Skip to main content

View Diary: The Second Amendment Myth (199 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  So now I see where "above" referred to (0+ / 0-)

    Can you tell me, oldpunk, what this all means? In simple words.

    Federalist Paper 29 was written by Alexander Hamilton. Not my liberal soul mate. Citing Hamilton is about as persuasive to me as citing any conservative today. He had his own perspective and though the Federalist Papers are interesting and enlightening, Hamilton did not speak for the Founders. He was a pretty devious individual, in my opinion. And the founder of my Democratic Party, Thomas Jefferson, absolutely could not stand the man.

    The Washington quote is interesting. I would think that for a man like General Washington, his understanding of "well-regulated" in regard to anything military would stem from army regulations: in other words, limits on behavior, the opposite of unbridled liberty.

    Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

    by deben on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 08:21:20 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I like Jefferson too. (8+ / 0-)
      "Laws that forbid the carrying of arms..disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed one." - Thomas Jefferson quoting Cesare Beccaria, Criminologist in 1764. That was 230 years ago. -Thomas Jefferson

      "The constitutions of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves;
      that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property and freedom
      of the press." Thomas Jefferson

      "The beauty of the second amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it." -Thomas Jefferson

      The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.-Thomas Jefferson

      "As to the species of exercise, I advise the gun. While this gives [only] moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise, and independence to the mind. Games played with the ball and others of that nature, are too violent for the body and stamp no character on the mind. Let your gun, therefore, be the constant companion to your walks." - Thomas Jefferson, writing to his teenaged nephew.

      Jefferson is obviously in favor of individuals owning firearms. Haven't found t find much on his opinion of the militia or the term well regulated. But he did have this to say on the restriction of liberty which appears to be how you view regulation.

      "I am not a friend to a very energetic government. It is always oppressive."-Thomas Jefferson

      "Were we directed from Washington when to sow and when to reap, we should soon want bread."-Thomas Jefferson

      "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson

      I know and understand what the term well regulated meant when our constitution was written. I have supplied you with a sampling of how it was used then. If you don't like or don't understand the quotes I have provided then please take some time and do some research.

      Life is risky, politics is war, government is force and liberty is very expensive.

      by oldpunk on Sat Jan 07, 2012 at 10:52:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Look (0+ / 0-)

        You've got these beautiful quotes by Jefferson about being armed and about oppressive government, but which don't say a word about the question of what the words "well-regulated" mean in the 2nd Amendment. The question I've asked from the start is, what do those two words mean?

        As I said, Washington's understanding of being "well-regulated" was no doubt in terms of military regulations, restrictions on behavior, not as unlimited freedom. Jefferson was horrified by the prospect of a monarch. He despised Hamilton and feared tyranny. But does Jefferson even mention the words "well-regulated?" Apparently not, so, why shower me with a bunch of Jefferson's quotes that don't answer the question?

        You say you know and understand what the term well regulated meant when our Constitution was written. So say so, in your own words. Don't tell me to go do research. You see, that's a diversion and an insult. You say you know, so tell me.  I believe the words "well-regulated" mean "limited." What do you think they mean?

        Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

        by deben on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:17:04 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Again, you ask the same question... (8+ / 0-)

          ...which has been answered multiple times, yet you insist that it has not.

          This is exactly why your questions are dismissed out of hand -- they have been answered already.  The fact that you don't like the answers really doesn't have anything to do with it.

          Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

          by theatre goon on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 12:30:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I thought you left (0+ / 0-)

            with your comment about seeing "no point in wasting any more time..." Yet, you lurked, rec'ing the other commenter's posts and here you are once again to contribute nothing more than another scold. Why? If there's nothing more to say to me, why?

            Anyway, I asked what the words mean. Not what they meant. It's a good thing to quote the Founders for relevant context, but I asked what to the words "well-regulated" mean. Simply and clearly, what do they mean to us, now? If you don't care to say what they mean to you, fine. I say they mean "limited."

            Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

            by deben on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 03:52:32 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  The words well regulated mean to us now what (7+ / 0-)

              they meant then, well trained and well equipped, it is that simple. Well regulated will continue to mean well trained and well equipped until such a time that we go through the process to amend the Constitution to change the 2nd Amendment so the language of it can reflect a more modern vernacular.

              But I am not too sure that would be such a good idea for those such as yourself that seem to be of the opinion that well regulated means limited. Firearm laws are being reformed and becoming more liberal. 49 states have passed laws allowing citizens to carry certain concealed firearms in public, either without a permit or after obtaining a permit from local and/or law enforcement.

