Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-04-2017, 09:00 PM
 
Location: Florida
2,309 posts, read 901,962 times
Reputation: 659

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Natural510 View Post
“A well-regulated militia...”

Even if you ignore the militia intent, the authors of the BOR clearly believed in regulation of firearms in the country.
Well regulated meant fully functioning back then.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-04-2017, 09:13 PM
 
Location: PSL
8,224 posts, read 3,497,598 times
Reputation: 2963
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maccabee 2A View Post
Well regulated meant fully functioning back then.
Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated"

Quote:
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."

Oh but it means regulated as in restricted by the anointed...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-04-2017, 09:15 PM
 
34,619 posts, read 21,615,505 times
Reputation: 22232
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
No, they were primarily worried about government oppressing people, exercising authority they were not given, and robbing and killing its subjects under color of authority. Whether that govt was a monarchy, or a politbureau, an appointed Chancellor, or anything else.

And they decided that the best way to achieve that, was to let people be freely armed as much as they wanted.

And they were right.

And our big-gov addicts have been fighting against that constantly.
Correct.

They were also concerned about the citizens being forced to quarter soldiers which played a role in the Second.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-28-2018, 05:21 PM
 
Location: San Diego
18,739 posts, read 7,610,204 times
Reputation: 15007
Quote:
Originally Posted by KenFresno View Post
If you want to stop tyranny then being educated, voting and promoting free speech are far better measures then just owning a gun.
Yup. Look how well it worked for the Germans - especially the German Jews - in the 1930s.

And it was precisely the educated, free-speech-supporting people that were rounded up, exiled, and killed in China's "Cultural Revolution" of the 1960s.

And it is no coincidence that Democrats in the U.S., and growing number of Democrat mobs, are targeting educated, free-speaking Republicans in restaurants, stores, and even with their families at home. With elected officials such as Congressthing Maxine Waters (D-CA) egging them on and exhorting them to scream, smear, and "tell them they're not welcome".

It all comes from the same source. Hatred, intolerance, and a conviction that they are right while being competely unable to support their arguments to that effect. So they resort to violence.

It is people like this, that are one of the reasons the 2nd amendment was included as the Law of the Land.

Last edited by Roboteer; 06-28-2018 at 05:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-28-2018, 10:21 AM
 
Location: San Diego
18,739 posts, read 7,610,204 times
Reputation: 15007
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roboteer View Post
The Founding Fathers decided that Americans would be much better off if govt had NO authority to take away or restrict their guns. And they didn't decide that just from a knee-jerk reaction to some people getting shot in a fight in a pub that day someplace. They studied governments for years, how much they gradually turned well-meaning "gun control" (or sword control etc.) laws into laws that would disarm honest citizens and leave them vulnerable to both local thugs and murderers AND oppressive government. How many governments ultimately tried to disarm their populaces, making laws that only the law-abiding would obey, etc.

And after their long and involved study of many disparate issues, they wrote into our founding documents a flat ban on government making ANY laws to take away or restrict the people's guns.

And still nobody in this thread has even tried to refute the conclusions they came to. We've had a few hysterics saying, "Ummm, 1789! Muskets! Flintlocks!" as though that had anything to do with the Framers' studies of governments and human nature.

This one-sided abdication of the anti-gun-rights people's position is so complete as to be remarkable.

The only thing more remarkable (so far), is that after utterly failing to support their arguments for govt control of personal weapons, in the face of huge, documented sagas of criminals seeking out unarmed people far from police aid or presence, and govt after govt oppressing and even massacring its own citizens after disarming them... they still say govt should have the authority to control our personal weapons. And even that people should have no right to own and carry guns.
And now that yet another nutcase has shot up a video game tournament, the same people terrified of guns are coming to the same hysterical (and wrong) conclusions, for the umpteenth time, forgetting once again how their plans have been refuted and debunked again and again, and won't work.

The people who wrote and ratified the Constitution and BOR, saw these people coming a mile away. The Framers knew they would never be swayed by either logic or facts, and that local debates leading to local laws would never be enough bulwark against their destructive desires. So the Framers put into the highest law of the land, an ironclad ban against govt having ANY say in who could own and carry a gun.

And sure enough, the gun-haters have been screaming, thrashing and plotting against the ban ever since. Our forefathers called it perfectly. They knew these people in the 18th century, and that nothing would change into the 21st century and beyond.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:54 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top