Jump to content

Here we go again with misreading "well regulated" again...


mikew
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2022/06/second-amendment-gun-regulations/661208/

 

Don’t Forget the First Half of the Second Amendment

The amendment doesn’t prohibit gun regulations; it demands them.

ends with:

When we Americans next hear that the Second Amendment protects a right against more effective regulation of weapons capable of imposing death on our neighbors, we should insist in response that the Second Amendment requires the opposite. It empowers a free people to regulate weapons as necessary to maintain their security and to protect their freedoms from fear and violence. We can be free, but only if we regulate guns—just as the Second Amendment tells us.

 

 

Here we go again.

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • mikew changed the title to Here we go again with misreading "well regulated" again...

I saw an explanation of being well regulated on a history program about the British fleet. Since sailing ships required many hands to operate, British sailors were a diverse lot.  So Admiral Nelson trained his cannon crews until muscle memory would carry them through the chaos of battle smoke, flying splinters, and death.

 

Victory at the Battle of Trafalgar was achieved because their training achieved a rate of fire every 90 seconds per cannon- versus 3 minutes for the enemy. Being well-regulated like a watch mechanism was the key to surviving naval battles, and a much different meaning than "follow all the rules that we set forth for you". 

 

The Founders knew that defending against a well-trained British army or a home invasion while asleep would require similar survival skills. But gun grabbers discourage training, don't they?  

Edited by RECarry
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another totalitarian forgets there are two groups of people in the 2nd amendment.

* the well regulated militia AND

* the people 

 

Yes, the militia has to be regulated.

Doesn't say anything about the people being "regulated"

 

The people have a fundamental human right to self defense which the 2nd amendment is about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article places a great emphasis on freedom from fear. Based on his logic the media should be limited on what they report. Much of people's fears are based on information and opinions in the media. Maybe if people like him did not keep pushing the issue there would be less fear. He is lawyer. How many people are living in fear because some lawyer helped to keep a violent person out of jail? I am not arguing against freedom of speech or due process. I am just pointing out the fallacy of his points. 

 

The idea of a free State could also be seen as protecting the country from a foreign takeover. The State remains free and independent. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/13/2022 at 10:31 AM, BobPistol said:

Another totalitarian forgets there are two groups of people in the 2nd amendment.

* the well regulated militia AND

* the people 

 

Yes, the militia has to be regulated.

Doesn't say anything about the people being "regulated"

 

The people have a fundamental human right to self defense which the 2nd amendment is about.

Not so sure there are two types. The people are the militia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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." (other docs say “Major”)
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

 

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.

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+did+regulated+mean+in+1788&ia=web

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 6:07 AM, GTX63 said:

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." (other docs say “Major”)
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."

 

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.

 

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=what+did+regulated+mean+in+1788&ia=web

The best explanation yet! Also, here is a link to an old Penn & Teller clip on the 2nd. WARNING!!! This is an, "F" word Warning for the end of the video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P4zE0K22zH8

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the sense that it was used in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" meant, "well trained," meaning that citizens needed to be proficient with their individual weapons at all times, in the event they needed to bring it with them in forming a militia to fight a tyrannical government.  Period.  What the gun grabbers refuse to acknowledge is that they were meant to be on an even keel with the soldiers of a regular army, which at the time would have been equipped with muskets, in order to give them parity with the regular army to be opposed.  This means that, today, citizens should be armed with M4's and M16's.  That right has already been (probably irreparably) infringed.  Now, they don't even want you to have the civilian version.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Heller explained this in simple words, but like any good gun grabber they entirely ignore Heller.

 

The Amendment's prefatory clause {{A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State}} announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause's {{the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.}} text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

A Constitution without the right to an effective defense of life, liberty, and property would delegitimize any government said to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people."