              Crime is down.
              According to the figures released today by the FBI, the estimated number of violent crimes in 2010 declined for the fourth consecutive year.  Property crimes also decreased, marking the eighth straight year that the collective estimates for these offenses declined.

              Gun ownership is at its highest since 1993 and is up among women and Democrats with record low numbers of people being in favor of a handgun ban.

              Taking all this into consideration leads me to believe any changes to the 2nd Amendment would result in language that would leave even less doubt as to an individuals right to keep and bear arms and that the is not limited to being a member of a well regulated militia.

              Life is risky, politics is war, government is force and liberty is very expensive.

              by oldpunk on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 05:55:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  "Well-regulated" means "well-equipped?" (0+ / 0-)

                I can understand the "well-trained" meaning, but well-equipped? How's that? Why wouldn't the Founders just say a well-equipped militia? Regulations means regulations, even in George Washington's army.

                Thanks though for the quotes. The ones by Jefferson are excellent. On another occasion we might expand a discussion into the differences between living in 18th century rural Virginia and 21st century Chicago. The quote by Washington, I think, did not help your case; it appears to make exactly the opposite case, one for controls and not liberty. And thanks for venturing with a definition, even though I disagree.

                Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                by deben on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:54:25 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Yeah, I chose to add more to the discussion. (4+ / 0-)

              It's a discussion board -- people do that.

              Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

              by theatre goon on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:16:32 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Not sure what your deal is (0+ / 0-)

                For a person so vested in the 2nd Amendment, it would seem that you'd enjoy sharing your knowledge and passion. Instead it seems you prefer bluster, sarcasm, insults, and belligerence. So, back at you.

                The 2nd Amendment is just a single sentence. I'd think a person could explain what he thinks every word of it means. In his own words.

                Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                by deben on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:59:51 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  My "deal," as you put it... (3+ / 0-)

                  ...is that you have asked the same question over and over, and when it has been answered -- by more than one person in more than one way -- you insist that no one can answer you.

                  I am simply pointing that out.  If you want to term that as "bluster, sarcasm, insults, and belligerence," then that's your decision -- but you are using those words inaccurately, as well.  It would seem that is the entire basis of your "argument," to define words the way you want to, no matter their actual definitions.

                  You are, therefore, obviously not asking the question in good faith -- you have already decided that the only acceptable answer is one that agrees with you.

                  So sorry I won't provide that for you.  

                  And, for some reason, pointing this out seems to be problematic for you.  I wonder why that is?

                  And, I've already decided on the answer to that last question -- if you don't answer it the way I want you to, I'll just insist that you haven't answered it at all.  I'm sure you won't find that problematic.

                  Yes, I often dress as a pirate. Your point?

                  by theatre goon on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 04:45:00 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  I take a shot at this, pun intended... (6+ / 0-)

              Reading through this subthread I see a couple of things that have not been clarified and need to be understood first.

              The Constitution does not grant us anything, it is the rulebook we gave our created central gov't. How, what, when, where and why they have the limited authorities we bestowed upon it.  It matters not what is contained in the constitution, the people both individually and collectively (through State representation) retain their sovereignty.

              The dangerous progressive ideal our founders established for the first time in human history was that sovereignty flows from the individual not a monarch.   There is no "right of kings" any longer.

              The individual looses nothing by granting authority to the government.  This quote from the First Debates in Congress, when they were actually arguing for and against a Bill Of Rights establishes this without a doubt:

              http://memory.loc.gov/...

              Page 742:

                   "I would gentlemen to consider the authorities upon which the two constitutions are to stand. The original was established by the people at large, by conventions chosen by the for the express purpose. The preamble to the constitution declares the act: but will it be a truth in ratifying the next constitution, which is to be done perhaps by the State Legislatures, and not conventions chosen for the purpose?

                  Will gentlemen say it is "We the people" in this case? Certainly they cannot; for, by the present constitution, we, nor all the legislatures in the Union together, do not possess the power of repealing it. All that is granted us, by the 5th article is, that whenever we shall think it necessary, we may propose amendments to the constitution: not that we may propose to repeal the old and substitute a new one.

                  The amendments reported are a declaration of rights; the people are secure in them, whether we declare them or not;"

              Please note here that you and I, as Americans, are born with unalienable rights, whether or not our created government understands, recognizes or even accepts them today.  Nothing they dictate can remove these rights, ever.

              Now that this fact has been established, lets move on to the next point you need to understand.  

