| Author | Message | ||
     Garryb |
Ok, maybe I'm a little slow, what did they mean by "Well Regulated ? | ||
| Aesquire |
Well regulated means that it's not a private army. It's a force the local cops can call to help. Not a gang. Not organized crime. On our side. "people" means..... people. Part of the reason that you, a PEOPLE, are to not have your right infringed, is to make sure the militia is well regulated. In fact, that is exactly what it says. | ||
| Garryb |
I like that, but not sure its a complete definition. Here's one from wikopedia: (not sure where the faces came from) Meaning of "well regulated militia" The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[120] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training. In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia: This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[48] "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48] (Message edited by garryb on December 29, 2012) (Message edited by garryb on December 29, 2012) | ||
| Sifo |
Ok, maybe I'm a little slow, what did they mean by "Well Regulated ? To be regulated by the state. The second amendment isn't defining what a militia should be. Their views on that are amply addressed in other writings such as The Federalist Papers. The second amendment addresses the need for people to have the right to own and carry firearms to make the militia feasible. Why do you suppose the language is so plain and specific? | ||
| Garryb |
Ok as long as we agree to tie "well regulated militia" to the right to bear arms. Or am I reading it wrong? | ||
| Sifo |
Here's one: Meaning of "well regulated militia" The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[120] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "; [t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."; [121] In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia: This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."; [48] A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.[48] "If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".[48] It's hard enough to make good sense of the butchered up quotes in the Wikipedia (which you should provide a link to BTW), but then you butcher it up even more. | ||
| Garryb |
You made me feel bad. Sorry If I pasted poorly | ||
| Sifo |
Ok as long as we agree to tie "well regulated militia" to the right to bear arms. Or am I reading it wrong? It's pretty clear. A militia is formed from the people as needed, as opposed to a standing army. Disarm the people who are supposed to form the militia and you are violating that portion of the 2nd amendment, are you not? | ||
| Sifo |
You made me feel bad. Sorry If I pasted poorly It was done badly by Wikipedia. One of it's many faults. You chopped it up more. Then you plagiarized it by not providing a source. All in all, it's pretty bad form. To the point though, when the original is so chopped up, then posted with no commentary, I guess you just want people to accept the version that has been posted? That's getting on the borders of revisionist. | ||
| Garryb |
Like I said, we basically agree, maybe I'm a little more confident of this country remaining constitutional, especially with the current Supreme Court and they way hunting is embraced in my state. Especially since I and my brother Marines all swore an oath to defend it They really don't want to take away my guns here. But, I don't think 'Well regulated" means uncontrolled gun ownership by the insane (Message edited by garryb on December 29, 2012) | ||
| Sifo |
But, I don't think 'Well regulated" means uncontrolled gun ownership by the insane To be fair, it doesn't address this at all. Of course, they may not have anticipated the day when the insane weren't institutionalized either. More to the point though, if our leaders were discussing if the insane should be allowed to have guns, your point may have merit. Given that the discussion being had is about banning of weapons to ALL people, you are simply trying to derail the conversation. | ||
| Garryb |
Not really, I'm still bewildered by how close we agree. | ||
| Sifo |
Not really what? I think we may be close on certain aspects. We seem miles apart on what has been proposed by leaders in Congress. It seem to me that either you are oblivious to what is being proposed, or simply pretending that it isn't real. The reality is that they are proposing banning yet more weapons. This is heading in the exact opposite direction of the second amendment. | ||
| Ft_bstrd |
Even if the definition is that it should only be a well run militia (as opposed to a standing army for which there is no provision), the Federal government is remiss in that responsibility. | ||
| Kenm123t |
Read the Federalist papers on the second amendment and use it to disarm the guncontrol idiots and their handlers | ||
| Bandm |
