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.
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.
An armed society is a free society. Preventing tyranny and overstep of government will onto the lives of its citizens.
If you want the weapons of 1776 then go for it. But our forefathers wrote the constitution when they used muskets and bayonets. They had no idea the carnage this would create in the future with the sophistication of guns. If they were alive today, writing the constitution....this amendment wouldn't even be in the constitution. Btw, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a gun to protect yourself.
This line of reasoning has been debunked many, many times on this forum and elsewhere.
The evolution of weapons technology did not begin in 1776.
The forefathers had seen weapons evolve in the past and during their lifetimes, so it can be easily deduced that they would expect the power and efficiency of weapons to continue to increase.
Prototype semi automatic weapons pre date the constitution by 50 years.
Private citizens owned artillery and even battleships.
Learn some history before trying to base your argument on it.
The premise of having a right to bear arms stems from allowing one to fight to protect their freedom and liberty. This means you need "arms" that put up an adequate fight against your enemy. Saying one should rely on a musket in todays day and age is an intentionally obtuse attempt at making this argument against it.
As part of a "well-regulated" militia. Ammosexuals always forget about that part of 2A. Even the NRA can't quote it correctly.
What needs to happen is a ban on ammunition sales except to licensed gun owners. Self-contained ammo is not covered under 2A, since it didn't exist at the time and is not mentioned snce everyone molded their own. Let everyone have all the licensed guns they want, but control the supply of fodder.
As part of a "well-regulated" militia. Ammosexuals always forget about that part of 2A. Even the NRA can't quote it correctly.
What needs to happen is a ban on ammunition sales except to licensed gun owners. Self-contained ammo is not covered under 2A, since it didn't exist at the time and is not mentioned snce everyone molded their own. Let everyone have all the licensed guns they want, but control the supply of fodder.
I said that until the understanding of what a militia is is RESOLVED, it's all speculation. Since there is still disagreement, it isn't resolved. Opinions about what was meant by that, and about what "well-regulated" means, and even about who "the people" are (just rich, white, landowners? Maybe in the original Amendment) -- well, there isn't much agreement. Let's try to have a civil discussion about that stuff, and maybe we (if not the politicians) can get to some kind of resolution.
If you want the weapons of 1776 then go for it. But our forefathers wrote the constitution when they used muskets and bayonets. They had no idea the carnage this would create in the future with the sophistication of guns. If they were alive today, writing the constitution....this amendment wouldn't even be in the constitution. Btw, I don't think there is anything wrong with having a gun to protect yourself.
And you would be wrong, they were well aware of this new technology called a repeating rifle
Firstly, the phrase in the 2nd amendment is "well regulated", but the definitions offered up are for the term "well-regulated". The hyphen changes the meaning. Consider that the words "regulate" and "regulation" are used eight times in the Constitution, and each time either word is used, the context clearly indicates that the the terms are used to mean laws and rules enacted by the US Congress. Even Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14 establishes that "Congress shall have the Power...to make rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval forces". They're not talking about making the the land and naval forces functional, but making them operate under the purview of the federal government.
Secondly, didn't Justice Scalia, in his opinion on District of Columbia v. Heller, establish that the prefatory clause of the 2nd Amendment does not limit the operative clause, rendering any debate regarding "well regulated" moot?
Last edited by djmilf; 10-06-2017 at 08:03 AM..
Reason: typo - missing ending quote mark
Small arms at the time of the Constitution were pretty different than small arms today that can be easily outfitted to fire hundreds of rounds a minute. If the Constitution can't take this into account, then we should amend the Constitution.
I know we won't, but we should.
Really...amend the constitution for the sake of safety and security? I hope you are joking!
Have you ever heard the quote by one of our celebrated patriots..." Those that give up a little freedom for a little safety, deserve neither"? Does this just not apply today or? LOL
If we agree to amend that, whats next, what problem will arise 20 yrs down the road that can also be solved by altering the nations founding document?
An armed society is a free society. Preventing tyranny and overstep of government will onto the lives of its citizens.
That's the way you understand it, and I can't prove you're wrong, but I, and many other interpret it differently.
Even going by your interpenetration, how can you argue that our militia is in well working order when you have members slaying innocent women and children on the same side? That's not 'well working,' that's total and complete failure.
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.
