[ARCHIVED THREAD] - “Well-Regulated” (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 6/25/2014 6:31:00 PM EDT
|
http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/ We hear it constantly from droning citizen control cultists.
The argument goes something like this. “You want to listen to the last part of the Second Amendment where is says ‘shall not be infringed,’ but you ignore the part where it says you have to be a ‘well-regulated militia.’” |
|
Quoted:
http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/ We hear it constantly from droning citizen control cultists.
The argument goes something like this. “You want to listen to the last part of the Second Amendment where is says ‘shall not be infringed,’ but you ignore the part where it says you have to be a ‘well-regulated militia.’” "They" ignore what the Founders meant by militia and who comprised it. |
|
What is the impetus for the second amendment? To prepare a nation to fight (and win battles) in armed combat against an enemy. How do you do that? By writing rules that makes training more difficult for everybody? Or do you foster an environment that facilitates training relevant to the task of the second amendment? Plenty of people on the (abdication of any personal responsibility) side of the debate choose to ignore that "regulated" means the quality of the marksmanship training (trained to a minimum standard), choosing to instead believe that burdening the militia (unorganized and otherwise) with all manners of excessive (and completely unrelated to the actual act of firing) administrative codes was an effective way to prepare an army to properly load, aim, fire and hit a designated target, using both rifle and pistol, with repeatable accuracy and precision, in order to wage and win wars. |
| I agree. "Well regulated", in the 2A sense, essentially means well stocked and well practiced. Anyone who interprets it as "a government-oppressed and overly restricted militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.." is just willfully ignoring the facts. |
|
Statement of purpose: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,"
Our militia is regulated. We regulate who can and cannot be members of the "militia," which is why convicted felons and those who have been insane by a court of law are not included in who are the militia. In fact, our militia is even further regulated through the mandatory registration for selective service for males who reach the age of 18. We regulate the "Militia" as an organization not the firearms. As we go on to read the entire Second Amendment that becomes crystal clear with "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Liberals want it to be a collective right. Liberals don't want it to be a right that cannot be infringed. However, if that's what they really want than they should propose a Constitutional Amendment, because to subvert the Second through simple majority legislation weakens the Constitution in turn weakening the entire system. Read Heller people. Scalia talks all about what a well regulated militia is and was 222 years ago. |
|
Quoted:
Don't forget to refer them to the Militia Act of 1792. It required the average man to own a gun suitable for military use, ammo, accessories, and maintain his skill with it. It was a token gesture compared to the legislation George Washington originally wanted (with the support of Knox and von Steuben), which would have instituted Bern's militia system nationwide (with some modifications). Congress wouldn't pass it and in the end the Militia Act that was passed was not diligently enforced by the national government. |
|
Well regulated in context as it was written referred to well supplied and well trained. Also smooth running. Good watches are still referred to as being well regulated, meaning that they are accurate and precisely constructed.
Of course, that doesn't particularly matter, since the operative clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." If you remove that portion of the statement, none of the rest of it stands. Remove all the rest of it and it isn't effected. Obnoxious and overreaching in authority, Democratic morons shall make no laws curtailing the free rights of the American people, whose liberties shall not be infringed. Everything before the comma is fluff. Everything after the comma is the operative clause. |
|
From http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. |
|
Quoted:
More revisionist history from the Left. "Well regulated" = well trained, well practiced or well drilled. What he said. ^ The Founders were more literate and intelligent men than the so-called intellectuals of today. The wording of the Second Amendment contains nothing confusing or ambivalent for anyone with at least a passing familiarity with English. Liberals, in their mania to hyper-complicate everything to the point of absurdity, have spread their hysterical gospel on this subject, yet the Second Amendment still means exactly what it says. |
|
Quoted:
Every other right is specified as an individual right of the people. To argue that the second applies to only organized military groups is beyond the realm of reason. You must be willfully obtuse. BOOM, end of discussion. Furthering talk of "well trained/practiced/drilled", while accurate, potentially fosters a new attack on our rights in the concept that 2A compels a minimum level of training, IE: have to pass this and that test, qualify, etc to own a firearm. Be careful not to feed them their next tactic. |
|
Quoted:
From http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. Yep. It means "working as intended". It's often seen applied to clocks - a well-regulated clock is one that keeps time. |
|
Quoted:
BOOM, end of discussion. Furthering talk of "well trained/practiced/drilled", while accurate, potentially fosters a new attack on our rights in the concept that 2A compels a minimum level of training, IE: have to pass this and that test, qualify, etc to own a firearm. Be careful not to feed them their next tactic. Quoted:
Quoted:
Every other right is specified as an individual right of the people. To argue that the second applies to only organized military groups is beyond the realm of reason. You must be willfully obtuse. BOOM, end of discussion. Furthering talk of "well trained/practiced/drilled", while accurate, potentially fosters a new attack on our rights in the concept that 2A compels a minimum level of training, IE: have to pass this and that test, qualify, etc to own a firearm. Be careful not to feed them their next tactic. You probably could just combine all those into well-performing for a soundbyte. |