http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrence...med-citizen ry/ It is time the critics of the Second Amendment put up and repeal it, or shut up about violating it. Their efforts to disarm and short-arm Americans violate the U.S. Constitution in Merriam Webster’s first sense of the term—to “disregard” it. Hard cases make bad law, which is why they are reserved for the Constitution, not left to the caprice of legislatures, the sophistry and casuistry of judges or the despotic rule making of the chief executive and his bureaucracy. And make no mistake, guns pose one of the hardest cases a free people confronts in the 21st century, a test of whether that people cherishes liberty above tyranny, values individual sovereignty above dependency on the state, and whether they dare any longer to live free. A people cannot simultaneously live free and be bound to any human master or man-made institution, especially to politicians, judges, bureaucrats and faceless government agencies. The Second Amendment along with the other nine amendments of the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent individuals’ enslavement to government, not just to guarantee people the right to hunt squirrels or sport shoot at targets, nor was it included in the Bill of Rights just to guarantee individuals the right to defend themselves against robbers, rapers and lunatics, or to make sure the states could raise a militia quick, on the cheap to defend against a foreign invader or domestic unrest. The Second Amendment was designed to ensure that individuals retained the right and means to defend themselves against any illegitimate attempt to do them harm, be it an attempt by a private outlaw or government agents violating their trust under the color of law. The Second Amendment was meant to guarantee individuals the right to protect themselves against government as much as against private bad guys and gangs. That is why the gun grabbers’ assault on firearms is not only, not even primarily an attack merely on the means of self-defense but more fundamentally, the gun grabbers are engaged in a blatant attack on the very legitimacy of self-defense itself. It’s not really about the guns; it is about the government’s ability to demand submission of the people. Gun control is part and parcel of the ongoing collectivist effort to eviscerate individual sovereignty and replace it with dependence upon and allegiance to the state. Americans provisionally delegated a limited amount of power over themselves to government, retaining their individual sovereignty in every respect and reserving to themselves the power not delegated to government, most importantly the right and power to abolish or replace any government that becomes destructive of the ends for which it was created. The Bill of Rights, especially the Second and Ninth Amendments, can only be properly understood and rightly interpreted in this context. Politicians who insist on despoiling the Constitution just a little bit for some greater good (gun control for “collective security”) are like a blackguard who lies to an innocent that she can yield to his advances, retain her virtue and risk getting only just a little bit pregnant—a seducer’s lie. The people either have the right to own and bear arms, or they don’t, and to the extent legislators, judges and bureaucrats disparage that right, they are violating the U.S. Constitution as it was originally conceived, and as it is currently amended. To those who would pretend the Second Amendment doesn’t exist or insist it doesn’t mean what it says, there is only one legitimate response: “If you don’t like the Second Amendment, you may try to repeal it but short of that you may not disparage and usurp it, even a little bit, as long as it remains a part of the Constitution, no exceptions, no conniving revisions, no fabricated judicial balancing acts.” Gun control advocates attempt to avoid the real issue of gun rights—why the Founders felt so strongly about gun rights that they singled them out for special protection in the Bill of Rights—by demanding that individual rights be balanced against a counterfeit collective right to “security” from things that go bump in the night. But, the Bill of Rights was not a Bill of Entitlements that people had a right to demand from government; it was a Bill of Protections against the government itself. The Founders understood that the right to own and bear laws is as fundamental and as essential to maintaining liberty as are the rights of free speech, a free press, freedom of religion and the other protections against government encroachments on liberty delineated in the Bill of Rights. That is why the most egregious of the fallacious arguments used to justify gun control are designed to short-arm the citizenry (e.g., banning so-called “assault rifles”) by restricting the application of the Second Amendment to apply only to arms that do not pose a threat to the government’s self-proclaimed monopoly on the use of force. To that end, the gun grabbers first must bamboozle people into believing the Second Amendment does not really protect an individual’s right to own and bear firearms. They do that by insisting on a tortured construction of the Second Amendment that converts individual rights into states rights. The short-arm artists assert that the Second Amendment’s reference to the necessity of a “well-regulated militia” proves the amendment is all about state’s rights, not individuals rights; it was written into the Bill of Rights simply to guarantee that state governments could assemble a fighting force quick, on the cheap to defend against foreign invasion and domestic disturbance. Consequently, Second-Amendment revisionists would have us believe the Second Amendment does little more than guarantee the right of states to maintain militias; and, since the state militias were replaced by the National Guard in the early twentieth century, the Second Amendment has virtually no contemporary significance. Gun controllers would, in effect, do to the Second Amendment what earlier collectivizers and centralizers did to the Tenth Amendment, namely render it a dead letter. The truth is, the Founders understood a “well regulated” militia to mean a militia “functioning/operating properly,” not a militia “controlled or managed by the government.” This is clearly evidenced by Alexander Hamilton’s discussion of militias in Federalist #29 and by one of