 

See the Ninth Amendment:

 

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

 

So, by the Ninth Amendment, whether the people's right to life were enumerated in the Constitution, or not, it would be ABSURD to hold that the natural right of a person to an effective defense of one's own life does NOT exist, both within and without the Constitution.

 

 

Edited by Str8Shooter
Adding neccesary clarification
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/14/2022 at 10:32 AM, 2A4Cook said:

In the sense that it was used in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" meant, "well trained," meaning that citizens needed to be proficient with their individual weapons at all times, in the event they needed to bring it with them in forming a militia to fight a tyrannical government.  Period.  What the gun grabbers refuse to acknowledge is that they were meant to be on an even keel with the soldiers of a regular army, which at the time would have been equipped with muskets, in order to give them parity with the regular army to be opposed.  This means that, today, citizens should be armed with M4's and M16's.  That right has already been (probably irreparably) infringed.  Now, they don't even want you to have the civilian version.

 

The 2nd Amendment was NEVER meant for the citizen to fight against a "tyrannical government" that is simply a modern lie that has been feed to many. If you read the Constitution and the history of the era the idea of a standing army was what was feared. That is why the army may only be funded in two year increments (not so for the navy BTW), instead the idea of a citizens militia was to be the norm and why was that militia needed? Well we can look right in the Constitution for that answer: 

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power.....

 

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

IOW the militia was to quell internal uprising against the government aka PROTECT the government from being overthrown not to be the cause of overthrowing it. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 5:21 PM, ScottFM said:

...

 

IOW the militia was to quell internal uprising against the government aka PROTECT the government from being overthrown not to be the cause of overthrowing it. 

 

I have to hand it to you, that is new one to me and I think of myself as pretty well versed on the talking points they try to use against us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 5:28 PM, mauserme said:

 

I have to hand it to you, that is new one to me and I think of myself as pretty well versed on the talking points they try to use against us.

I am surprised that it is new to you. It is actually in the Constitution, that is why I quoted the section from Article 1 Section where is specifically says that is the role of the militia.

"Section 8.

The Congress shall have power.....

 

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;"

 

Plenty of history books talk of it too! When Jefferson actually did get rid of the standing army, that laid the ground work for the British to get in and burn the capital. The militia actually failed to defend against invasion and afterwards we have had a standing army. But one that still needs to be re-funded the budget every two years. Nowhere in the Constitution is there a right for one to overthrow the government. 

 

The whole "we need the 2nd Amendment to defend against a tyrannical government"  is a 20th century talking point and is derived from ideas in the Declaration of Independence not the US Constitution. What is interesting, and a bit off topic, is the Constitution is not rigid and itself includes a method via the amendment process so it can be adapted to subsequent generations. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 5:21 PM, ScottFM said:

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

IOW the militia was to quell internal uprising against the government aka PROTECT the government from being overthrown not to be the cause of overthrowing it. 

 

A limited congressional power to use the militia within a limited scope does not equate to that limited scope being the sole purpose and limits of the militia itself, it's simply a limit on when Congress may call the militia to their bidding, it does not define or limit the militia itself.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 5:47 PM, mauserme said:

We'll keep fighting for our rights, but you do you.

I get that you might have another opinion. I welcome your counter argument if you have any. In the meantime it is even noted in DC vs Heller and written by Justice Scalia that:

 

Four States adopted analogues to the Federal Second Amendment in the period between independence and the ratification of the Bill of Rights. Two of them— Pennsylvania and Vermont—clearly adopted individual rights unconnected to militia service. Pennsylvania’s Declaration of Rights of 1776 said: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the state . . . .” §XIII, in 5 Thorpe 3082, 3083 (emphasis added). In 1777, Vermont adopted the identical provision, except for inconsequential differences in punctuation and capitalization. See Vt. Const., ch. 1, §15, in 6 id., at 3741. North Carolina also codified a right to bear arms in 1776: “That the people have a right to bear arms, for the defence of the State . . . .” Declaration of Rights §XVII, in id., at 2787, 2788. This could plausibly be read to support only a right to bear arms in a militia—but that is a peculiar way to make the point in a constitution that elsewhere repeatedly mentions the militia explicitly. See §§14, 18, 35, in 5 id., 2789, 2791, 2793. Many colonial statutes required individual arms-bearing for public-safety reasons—such as the 1770 Georgia law that “for the security and defence of this province from internal dangers and insurrections” required those men who qualified for militia duty individually “to carry fire arms” “to places of public worship.”