              The next point would be the actual amendments submitted with the newly ratified constitution by the majority of the 13 States.  Interestingly here, most have not been taught our actual history.  New Hampshire submitted the following as their 12th Amendment:

              http://www.usconstitution.net/...

              XII. Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.

              The funny thing here is that Virginia, North Carolina and Rhode Island submitted the following religious exemption:

              http://www.dailykos.com/...

              19th. That any person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms ought to be exempted upon payment of an equivalent to employ another to bear arms in his stead.

              Clearly they were all talking about an individual right to keep and bear arms, not the false "collective right" espoused today.

              The final point, "well regulated" meant to the founders:

              http://www.constitution.org/...

              "It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected."

              My personal opinion has always been that even if the 2nd A granted limited authority of the regulation and bearing of arms by our created government, the 2nd also makes clear when that unalienable right could be usurped or abrogated, DURING MILITIA SERVICE, not before or after.

              Now you stated that Hamilton was not your "liberal soulmate" but you might be interested in understanding where he actually stood on the enumeration of a "Bill Of Rights" in his Federalist Paper #84, whom he wrote for and to the People of the State of New York:

              http://www.constitution.org/...

              I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

              In my humble opinion, if you don't read the entire Federalist #84, authored by Hamilton himself, you will not understand what he actually stood for, what all our Founders stood for and what our constitution does and does not do.

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 06:57:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  The only question I asked (0+ / 0-)

                and addressed myself is the meaning of "well-regulated." Thanks for all the other info. (I just can't stand Hamilton. He was devious as hell. Best give up trying to make me like him.)

                Your final point responds to my question:

                The final point, "well regulated" meant to the founders:

                http://www.constitution.org/....

                    "It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected."

                The link you provided listed historical uses from the Oxford English Dictionary, which appear to me to support the meaning of "regulated" that I give. Not as unbridled liberty, but as as controlled.

                Now, since the historic uses are there, why did you not quote them and instead quoted a commenter's interpretation on the Internet? Because he agrees with yours? Surely you know you did that.

                Thanks for the response though.

                Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                by deben on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:22:40 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Are you reading some other link? (3+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  oldpunk, theatre goon, joe wobblie
                  which appear to me to support the meaning of "regulated" that I give

                  The synopsis of the author is what you seem to now focus on???

                  Here, to be fair for those whom can't click on the link:

                  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."

                  Let's look at today's definition of "regulated":

                   

                  1.
                        regulated past participle, past tense of reg·u·late (Verb)
                        Verb:   
                           1. Control or maintain the rate or speed of (a machine or process) so that it operates properly.
                           2. Control or supervise (something, esp. a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations.
                        More info »Merriam-Webster - The Free Dictionary

                  I'm still missing how you can say it supports your position, are you being sarcastic here???

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:35:20 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  You quoted the synopsis (0+ / 0-)

                    instead of the sources, so how it me who focused on the synopsis?

                    And, yes, "controlled" is my definition of regulated. So the historical quotes support my explanation.

                    The 2nd Amendment right is limited by two modifiers: "regulated," as in controlled, and "well," as in to a high degree. A right to bear arms but controlled to a high degree.

                    Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                    by deben on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:20:01 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                •  Hamilton was devious, he was a politician after (4+ / 0-)

                  all.  And the First Secretary of the Treasury.

                  He had ample opportunity to establish his opinions while office, yet he didn't.  Why's that? Maybe he took extreme positions during the Constitutional Conventions as a political tactic to get to what he actually wanted and believed? A strong AND limited central government superior to the States but not so strong as to abrogate individual unalienable rights?

                  Just maybe...

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 08:44:08 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Not interested in Hamilton (0+ / 0-)

                    As I said.

                    Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                    by deben on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 09:30:54 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Hum, is that because what he actually (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      joe wobblie

                      warned against in Federalist #84 has and is occurring?

                      That due to those enumerated unalienable rights, our created government has done the following:

                      They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?

                      Or is it because he goes on to warn against the very tactic you are trying to use here with us?

                      Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government

                      ARE YOU NOT NOW CLAIMING THIS TO BE THE CASE WITH THE 2ND AMENDMENT? Has this not happened to all of the Bill of Rights, except maybe the 3rd...???

                      Methinks so...

                      Ignoring Hamilton is the only choice you have, dare not anyone actually understand the falsity of your current position.

                      -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                      by gerrilea on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 12:31:36 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Not interested in Hamilton (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        gerrilea

                        As I said.

                        btw, here's the page of historical usages from the Unabridged Oxford English Dictionary for the two entries: "regulated."

                        ˈregulated, ppl. a.

                        [f. prec. + -ed1.]

