A well-regulated militia

[Wiggity]

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.

[stenz]

Ignorance should never be used as an excuse but often times it is.

People need to educate themselves on topics they wish to debate.

[Wiggity]

Ignorance should never be used as an excuse but often times it is.

People need to educate themselves on topics they wish to debate.

Seriously, and that begs the question: Why are you incapable of correctly defining these words?

[Zundfolge]

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.

[HoneyBadger]

Sense, this makes none.

[CrufflerSteve]

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

[spqrzilla]

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.

[alxone]

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 .

[Ronin13]

Why is everyone hung up on the militia part? That's not even the part about firearms...

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Just saying...

[alxone]

The right of the people to keep and arm bears shall not be infringed