Second Amendment: The Meaning Of "Well Regulated"

[AdultPornMasta]

The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen <[email protected]>

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."

The phrase has been wontonly morphed into "well controlled" by the so-called "liberals" just as prior to the FDR administration the USA was known to be a REPUBLIC but after it became known as a "Democracy", which it is not now, nor has it ever been.

It is not:



But rather:

[SuckOnThis]

This isnt the 1700's, hasnt been for over 200 years.


http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...well-regulated

well-regulated

Definitions

adjective

(of a business, military outfit, routine, etc) controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations

[SilentKnight]

Why does this need its own independent thread?

[12clicks]

Originally Posted by SuckOnThis

This isnt the 1700's, hasnt been for over 200 years.


http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dic...well-regulated

well-regulated

Definitions

adjective

(of a business, military outfit, routine, etc) controlled or supervised to conform to rules, regulations

The beauty of this post is knowing this loser will spend his whole life at the bottom

[SuckOnThis]

Originally Posted by 12clicks

The beauty of this post is knowing this loser will spend his whole life at the bottom

Better than spending your whole life putting spyware on peoples computers.

[Shotsie]

Originally Posted by AdultPornMasta

The phrase has been wontonly morphed into "well controlled" by the so-called "liberals" just as prior to the FDR administration the USA was known to be a REPUBLIC but after it became known as a "Democracy", which it is not now, nor has it ever been.

And what is a republic? Don't worry, I'll wait while you go look it up on Wikipedia.

Edit: Haven't finished reading the Wikipedia article yet? Jesus Christmas, if this board is any kind of litmus test, I'd say this country is fucked.

[Rochard]

Originally Posted by SilentKnight

Why does this need its own independent thread?

Because this thread needs to be well regulated.

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Because this thread needs to be well regulated.

[Mutt]

only a dumb liberal would hang his hat on applying a 21st century definition of a term used in the 18th century.

on the other hand, should we be applying 18th century laws on a much different 21st century world.

times change, an Amendment has been repealed but it happened only once, Prohibition of alcohol, the 2nd Amendment will never be repealed. the Supreme Court though in its decisions can change the interpretation of an Amendment. And it's done that in cases involving the 2nd Amendment, making gun control laws constitutionally legal and illegal. If Obama enacts new gun control laws, the Supreme Court will ultimately decide if the new laws stand.

I think banning a class of weapons is a slam dunk constitutionally with a court that leans liberal. I don't see where in the 2nd Amendment it says you can own any arms imaginable. Is it legal for a citizen to possess a tactical nuclear weapon?

[SilentKnight]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Is it legal for a citizen to possess a tactical nuclear weapon?

It would be a definite tactical advantage in a gun fight.

[TheSquealer]

Uhmm.. the Constitution says "well regulated MILITIA"

Meaning of "well regulated militia"
The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained". In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

In Federalist No. 29, Alexander Hamilton suggested that well-regulated refers not only to "organizing", "disciplining", and "training" the militia, but also to "arming" the militia:
This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by congress."

A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

"If a well regulated militia be the most natural defence of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security...confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority...(and) reserving to the states...the authority of training the militia".

[TheSquealer]

Which Militia do I automatically belong to when I go buy a pistol at Walmart or win a shotgun in a raffle?

[Mutt]

nobody gave their input - so...................

[AdultPornMasta]

Originally Posted by Mutt

Is it legal for a citizen to possess a tactical nuclear weapon?

And yes, I do know the correct answer.

[Seth Manson]

Originally Posted by TheSquealer

Which Militia do I automatically belong to when I go buy a pistol at Walmart or win a shotgun in a raffle?

You are obviously already a member of the Idiot Militia since you believe that you can buy a pistol at Walmart.

[Joshua G]

the meaning of words in the constitution are irrelevent. all that matters is getting your team into SCOTUS.

after all, once john roberts affirmed obamacare using the tax code (a line of reasoning even obamacare supporters rejected in oral argument) then its obvious all that justices will use whatever means necessary to get to their ends.

[sperbonzo]

Washington DC V Heller:


(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.

(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment. Pp. 28–30.

(d) The Second Amendment’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.

(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.




.

[Mutt]

Originally Posted by sperbonzo

(f) None of the Court?s precedents forecloses the Court?s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47?54.

there already was an assault weapons ban law, why was it allowed to expire? i see the law was never legally challenged.

now that i have been reading up a lot on this issue, the regulation of private gun sales needs to be really tightened up - no reason why a private citizen who wants to sell a gun shouldn't have to go through the same checks and paper work as a gun retailer does. make it a criminal offense with jail time to sell guns without abiding by the regulations.

it's a headache selling a car privately, no reason why selling a gun shouldn't be regulated.