in any useful endeavor like critical thinking.
I suppose then he has never read the federalist papers or even the anti-federalists. You read those papers and wonder if there are any group of people today who could carry on some of the conversations that our founders had about government, natural rights, tyranny of the majority, representative government, democracy and it’s failings and benefits, what is a constitutional and federal republic, etc.
Sometimes the stupidity and monstrous ignorance of office holders or those seeking office is breathtaking.
“I suppose he simply does not know that there is a thing called context . . .”
Exactly.
The basic context for the Bill of Rights is this: An exclamation point on creating a system of *limited* government. The BoR is a partial list of individual rights, with a stress on: Government, hands off!
It beggars belief to argue, as the Left does, that the Founders wrote 1A and 3A-10A to protect individual rights from an unlimited government. Then decided: Maybe we should throw a bone to omnipotent government by including a 2A permission for government to control guns.
“I suppose he simply does not know…”
I don’t believe that for one second. He knows – nearly all of them do. He is simply a back-biting, hypocritical, lying @h0l3 who would never hesitate to stoop to any lie or mischaracterization that might serve to increase his power over the rest of us, no matter how vile. Such are most politicians, these days most particularly those of the Democrat Party.
That is a concise summary of what we patriots face today.
Why do democrats find either the most effeminate men like Tallarico or crazy Nazis to be their candidate, as in Maine? don’t they have any normal people to choose from?
@Adam
Polling, focus groups, market research, to name a few. In their hubris and stupidity they believe they are selecting candidates that will motivate non-dem voters to cross over, and yet they also have to placate their existing base; the last thing they will look at is their policy or ethics, their candidates are simply mouthpieces for their agenda, it might as well be central casting at this point.
There is quite literally nothing remaining that is authentic, organic, or honest about the modern DNC. Zero. Ethically, they would be sub-zero.
For me the irony here to me is that the original intent of ‘well regulated’ is precisely what they are attempting (and thankfully largely failing, so far) with the likes of antifa, and make no mistake – they know exactly what they are doing and saying, even if their useful idiots do not.
Stupidity? If they’re so stupid why is MAGA deathly afraid of the DNC/DSA?
So dem candidates are just mouth pieces, but rep candidates are what exactly?
Your comment is bizarre. Irreal. Devoid of intelligence.
Dad!!!! Please come up from the basement, take a shower and start looking for a job. Even if Talarico is elected, it will be months or years before he can get you a guaranteed income, free housing, free transportation, free food. In the mean time, you family is starving. And your back up plan of moving to NYC or Maine is impractical.
@annoymous 9:35: 1. Afraid is the wrong word. Pragmatic, yeah. Look at where the highest ranking member of the DNC in the House of Representatives, Hakeem Jeffries – House Minority Leader, Leader of the Democratric Caucus, Chairman of the Democratic Conference. Educated at our highest indoctrination institutions, Georgetown University (MPP, Public Policy), NYU Law School.
Obviously, he was placed in that position for reasons and he has repeatedly supported the physical and defamatory attack of those it appears he wishes were dead(“Maximum Warfare, Everywhere, all the Time’).
Welcome to the new America. Just stop saying it isn’t what is being SCREAMED it should be then saying “that’s not what is meant”.
https://static.politifact.com/CACHE/images/politifact/photo“/Hakeem_Jeffries_maximum_warfare_sign_4-22-26_AP/9c9260571e8c09520b781cb072c52aef.jpg
https://trendingpoliticsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2025/07/main-Hakeem-Jeffries-baseball-bat-590×354.jpg
Sorry, typo:
https://static.politifact.com/CACHE/images/politifact/photos/Hakeem_Jeffries_maximum_warfare_sign_4-22-26_AP/9c9260571e8c09520b781cb072c52aef.jpg
Americans fought Communism for over 40 years. We aren’t ready to hand the place over to the Commies now.
What makes you think you’re normal?
No
From the Virginia Constitution. This is what the Second Amendment was saying, more succinctly.
That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and be governed by, the civil power. . . .
Virginia Constitution? You must be a member of the judicial branch. You need to customize and amend the actual law. You can’t simply read and adhere to it. You know, as in “and subject to the jurisdiction thereof,” jurisdiction being unqualified and full. The Virginia Constitution is not the supreme law of the land. The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land. The 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution is comprised of two clauses, the prefatory and the operative. The prefatory clause announces the purpose of the right but does not limit the scope of the operative clause.
No, this has nothing to do with any RIGHTS of the PEOPLE.
it explains why Americans rely on militias for defense