By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.
While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!
Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.
But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.
By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.
While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!
Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.
But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.
Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws. They have been proven. There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws. Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc
If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.
By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.
While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!
Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.
But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.
Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws. They have been proven. There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws. Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc
If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.
By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.
While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!
Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.
But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.
Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws. They have been proven. There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws. Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc
If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.
It is not a living document. It is dead, thanks to many years of ignorance which greatly started during the Civil War.
It was supposed to be a set of rules to keep the General Government in check, but due to many people being unable to control their own lives it has fallen victim to corrupt politicians over whatever popular opinion happens to be at the time.
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.
While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!
Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.
But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.
Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws. They have been proven. There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws. Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc
If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.
It is not a living document. It is dead, thanks to many years of ignorance which greatly started during the Civil War.
It was supposed to be a set of rules to keep the General Government in check, but due to many people being unable to control their own lives it has fallen victim to corrupt politicians over whatever popular opinion happens to be at the time.
I agree, it was very hard for slaves to control their own lives, and they just weren't able.
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.
While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!
Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.
But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.
Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws. They have been proven. There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws. Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc
If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.
What flaws are you referring too?
The one that allowed people to own people. The one that didn't let women or people of color vote. The one that allowed states to do as they pleased until the country was nearly destroyed. Those are a few.
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
I mean, we could argue semantics and ultimately disagree. That conversation can go all day and get nowhere. I'm really more counting a couple Supreme Court appointments that will make some super duper Liberal common sense decisions.
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
I'm not sure that it is ignored. i think it is mostly just misunderstood. I have trouble fully understanding the meaning of the words as they were used 200+ years ago. If we take the phrase in its modern meaning, then I have to ask "well regulated" by whom? Certainly not the federal government, since the 2nd amendment existed originally as a check against the standing army usurping power. So we really need to go back to how that was used during that period in time. For example: The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains:
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.
That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
I'm not sure that it is ignored. i think it is mostly just misunderstood. I have trouble fully understanding the meaning of the words as they were used 200+ years ago. If we take the phrase in its modern meaning, then I have to ask "well regulated" by whom? Certainly not the federal government, since the 2nd amendment existed originally as a check against the standing army usurping power. So we really need to go back to how that was used during that period in time. For example: The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains:
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.
That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment. Step one, check the source The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant. ....seems legit....
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
I'm not sure that it is ignored. i think it is mostly just misunderstood. I have trouble fully understanding the meaning of the words as they were used 200+ years ago. If we take the phrase in its modern meaning, then I have to ask "well regulated" by whom? Certainly not the federal government, since the 2nd amendment existed originally as a check against the standing army usurping power. So we really need to go back to how that was used during that period in time. For example: The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains:
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.
That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment.
Step one, check the source The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant. ....seems legit....
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
I mean, we could argue semantics and ultimately disagree. That conversation can go all day and get nowhere. I'm really more counting a couple Supreme Court appointments that will make some super duper Liberal common sense decisions.
I definitely agree that we could argue semantics and ultimately get nowhere, which is sort of what I was getting at with my first response to Beavers. If we're arguing language or semantics of the amendment, we need to understand the words they used, and the meanings of those words in context. But if we're arguing application, or suggesting what we'd like the amendment to actually do or say, then we should move to a discussion about how the amendment should be altered, and in what way. You're right that a couple of SCOTUS appointments could add some clarity and common sense, or they could further obfuscate.
That's why I'm much more interested in what states are doing in terms of injecting common sense into gun regulation. In my state we passed an initiative in 2014 closing the gun show loopholes, requiring all private sales to go through an FFL for a background check, prohibiting any private transfers (you can't even give your gun to someone else either letting them borrow it, or give it as a gift - except hunting or on the range), etc... It created the most comprehensive background check law in the country and I thought those were good, common sense, reasonable regulations. Next week we're voting on a new gun regulation initiative restricting those under protection orders from possessing firearms. I'm voting yes for that as well. I'm fully on board with more common sense regulations.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
I'm not sure that it is ignored. i think it is mostly just misunderstood. I have trouble fully understanding the meaning of the words as they were used 200+ years ago. If we take the phrase in its modern meaning, then I have to ask "well regulated" by whom? Certainly not the federal government, since the 2nd amendment existed originally as a check against the standing army usurping power. So we really need to go back to how that was used during that period in time. For example: The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains:
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.
