Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Elizabeth H. Blackburn, Carol W. Greider, Jack W. Szostak, Venkatraman Ramakrishnan, Thomas A. Steitz, Ada E. Yonath, Charles K. Kao, Willard S. Boyle, George E. Smith, Elinor Ostrom, Oliver E. Williamson and Herta Müller would all probably beg to differ.
Wouldn't change a thing. Obama won a once-coveted, once-meaningful prize, yet has done nothing before or since, but destabilize, an already-unstable region of the world - following Carter's footsteps, who destabilized Iran, that gave us the Ayatollah.
Not really. The very inclusion of the phrase "well regulated" explicitly envisions... well... regulation. The "right" expressed ("to bear arms") is therefore already contained within a context of limitation and control. Nobody is claiming that individual civilians do not have any right to bear arms. But that right is subject to regulation.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:
The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, 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.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.
Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.
Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.
Meant to mean armed and organized.
Then you have the first President of these here United States.
I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))
Regulated wasn't about what guns we could have, it was that we all had the best and most advanced arms and were organized enough to take on any other nation.
There was never meant to be a standing army. It was suppose to be all volunteer at a moments notice.
We the people, are the Minute Men.
Not really. The very inclusion of the phrase "well regulated" explicitly envisions... well... regulation. The "right" expressed ("to bear arms") is therefore already contained within a context of limitation and control. Nobody is claiming that individual civilians do not have any right to bear arms. But that right is subject to regulation.
George Washington and Andrew Jackson never utilized well regulated militias.
The real problem is swimming pools, not guns. Please sign my petition to have Obama use his executive powers to ban them immediately. We must act quickly to get them banned before the summer season is upon us.
Regulated wasn't about what guns we could have, it was that we all had the best and most advanced arms and were organized enough to take on any other nation.
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.
...
We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”
Says who? You? I don't see where personal protection is guaranteed.
If you have an inalienable right to life, then you also have an inalienable right to protect that life. This right is supposed to be self evident, that is to all except the idiots who have not a clue as to what the entire Bill of Rights were created to spell out in the simplest terms.
The government on the other hand has only the powers DIRECTLY given it by the PEOPLE.
Exactly when did the people give the government the power to deprive them of their property and their rights?
We have reached a point in this country where people are ignorant of the very basis of our own rights and function of government.
Any law short of an Amendment to the Constitution ratified by all the States, which infringes on your right to protect yourself by use of firearms, is illegal.
The reason for this is that the Constitution and the bill of rights is the Supreme law of the land, and no law written by Congress or by Executive Order can, or does override the Constitution.
The government as stated in the 10th amendment does not have the power to override your rights.
Will that fact stop the government from enacting illegal laws? No.
The fact is we do no longer exist in a free country where the government follows the laws.
Well, the Second Amendment is very clear:
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.
IF you are in a militia, the state that governs that militia DEFINITELY will allow you to have a gun, and that cannot be infringed, absolutely not, and never.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