|
Quoted:
You probably could just combine all those into well-performing for a soundbyte. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Every other right is specified as an individual right of the people. To argue that the second applies to only organized military groups is beyond the realm of reason. You must be willfully obtuse. BOOM, end of discussion. Furthering talk of "well trained/practiced/drilled", while accurate, potentially fosters a new attack on our rights in the concept that 2A compels a minimum level of training, IE: have to pass this and that test, qualify, etc to own a firearm. Be careful not to feed them their next tactic. You probably could just combine all those into well-performing for a soundbyte. Of coure. My comment is specifically to the semantics. We need to choose our words more carefully |
|
Let's interpret "well-regulated" to mean "heavily legislated" the way idiots who make that argument do and see how it reads:
"A heavily legislated militia being necessary to a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." That doesn't make any sense even as a stand-alone sentence - heavily legislated and "shall not be infringed" are opposite concepts. It makes even less sense in the Bill of Rights, which were amendments designed to protect existing rights of the people and states from interference by the federal government. How people can make that error mystifies me. It is like saying when you drop an apple it falls up it is so contradictory. |
|
It really doesn't matter what they meant by Militia, which really shouldn't be arguable but seems to be the popular anti 2A tactic of late. They seem to forget the only standing militaries of this country at the time were miniscule and the militia was almost entirely everyday folk, farmers and tradesmen, who showed up and drilled generally with their own arms and some identifying cloth only shortly before going into battle, if at all, and certainly not one weekend a month and two weeks a year.
What is clear and the part the "only militia" crowd overlooks, is that whatever they meant it required that THE PEOPLE have the ability to arm themselves. Not the people of the militia, not the people chosen by the state, THE PEOPLE. Furthermore, "keep and bear" certainly doesn't mean check out of the arms locker when called to active service. |
|
Quoted:
Don't forget that at the time it would have also been necessary to make sure all the troops had common equipment. You couldn't have some guys with .35 caliber rifles and other guys with .36, .40, .50 etc.. you would want to store only one type of ammunition. The beauty of it is that it's up to the people of a particular area to determine what "well-regulated" (i.e. well equipped) means to them. |
|
Quoted:
Agreed. Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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 red means one thing the black another. There ya go. Agreed. Yep. The militia is only tangentially related to the right of the people the ammendment recognizes and enumerates. It does not at all imply superiority to the fundamental right to keep and bear arms. It explains that it's existence is for the security of a free state. Something which we the people have neglected and wrongly allowed the federal government to usurp and molest. |
|
Not to mention that it could just as easily and more accurately be read that firearms ownership amongst the people is a prerequisite to a "well-regulated" militia. Gun prohibitionists argue that participation in a militia is a prerequisite for firearms ownership, which in light of the history and judicial precedent surrounding the 2A is completely nonsensical.
|
|
Quoted:
Means we have a duty not to allow our military AND militia to fall out of regulation, meaning we should never disband the military and never give up our guns and/or means to defend. I thought the founding fathers did not like the idea of a standing military. Look at how liberals state it's impossible for simple citizens with guns to defeat our standing military. That's the exact reason they didn't want a standing military. |
|
Quoted:
http://bearingarms.com/well-regulated/ We hear it constantly from droning citizen control cultists.
The argument goes something like this. “You want to listen to the last part of the Second Amendment where is says ‘shall not be infringed,’ but you ignore the part where it says you have to be a ‘well-regulated militia.’” The instruction to Congress is that, "the right of the people shall not be infringed". There is no instruction whatsoever to regulate anything; only the singular instuction not to infringe on the people's rights to keep and to bear arms. There is also no instruction to maintain a militia either, only the prohibition on govm't from infrinigng on the people's rights, which are not dependent on any militia. |
|
Quoted:
More revisionist history from the Left. "Well regulated" = well trained, well practiced or well drilled. This, exactly, is its original meaning translated into modern-speak. Any attempt to twist it into anything else is disingenuous at best, malicious at worst. |
|
Quoted:
An educated populace, being necessary for the preservation of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read books, shall not be infringed. I am going to use this....did you come up with that or did someone else..I ask so that I can give proper credit. |
|
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it. |
|
Quoted:
More revisionist history from the Left. "Well regulated" = well trained, well practiced or well drilled. Once upon a time, it would not have been out if the question for nearly all the able bodies adult males of a township or whatever town to willingly assemble once a month or so for drill and some rudementary martial training. These days the CMP comes fairly close to that in scope and original intent (training civilians in the use of current issue arms should the need arise for them to be called on the defend the country). The only thing lacking is very basic small unit tactics, but the people who started the CMP probably saw that to be a waste of time. If it ever came to that it would be small groups of armed citizens harassing an invading column or force and then retreating quickly into the cover. |