That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment.
Step one, check the source The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant. ....seems legit....
I mean, look how well-regulated these guys are:
That's fine. You are welcome to attack the source and ignore the post. That is par for the course around here. I don't know this guy, I don't have an agenda. I'm just trying to understand how the phrase was used historically. if you have any further light to shed on this I'm certainly open to checking it out. Unlike some on here who look for confirmation bias, I'm happy to consider all reasonable points of view.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
My argument was how it was interpreted until the NRA bought enough people off In Congress and was able to manipulate enough of the public to convince them that it applies to the individual.
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
I'm not sure that it is ignored. i think it is mostly just misunderstood. I have trouble fully understanding the meaning of the words as they were used 200+ years ago. If we take the phrase in its modern meaning, then I have to ask "well regulated" by whom? Certainly not the federal government, since the 2nd amendment existed originally as a check against the standing army usurping power. So we really need to go back to how that was used during that period in time. For example: The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains:
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.
That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment.
Step one, check the source The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant. ....seems legit....
I mean, look how well-regulated these guys are:
And I did look at that picture. They do look "well regulated" to me. Fingers off the triggers, firearms pointed in a safe direction, etc... What leads you to believe that they aren't well regulated? Or perhaps I should back up even further, and ask you what your definition of well regulated means, so that we're speaking the same language.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
My argument was how it was interpreted until the NRA bought enough people off In Congress and was able to manipulate enough of the public to convince them that it applies to the individual.
I understand that things changed pretty drastically between Miller and Heller, but all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
I'm not sure that it is ignored. i think it is mostly just misunderstood. I have trouble fully understanding the meaning of the words as they were used 200+ years ago. If we take the phrase in its modern meaning, then I have to ask "well regulated" by whom? Certainly not the federal government, since the 2nd amendment existed originally as a check against the standing army usurping power. So we really need to go back to how that was used during that period in time. For example: The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains:
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.
That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment.
Step one, check the source The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant. ....seems legit....
I mean, look how well-regulated these guys are:
That's fine. You are welcome to attack the source and ignore the post. That is par for the course around here. I don't know this guy, I don't have an agenda. I'm just trying to understand how the phrase was used historically. if you have any further light to shed on this I'm certainly open to checking it out. Unlike some on here who look for confirmation bias, I'm happy to consider all reasonable points of view. It's hard to take the post with any legitimacy when the source is questionable.
At any rate, this seems counter-intuitive. Why even bother including the words if their meaning is inconsequential?
Think about this. You have the Founding Fathers, writing the laws that will form the basis of our Democracy, specifically include the words "well-regulated" because they thought it would add some literary flair? They thought, "Hey this document is kind of dry, let's spice it up will a few unnecessary adjectives!"?
If there's this much discrepancy over the interpretation, why not suggest an Amendment to clarify the meaning? Contrary to popular belief, our Founding Fathers and The Constitution are not infallible.
It's weird to see someone try to represent himself as a statist and an anarchist at the same time.
It's weird seeing someone so obsessed with everything I say.
Oh yes, I am hanging on every word, I am truly obsessed! I was actually saying that seriously and not in jest. It IS weird to see someone be a statist and an anarchist at the same time. A juxtaposition of beliefs, interesting to read how you're working that out.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
My argument was how it was interpreted until the NRA bought enough people off In Congress and was able to manipulate enough of the public to convince them that it applies to the individual.
I understand that things changed pretty drastically between Miller and Heller, but all of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
Exactly. I can somewhat understand some people being for a few more regulations, but to blatantly be against people having the right to arm themselves boggles my mind.
By me saying it should follow case law should give you your answer. It really should be left up to the States. Most things should.
While that's your opinion and certainly debatable; if only there were a collection of people who were appointed or elected to decide on such things. Then we might have something!
Well there is a thing called the Constitution. There are also writings from the authors of the Constitution where they go and explain beyond any doubt what their intent was and what expressed powers are.