                        a.a Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard, etc. regulated tenancy, a tenancy the rent of which is regulated by the terms of the Rent Acts (see quot. 1965).
                           Also freq. in combs., as badly-regulated, ill-regulated, well-regulated.

                           1641 W. T. (title) Regulated Zeal, or, An earnest request to all Zealously affected Christians, to seeke the desired Reformation in a peaceable way.    1697 Jos. Woodward Relig. Soc. London ii. (1701) 19 Those regulated Societies, which are now conspicuous among us for many good works.    a 1704 T. Brown Satire Antients Wks. 1730 I. 16 These [verses]‥had regulated forms, that is regular dances and musick.    1766 Compl. Farmer s.v. Surveying, Then may you measure all the whole chains by your regulated chain.    a 1790 Adam Smith W.N. v. i. iii. i. (Bohn) II. 253 When those companies‥are obliged to admit any person, properly qualified,‥they are called regulated companies.    1828 Spearman Brit. Gunner (ed. 2) 336 They are fired with a regulated charge of powder and shot.    1848 Alison Hist. Europe ii. §23 I. 121 Regulated freedom is the greatest blessing in life.    1965 Act Eliz. II c. 75 §1 In this Act ‘regulated tenancy’ means—a) a tenancy to which the Rent Acts apply by virtue of this section; or b) a statutory tenancy arising on the termination of such a tenancy as is mentioned in paragraph (a) of this subsection.    1970 Internat. & Compar. Law Q. 4th Ser. XIX. ii. 206 Unfurnished tenancies under the Rent Act being either (2) ‘controlled’ or (3) ‘regulated tenancies’.

                        †b.b Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare—1.

                           1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

                        c.c Proverb.

                           1819 ‘P. Atall’ Hermit in America i. 29 Accidents will happen in the best regulated families.    1850 Dickens Dav. Copp. xxviii. 291 ‘My dear friend Copperfield,’ said Mr. Micawber, ‘accidents will occur in the best regulated families; and in families not regulated by that pervading influence‥of Woman.’    1864 C. M. Yonge Trial II. iii. 60 Accidents will happen in the best regulated families.    1939 W. S. Maugham Christmas Holiday x. 285 Accidents will happen in the best regulated families.‥ If you find you've got anything the matter with you‥go and see a doctor right away.    1961 M. Kelly Spoilt Kill iii. 159 Foul play.‥ Even in the best regulated families.

                        and

                        † ˈregulate, ppl. a. Obs.

                        [ad. late L. rēgulāt-us, pa. pple.: see next.]

                        Regulated; regular.

                           a 1577 Sir T. Smith Commw. Eng. i. viii. (1584) 7 The other they call‥the Royall power regulate by lawes.    1603 Florio Montaigne (1634) 262 Brute beasts are much more regulate than we.    1644 Cromwell Let. 10 Mar. in Carlyle, I know you will not think it fit my Lord should discharge an Officer of the Field but in a regulate way.

                        Some more inconvenient truths there about controls and limits. And similar meanings: calibrated and attenuated.

                        Do whatever with it you will, because I'm done with the Hamilton stuff and I've said why; and am leaving you to it. Again, thank you for your responses. You've been civil.

                        Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                        by deben on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 08:30:47 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

        •  Congress retained and commissioned (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, oldpunk, gerrilea, theatre goon

          Prussian-born Friedrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand von Steuben, who served in the Continental Army as a Major General, and was appointed Inspector General and wrote (with aides) "Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States" which served as both the Army and the Militia Manual of Regulation until it was replaced in 1812.

          So in-context, as stated by others, "regulation" is a specified course of both organizational structure, and training.

          To seize upon "well regulated" and to ignore "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" isn't that surprising.

          We've been transfixed upon a notion of freedom from religion for years, while the document states clearly:

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

          The Diarist commented:

          Put simply, the Founding Founders nor most people thought the Constitution guarantees a right to a material object, let alone a gun.

          Recent Bushite legislation, and certain state and lower court opinions have agreed.
          The Fourth Amendment however, didn't:
          The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated

          A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

          by 43north on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 07:34:52 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  asdf (0+ / 0-)
            "Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States"

            The same point I made about George Washington's understanding of regulations. "Well-regulated" means controlled.

            Doesn't seem to be we share the interpretation, but "regulations for order and discipline" sounds to me like the very definition of limits and controls. The right to bear arms is limited by the 2nd Amendment.

            Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

            by deben on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 10:12:01 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Repeating a falsity does not make it true. (4+ / 0-)

              Well-regulated meant well trained.