the Oxford Dictionary’s archaic definitions of “regulate;” “(b) Of troops: Properly disciplined.” The Founders intended that a well-regulated militia was to be the first, not the last line of defense against a foreign invader or social unrest. But, they also intended militias to be the last, not the first line of defense against tyrannical government. In other words, the Second Amendment was meant to be the constitutional protection for a person’s musket behind the door, later the shotgun behind the door and today the M4 behind the door—a constitutional guarantee of the right of individuals to defend themselves against any and all miscreants, private or government, seeking to do them harm. The unfettered right to own and bear arms consecrates individual sovereignty and ordains the right of self-defense. The Second Amendment symbolizes and proclaims individuals’ right to defend themselves personally against any and all threatened deprivations of life, liberty or property, including attempted deprivations by the government. The symbolism of a heavily armed citizenry says loudly and unequivocally to the government, “Don’t Tread On Me.” Thomas Jefferson, the author of the Declaration of Independence said, “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny.” Both Jefferson and James Madison, the Father of the Constitution, also knew that their government would never fear a people without guns, and they understood as well that the greatest threat to liberty was not foreign invasion or domestic unrest but rather a standing army and a militarized police force without fear of the people and capable of inflicting tyranny upon the people. That is what prompted Madison to contrast the new national government he had helped create to the kingdoms of Europe, which he characterized as “afraid to trust the people with arms.” Madison assured his fellow Americans that under the new Constitution as amended by the Bill of Rights, they need never fear their government because of “the advantage of being armed.” But, Noah Webster said it most succinctly and most eloquently: “Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States.” That is why the Founders looked to local militias as much to provide a check—in modern parlance, a “deterrent”—against government tyranny as against an invading foreign power. Guns are individuals’ own personal nuclear deterrent against their own government gone rogue. Therefore, a heavily armed citizenry is the ultimate deterrent against tyranny. A heavily armed citizenry is not about armed revolt; it is about defending oneself against armed government oppression. A heavily armed citizenry is not about overthrowing the government; it is about preventing the government from overthrowing liberty. A people stripped of their right of self defense is defenseless against their own government. | ||
| Fb1 |
Mark, not sure what happened but here's the working link/source for the piece you posted above: http://www.forbes.com/sites/lawrencehunter/2012/12 /28/gun-control-tramples-on-the-certain-virtues-of -a-heavily-armed-citizenry/ Thank you for posting this. I concur with the author 100%. Ferris | ||
| Union_man |
Cut and Paste  | ||
| Aesquire |
Hit and Run. | ||
| Buellinmke |
Believing that outlawing guns will stop people from killing each other with guns is the same as Believing that outlawing abortions will stop people from having abortions. | ||
| Cityxslicker |
who will decide that you are 'sane' enough to own a gun. do a bit of research - there is no 'test' to prove you are sane; there are how ever several manuals of THOUSANDS of pages to declare you with any convenient malady and psychosis as the need suits them. the boards on the MSW forums are already a buzz with how they can just have everyone that applies for a license as 'insane' and no licenses will be granted ; they all want clinical testing before any license can be granted.... that paint on the wall should be coming more into focus for you by now 'Gun Crime' is a 'Public Health' issue.... the mentality that links these two is exactly why I will be keeping mine. | ||
| Alfau |
If you can't control yourselves how do you expect to control the world? Laws need to be just and fair. Keep guns out of the hands of the incompetent.Worldwide. | ||
| Slaughter |
We MUST keep news reporting out of the hands of the incompetent and the insane. The media are dumbing down ALL of us. An unregulated press is far more dangerous than any weapon in the hands of a private citizen. | ||
| Aesquire |
True, this mass school shooting suicide stuff seems to date from the 24-7 "gotta fill the air" news cycle. It MAY be possible that arresting Wolf Blitzer, Peirs Morgan, and the cast of the View, then shutting down CNN, MSNBC, etc. and replacing them with 1960's & 70's cartoons would actually cut down on the murder/suicides. If only one life was saved............ Laws need to be just and fair. Not sure that fair is possible AND just. This could be a definition issue. What's "fair"? IYHO Keep guns out of the hands of the incompetent.Worldwide. Now that's just idealism. Far more people are killed with cars driven by the incompetent. True, MOST accidental death by firearms, and some ruled intentional ARE at the hands of the incompetent. Sorta by definition. ( like the local cretins playing polish roulette, aiming a gun at each other instead of at themselves. The survivor was prosecuted ) Unfortunately, the law "too stupid to live" isn't on the human books. It's natural law, and we try very very hard to defeat it every day. I hear many call it "not fair". ( hence my confusion on your law comment above. Clarify please ) | ||
| Aesquire |