But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.
Yeah, and guess what, your Holy Constitution has flaws. They have been proven. There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws. Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc
If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.
What flaws are you referring too?
The one that allowed people to own people. The one that didn't let women or people of color vote. The one that allowed states to do as they pleased until the country was nearly destroyed. Those are a few.
Your original post said "has flaws" which would indicate today's constitution. Your are citing flaws from the constitution from the beginning, not current. Those flaws you mentioned have been rectified. What current flaws are there??
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
I'm not sure that it is ignored. i think it is mostly just misunderstood. I have trouble fully understanding the meaning of the words as they were used 200+ years ago. If we take the phrase in its modern meaning, then I have to ask "well regulated" by whom? Certainly not the federal government, since the 2nd amendment existed originally as a check against the standing army usurping power. So we really need to go back to how that was used during that period in time. For example: The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains:
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.
That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment.
Step one, check the source The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant. ....seems legit....
I mean, look how well-regulated these guys are:
And I did look at that picture. They do look "well regulated" to me. Fingers off the triggers, firearms pointed in a safe direction, etc... What leads you to believe that they aren't well regulated? Or perhaps I should back up even further, and ask you what your definition of well regulated means, so that we're speaking the same language.
I feel this pretty well sums it up:
The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!
“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)
But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of "well regulated".)
If there's this much discrepancy over the interpretation, why not suggest an Amendment to clarify the meaning? Contrary to popular belief, our Founding Fathers and The Constitution are not infallible.
I would love to have clarification of meaning, or come to a mutual understanding. And you'll be hard pressed to find anything from me claiming infallibility of the Founding Fathers. But I also don't want to jump into some sort of Constitutional rewrite until we know we have some reasonable and respected minds working on it. I would never want the Constitution cracked open with either Trump or Clinton as president (Trump is an idiot and Clinton already acts as if she's above the law) and with many of the loons currently in Congress. Who knows what will come out the other end? And I don't think the onus is on me to suggest an amendment clarifying the meaning - I'm the one trying to shed light on what the intent or original meaning was. Those attempting to modify or confound the founders' meanings should be the ones suggesting the rewrite or amendment of the Amendment.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
So then can we go back to the 2nd amendment's original subject, which is the militia and not the individual?
Sure. A militia can be considered (and was by the founders) all able bodied civilians eligible by law for military service. And the 2nd amendment is the only one that specifically says "the right of the people". Very clearly meaning individual. Anyway, I'm not an NRA member or a gun nut, but you're going to get nowhere with this argument. Already been through the courts. Already understood from original intent. You can make whatever argument you want here regarding militia vs individual, but it will be without any legal weight. Your argument will be a non-starter since it is clear that the intent was that any rights specified in the document belong to individuals.
Let's check and see how the NRA really feels about the Constitution.... ...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
Not really understanding your point, or Beavers'. I'm just saying that if you're going to get into the semantics of the language, you need to go back to those who wrote it. If you disagree with what the amendment says, that's an entirely different conversation.
The point is that "well regulated" is often ignored by gun rights advocates. It is as much a part of the amendment as "the right of the people"
I'm not sure that it is ignored. i think it is mostly just misunderstood. I have trouble fully understanding the meaning of the words as they were used 200+ years ago. If we take the phrase in its modern meaning, then I have to ask "well regulated" by whom? Certainly not the federal government, since the 2nd amendment existed originally as a check against the standing army usurping power. So we really need to go back to how that was used during that period in time. For example: The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains:
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.
That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment.
Step one, check the source The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant. ....seems legit....
I mean, look how well-regulated these guys are:
And I did look at that picture. They do look "well regulated" to me. Fingers off the triggers, firearms pointed in a safe direction, etc... What leads you to believe that they aren't well regulated? Or perhaps I should back up even further, and ask you what your definition of well regulated means, so that we're speaking the same language.
I feel this pretty well sums it up:
The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!
“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)
But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of "well regulated".)
Your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense in the context in which the Amendment was written. The Amendment exists specifically to protect the rights of the people from the power of the Feds. Any of the debates around the framing of the Constitution will demonstrate this. The 2nd Amendment was thought of as a check on the standing army.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Comments
But anyway I don't trust one head of a serpent to tame the other two.