 

In all of these cases the bearing of arms was there to protect the state, not mount an insurrection, revolution, etc against it.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 5:21 PM, ScottFM said:

 

The 2nd Amendment was NEVER meant for the citizen to fight against a "tyrannical government" that is simply a modern lie that has been feed to many. If you read the Constitution and the history of the era the idea of a standing army was what was feared. That is why the army may only be funded in two year increments (not so for the navy BTW), instead the idea of a citizens militia was to be the norm and why was that militia needed? Well we can look right in the Constitution for that answer: 

Section 8.

The Congress shall have power.....

 

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

 

IOW the militia was to quell internal uprising against the government aka PROTECT the government from being overthrown not to be the cause of overthrowing it. 

🤣🤣🤣🤪

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 7:50 PM, ScottFM said:

In all of these cases the bearing of arms was there to protect the state, not mount an insurrection, revolution, etc against it.  

 

Heller-  "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" 

 

All the while you still trying to limit the 2nd to militia activity or Legislative constraints when they may call upon the militia, while arguing upon the debunked fallacy that the 2nd is a militia right and not an individual right.

Edited by Flynn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/1/2022 at 9:11 PM, Flynn said:

 

Heller-  "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms" 

 

All the while you still trying to limit the 2nd to militia activity or Legislative constraints when they may call upon the militia, while arguing upon the debunked fallacy that the 2nd is a militia right and not an individual right.

You misconstrue what I am saying. I am not talking at all about the individual right nor have I made any claim about it. I am not really sure why you you think I am arguing the point of individual right vs group right when I have not said anything about that. 

 

I am saying that the claim by one writer in this thread that the 2nd Amendment was meant to create a "militia to fight a tyrannical government" is NOT anywhere written in the Constitution and in fact the 2nd Amendment contradicts that intent by specifically and unambiguously stating that the right is their to quell insurrection and quell invasion. 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

While Some might doubt this guy’s knowledge about intent or discussions at the time the 2A was developed, he sure seems to quote a view that may be in conflict to some thoughts proposed in this thread:

 

f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens.” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 28, January 10, 1788

 

I don’t suspect there was any doubt as to the intent in the 2A to keep power with individuals.

 

“The Constitution 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.” – Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

 

 

“Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined…. The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

 

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” – Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
 

The use of arms to protect liberty from both current government and invading nations (as well as for individual safety/defense) was clearly a prevalent theme at the time and implied in the 2nd.  Any true study of the discussions of the founders shows it to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The idea of individuals being able to fight back against a tyrannical government is not that far fetched at all. 

 

The founders feared a standing army and sought to have civilian control over it. They had just gotten done fighting the world's superpower. and in a fledgling country were very skeptical of concentrated power. Hence we have 3 branches of government with a bi-camel legislature. 

Its not ill conceived that a standing army that decides to take over like some ghunta in a banana republic -- becomes the government. Or that a government who had other motives would turn that standing army against the people. 

 

Its not complicated  or difficult to comprehend. Not to mention all their fears of centralized government. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read the writings and arguments of the Founding Fathers in arriving at our Constitution and Bill of Rights.  The same as one would do in researching the legislative history of a statute to better understand its meaning and intent.  The Founders didn't have to go crazy inserting every single intended aspect of our natural rights protected under the Second Amendment, because they held it so utterly inalienable that it is the ONLY individual right they mandated that it "may not be infringed" by the state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...