Or am I reading it wrong? Yep, you are reading it wrong. Every other use of the term "the people" in the US Constitution clearly and unambiguously refers to "the freaking people". meaning Us. One, and only one of those cases is deemed invalid by those who oppose it's sense, and that's the second Amendment. It IS, I admit, a bit of a run on sentence. Here's modern English, sorta, We need a militia. ( pretty clear, we didn't have a police state and giant army ) The militia is the people. ( known in context, covered extensively in the Federalist Papers... not stated as such, because everyone knew. We are dumber now ) The government does not have the power to take the people's weapons. ( also well covered And also well known since disarming the colonial scum was an Imperial action. You remember, the Empire? Yoke, one of, thrown off? ) | ||
| Blake |
>>> Keep guns out of the hands of the incompetent. Please define "incompetent" as you intend it in the above. We might can agree. I for instance absolutely support knowledge and skills-based proficiency testing as prerequisites to a license to bear arms. Posted by Buellinmke on Sunday, December 30, 2012 - 01:15 am: Believing that outlawing guns will stop people from killing each other with guns is the same as Believing that outlawing abortions will stop people from having abortions. There may be a grain of truth to that, but there is a large disparity in the relative effects and the affected magnitudes involved, and your analogy is deeply flawed. Murder is already illegal. Your analogy more correctly stated would be Believing that outlawing guns will stop people from killing each other See the difference? One is a willful act, the other a thing. More accurate would also be to say.. Believing that outlawing murder will stop people from murdering Or similarly, Believing that outlawing drunken driving will stop people from driving drunk Do you really think that if murder were made legal, the murder rate would not skyrocket? Do you really imagine that if drunken driving were not illegal, the rate of drunken driving incidents would not skyrocket? Do you really think that if abortion were made illegal, the abortion rate would not plummet? It would. That is undeniable. Facts and history irrefutably prove it. Of course ignoring the unborn and partially born babies' rights to life is necessary to your point even being considered. How sad. We can do better. Again, murder is already illegal. Furthermore, while guns are used by criminals to murder and maim others, guns are by far mostly kept and carried to defend against malicious threat; for the terminally obtuse that means to defend life. Tyrannical govts/states (criminals) murdered hundreds of MILLIONS and continue to add to their body count, but to satisfy an emotional (irrational) urge for a knee-jerk response to a tragic murder, we should abandon the very founding principles of our nation, the rule of law, and our unalienable rights... to the care of the state? Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot, the Kims of N. Korea, Castro, and the islamist-fascists agree. Joe. My stunningly beautiful young niece lives alone in a rural setting and works in the city. Are you really in favor of denying her the most effective choices for defending herself against a would be rapist or abductor/murderer? The 30 rounds in her SA AK47 and two more loaded magazines in reserve are a very effective defense against any malevolent intruder. The 9mm Glock concealed on her person or in her purse serves her similarly away from home. She's expert with both firearms. Can anyone who is in favor of restricting lawful ownership of such firearms explain why she should be prohibited from owning or carrying her chosen defensive firearms, the very firearms that are most effective for their intended purpose (self defense)? (Message edited by Blake on December 30, 2012) | ||
| Fb1 |
Blake, have you studied-up on the particulars of Feinstein's "assault weapon" ban v.2 that she's poised to introduce to Congress on Thursday? From the NRA/ILA:
I wonder which part of "shall not be infringed" she doesn't understand? 
http://youtu.be/8XFyHvjc5Eo | ||
| Aesquire |
It's a pity I gave away all my firearms. Too bad my failing memory can't recall to whom. Wanted to be safe, if I had “oppositional defiant disorder.” Do need to get some more ammo though. Metals are a fine investment. Gold, Silver, brass, copper, lead...... When can I expect the BATF to show up to take my 14th century crossbow? | ||
| Cityxslicker |
November 18 of 1978, 918 people died at the hands of maniacal murder. His weapon of choice was laced Flavor-Aid. Do we ban flavored drink mixes, or admit that there is evil in the world that will - at it's core motivation - seek the extermination others. You can choose to believe in a happy little friendly world where violence is from the object; such appeasement didn't work well for those facing Hitler - or you can admit to the reality - the gun is secondary to the evil that criminals/madmen/governments are want to commit. (feel free to research the two decade escalating climb in knife murders in the UK since the ban of the gun) | ||
| Sifo |
Please define "incompetent" as you intend it in the above. We might can agree. I for instance absolutely support knowledge and skills-based proficiency testing as prerequisites to a license to bear arms. Careful there Blake. That's part of the Chicago plan. You need to demonstrate your competency with approved classes at an approved range that are disallowed by local ordinances. The guns aren't banned, they just require training that is conveniently not allowed. |