They have been proven.
There was this thing called the Civil War that showed some of those flaws.
Another thing called Civil Rights, one called the Great Depression, etc
If you don't consider the Constitution a living document then there are some mighty big problems. Slavery is a toughy.
It was supposed to be a set of rules to keep the General Government in check, but due to many people being unable to control their own lives it has fallen victim to corrupt politicians over whatever popular opinion happens to be at the time.
...seems there's something missing, but I can't quite put my trigger finger on it.
*photo from NRA HQ in DC
The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment explains: That gives us probably a more accurate indication of how "well regulated" was used at the time, and therefore what was probably intended by those who authored the amendment.
Step one, check the source
The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant.
....seems legit....
The Constitution Society is a nonprofit educational organization headquartered at 11447 Woollcott St, San Antonio, Texas, U.S., founded in 1994 by Jon Roland, an author, self-employed computer and management consultant.
....seems legit....
I mean, look how well-regulated these guys are:
That's why I'm much more interested in what states are doing in terms of injecting common sense into gun regulation. In my state we passed an initiative in 2014 closing the gun show loopholes, requiring all private sales to go through an FFL for a background check, prohibiting any private transfers (you can't even give your gun to someone else either letting them borrow it, or give it as a gift - except hunting or on the range), etc... It created the most comprehensive background check law in the country and I thought those were good, common sense, reasonable regulations. Next week we're voting on a new gun regulation initiative restricting those under protection orders from possessing firearms. I'm voting yes for that as well. I'm fully on board with more common sense regulations.
That's fine. You are welcome to attack the source and ignore the post. That is par for the course around here. I don't know this guy, I don't have an agenda. I'm just trying to understand how the phrase was used historically. if you have any further light to shed on this I'm certainly open to checking it out. Unlike some on here who look for confirmation bias, I'm happy to consider all reasonable points of view.
In Congress and was able to manipulate enough of the public to convince them that it applies to the individual.
And I did look at that picture. They do look "well regulated" to me. Fingers off the triggers, firearms pointed in a safe direction, etc... What leads you to believe that they aren't well regulated? Or perhaps I should back up even further, and ask you what your definition of well regulated means, so that we're speaking the same language.
It's hard to take the post with any legitimacy when the source is questionable.
At any rate, this seems counter-intuitive. Why even bother including the words if their meaning is inconsequential?
Think about this. You have the Founding Fathers, writing the laws that will form the basis of our Democracy, specifically include the words "well-regulated" because they thought it would add some literary flair? They thought, "Hey this document is kind of dry, let's spice it up will a few unnecessary adjectives!"?
If there's this much discrepancy over the interpretation, why not suggest an Amendment to clarify the meaning? Contrary to popular belief, our Founding Fathers and The Constitution are not infallible.
I was actually saying that seriously and not in jest. It IS weird to see someone be a statist and an anarchist at the same time. A juxtaposition of beliefs, interesting to read how you're working that out.
I feel this pretty well sums it up:
The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!
“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)
But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of "well regulated".)
The term “well regulated” in the 2nd amendment actually encompasses both meanings of the term “well regulated” (i.e., “well regulated” as one might consider a clock to be, and “well regulated” as one might think of in a legal framework)!
“Well regulated” meant that State militias were to be well trained (i.e., they were to gather together and practice, drill, etc., on a regular basis) and that training was to be supervised by the States (i.e., the States were to appoint officers who were to oversee that training). (This was the clock-like aspect of "well regulated".)
But at the same time, “well regulated” also referred to the lawful power the Congress (which was comprised, after all, of representatives of the States) was to have over the State militias, that is, Congress was to promulgate and enact a system of rules governing the conduct and/or activity of said militias, as well as the legal authority the President would have over them when acting as Commander-in-Chief. (This was the legal aspect of "well regulated".)
Your last paragraph makes absolutely no sense in the context in which the Amendment was written. The Amendment exists specifically to protect the rights of the people from the power of the Feds. Any of the debates around the framing of the Constitution will demonstrate this. The 2nd Amendment was thought of as a check on the standing army.