Printable View
It seems a lot of anti's think this phrase means that we need to regulate firearms.
How on earth could you possibly pull that out of this statement?
It doesn't say "well-regulated firearms," how could a milita possibly be a firearm? Militia and firearms are, by definition, two completely different things.
Sense, this makes none.
Ignorance should never be used as an excuse but often times it is.
People need to educate themselves on topics they wish to debate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stenz
Seriously, and that begs the question: Why are you incapable of correctly defining these words?
Back when the constitution was written the term "regulate" had a much different common usage than today.
Back then it meant "to keep in good working order" but it's morphed into "to control by government fiat".
This change in the language over time is why I believe that all these discussions over how best one could change the verbiage of the second amendment if one could travel back in time is pointless as those that seek power over the people would have morphed the language to fit their desires regardless of what words you used.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wiggity
http://www.chucklecloud.com/content/...6cace2594.jpeg
If this was taken seriously there would be government authority to regulate guns that had no militia purpose but we'd all get all get to have real assault rifles, military grade sidearms and light machine gun. When this moment comes I'm going to get an umbrella because of all the flying pigs.
There was an attempt to keep these 'well regulated militias' going into the early part of the 19th century. Citizens were expected to take part. Show uo with your military grade long gun and drill. Typically this was white landowners. Back then people worked hard and drank even harder so this was deeply resented as it cut in drunken time. I'm not kidding. Alcohol usage is now a tiny fraction of what it was 200 years ago. Since it was so disliked it faded away.
I listened to the Heller case at the Supreme Court and it really has changed into being able to defend yourself. I liked hearing the conservatives being in favor of gun ownership but the militia aspect wasn't mentioned.
Steve
Prof. Eugene Volokh of the UCLA Law School published a paper on the prefatory clause of the Second Amendment awhile ago. He points out that you can find other "rights" clauses in state constitutions of the 18th Century that include a prefatory clause that gives one explanation for the right. And that's all that the clause is, a justification for the right not a restriction.
At the time, "regulated" meant well trained or well drilled. Indeed, that's why we had the term "regulator clock" in the 19th Century.
if the founding fathers had their way not only would be alowed to have the same firearms as the modern military but also be allowed to have anti tank and aircraft guns . people seem to forget that our founding fathers did plan on the advancement weapons when the constitution was written .it was always intended for the citizens to be on an equal if not great playing field than the government .
Why is everyone hung up on the militia part? That's not even the part about firearms...
Just saying...Quote:
Originally Posted by 2nd Amendment
The right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed
I'm not so sure of this part. I own a replica Civil War cannon and have read a lot of the history of the time. The ideal was that'd you'd be well regulated - disciplined and proficient in the use of your long arm. That was originally smooth bore then rifled. You'd own it and have equipment for it. You'd also have some other gear.Quote:
Originally Posted by alxone
Artillery was expensive but some units were formed below the state level. Wealthy individuals or townships could buy some of the heavy stuff that regular citizens couldn't afford so it was available but not expected. It never was expected to be run from the top. The militia was a bottom-up organization.
Steve
I'd love to have a few Browning M2's mounted on my house. Toss in a few RPG's, and a few 7.62 mm GAU-17/A Gatling guns.
Would be set.
yes but it was available is the point .
The right of the people to keep bare arms shall not be infringed
This is what my wife practices - well tanned arms. She abhores sleeves!
Singlestack
Can I ask just where we are trying to go with this gang? I know the SCOTUS ruled on this and it was not hunting and no where did they mention aboutSo to me all the talk about regulate is nothing but hot air and is not even an issue. ;) The argument should not even make it out of a 5th grade classroom.Quote:
It seems a lot of anti's think this phrase means that we need to regulate firearms
And some of you claim that people that prepare are paranoid. [Flower]
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrymrc
I was just pointing out how people bend the meaning of these words and how stupid it is.
That is all.
"Well educated graduates, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed."
A syntactically identical statement that gets rid of the emotion surrounding the firearm debate.
It obviously means that being able to keep and read books helps foster, and create well educated graduates, not that you have to be a graduate before you can keep and read books.
There is no other possible reading unless you’re actively looking for a way to twist its meaning.
O2
I used to wear a shirt with this phrase on it when i was in early years of elementary school. It had an image of a polar bear with a thompson. Oh My...times have changed.Quote:
Originally Posted by alxone
http://www.ljplus.ru/img4/d/a/davert_tanz/bear.jpg
Quote:
Originally Posted by bogie
I'm pretty sure you can be expelled for being named Thompson now...
Not if your name was Muhammed (Blessed be the name of the Prophet) Thompson. [Flower]Quote:
Originally Posted by Byte Stryke
Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by O2HeN2