              And you've actually ignored what has been presented.

              EVEN if we accepted your definition, then the ONLY time the Central Government could "regulate arm" would be during MILITIA Service, NOT BEFORE OR AFTER.

              Show me where, when or how we granted any government the exclusive right to arms.

              Where did women stand against this thinking? They kept & bore arms too. Or was the 2nd A only applicable to men 18-45 yrs of age? I guess we'd have to assume that is the case then. Since the Constitution didn't recognize women, they obviously were not bound by it.

              Do you now wish to pretend that we didn't overthrow a tyrannical government by exercising our unalienable right to keep & bear arms?

              Or are you now trying to tell us that after we gave our own blood to be free we immediately gave up the very power that allowed us to do so?

              All those warnings to future generations about having a standing army were just quaint parables?

              So fearful were the founders of standing armies they limited the government funding of such to 2 years. That means nothing today?

              The Militia Act of 1792 made it mandatory that every male 18-45 be armed. How again does your belief fit with this? Keep in mind that act was the law of the land until the Dick Act of 1903 that recognized two distinct groups of militia, unorganized and organized.

              How does your definition float with current US Code?
               10 USC CHAPTER 13 - THE MILITIA  

              -STATUTE-
                    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
                  males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
                  313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
                  declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
                  and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
                  National Guard.
                    (b) The classes of the militia are -
                      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
                    and the Naval Militia; and
                      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
                    the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
                    Naval Militia.

              How do you square your position with the passage of the NDAA that makes the entire world the battlefield giving that standing army the ultimate authority to seize, torture and even kill you or I without charge?

              -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

              by gerrilea on Sun Jan 08, 2012 at 11:24:19 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Yeah, militias... (0+ / 0-)

                So the limits written into the 2nd Amendment apply only to militias? Anybody can play these games. How about if the whole right to bear arms of the 2nd Amendment applies only to militias? Well. Regulated. Militias. How's that for fun? I don't happen to hold that view, but I don't share your extreme views either. And this whole giant, wild list of accusations hurled at me... Sure. Just because of two words? Words written in our Constitution. Well-regulated. Not well-supplied. Not well-equipped. Not well-trained. Well-regulated. The right to bear arms is limited by the Constitution, controlled to a high degree. The discussion on this thread helped clarify my understanding of the 2nd Amendment as a limit on the right to bear arms. And I'm out of here. Have the last word.

                Sunday mornings are more beautiful without Meet the Press.

                by deben on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 09:00:07 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Because of these things... (4+ / 0-)
                  Anybody can play these games.

                  Respectfully, this isn't a game.

                  The right to bear arms is limited by the Constitution, controlled to a high degree.

                  NO, the Constitution limits our government, not us.  This simple fact you cannot deny, denounce or obfuscate.  The constitution does not grant me a damn thing nor does it control me, it is the rulebook our government MUST follow.

                  OUR unalienable rights DO NOT come from our created government or a damn piece of paper, WE ARE BORN WITH THEM, AS AMERICANS.

                  Does it not say "well-regulated militia..."? It doesn't say "well-regulated women, blacks, babysitters, children or doctors, does it?  And since the "militia" was further defined in the Militia Act of 1792 as every able bodied, land owning white male 18-45, they were being VERY SPECIFIC whom could be controlled by this amendment and when.

                  I think your anger is misplaced here.  I've shown you that you are mistaken in your interpretations and why...

                  -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                  by gerrilea on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 11:07:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  deben, if you obtained a copy of said manual (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              theatre goon, gerrilea, KVoimakas

              (available in reprint) you'd find zero content regarding the notion of mandatory armory storage, or other curtailment to civilian possession of arms and the means to fire them.

              That arms, ordinance, larger stores of power and shot should be maintained by the States for use by the militia?  Yes.  You'd find that advice.  
              That bivouac tents, mess (meal) tents and provisions should be maintained by the States?  Yes.
              You'd find that too.

              That Companies of "Regulars" be organized, equipped and trained in a certain fashion?  Yes.  It's in the manual.

              That Townsfolk, not comprising "Regulars" become unorganized "Irregulars" and may be called-out for service in other than 100 man Companies?  Yes.  
              That too is of historical note, and value.  
              For if you're under the age of 18, or over the age of 45 - you were no longer bound to Militia service.

              When called-upon however, a number of younger and older citizens gave service - and their lives - to aid the Militia and/or the standing Army.

              A man who stands for nothing, will fall for anything. ~ Malcolm X.

              by 43north on Mon Jan 09, 2012 at 02:37:57 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site