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.
Again, regulations as you are using is a definition of control, dictation, authority. That is not what it means. The definition of "regulated" it is referring to is "to put in good order". Look it up.
Hence authority, to control and discipline. If authority didn't matter, why mention it in a clause that simply prescribes personal freedoms?
Quote:
I think that it has been shown to you what the context of intent was by previous posts of the founders concerning the original drafts of the amendment as well as the comments by founders concerning it. Your question is then pointless as it ignores the facts of context in lieu of suggesting something else.
If the intent was to let people be, they didn't have to use "well regulated", just that ALL people have right to bear arms. Use of "regulated" automatically entails within authority over a collective (militia). Note the word: Collective. A disciplined collective. But by who?
Quote:
You can. It just requires federal permits. Now as to whether that should even be, well... I think that would be another thread for debate.
You mean, it is well regulated? And you're okay with that? May be we need a new union... NRLA: National Rocket Launchers Association.
Hence authority, to control and discipline. If authority didn't matter, why mention it in a clause that simply prescribes personal freedoms?
No, not authority. Look up a few posts and see the supreme court cases on militia, the comments by the founders in another post. It has nothing to do with authority, that again as I said is your misuse of the word. Stop using it, you are wrong. Regulated in the context of this use means "in good order", period.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
If the intent was to let people be, they didn't have to use "well regulated", just that ALL people have right to bear arms.
They were stating that a "well regulated" (ie disciplined, in good order, well functioning) militia was crucial to the security of the nation. They then say because of this the peoples right to bare arms will not be infringed. Keep in mind that militia meant all of the people and the founders consistently claimed that what better defense than a nation of people armed in its defense and entrusted with its security, their own security of liberty.
Seriously, you have been given every detailed explanation possible through language analysis verification, historical verification, and even recent SC case clarification. What is it that you don't understand?
Quote:
Originally Posted by EinsteinsGhost
You mean, it is well regulated? And you're okay with that? May be we need a new union... NRLA: National Rocket Launchers Association.
No, I was talking about regulation in the context of authority that time. I hope you were just being facetious.
As for associations, there already are some clubs for such class licensing and permits.
No, not authority. Look up a few posts and see the supreme court cases on militia, the comments by the founders in another post. It has nothing to do with authority, that again as I said is your misuse of the word. Stop using it, you are wrong. Regulated in the context of this use means "in good order", period.
It requires an authority to define regulations and to regulate.
Quote:
They were stating that a "well regulated" (ie disciplined, in good order, well functioning) was crucial to the security of the nation. They then say because of this the peoples right to bare arms will not be infringed. Keep in mind that militia meant all of the people and the founders consistently claimed that what better defense than a nation of people armed in its defense and entrusted with its security.
Correct. They meant ALL people, a collective that is regulated. What the constitution doesn't elaborate on is, what entails regulation. Now, why bother with "regulated collective" when it is one's natural right to bear arms? In other words, why bother with inclusion of word "regulated" at all? Do you see "regulated free speech"? So, what was special about the second amendment to warrant this?
Quote:
No, I was talking about regulation in the context of authority that time. I hope you were just being facetious.
Actually, I don't hide it. I like to say it upfront. Yes, should a person be able to go buy rocket launchers? But then, there is no NRLA to sell the message to its buyers in Congress. Is there?
Actually, it simply takes the power of literacy to establish their meaning and context. The fool would refuse to apply such.
Anybody claiming literacy, should not be downplaying (much less ignoring) value of words that aren't even merely a couple in the middle of a long paragraph, used in something as significant as the Constitution.
1- By who?
2- What entails discipline and training?
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.
