Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

RKBA Redux

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by tgzzzz, Feb 6, 2013.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. tgzzzz

    tgzzzz Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    NC
    Discussion often mentions infringement/compromise/non-compliance. Rarely do I read much about the rest of the Second Amendment. A factoid I found notes that this amendment is the only one that states a purpose:

    A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

    That's troublesome to me. Not just a militia; a well regulated militia. However, it doesn't say who should do the regulating. Perhaps that's a foot in the door for good against evil.

    Also, a suggestion was made yesterday regarding the 10th A, and the reserved powers clause. On reconsideration, the 9th A perhaps offers an opportunity for expansion of gun rights. How's that for a happy thought? The 9th says that the people (not the govt) have rights that aren't listed.

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

    Cat-skinning, graduate level.
     
  2. Creature

    Creature Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    "Well regulated" in the parlance of the day meant "well trained" and "in good supply and working order".
     
  3. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,703
    Location:
    Arlington, Republic of Texas
    tgzzz, you've been lied to your whole life about what "regulate" actually means. It doesn't mean "control". It just means "to make regular". In the context of "well regulated militias"it would mean having the same equipment, firing the same caliber, knowing the same tactics and formations, having the same minimum level of training, etc. So when militias from different areas fight together they are not totally incapable of working together. Think about why members of actual standing armies back then were called "Regulars". Because they were all part of a formal organization with streamlined and standardized equipment, training, rank structure, etc.

    Regulate does not mean blanket control. That's what politicians of today would have you think it means. It really just means to make things the same.
     
  4. mikechandler

    mikechandler Member

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2011
    Messages:
    97
    Regulated simply meant experienced and militia was a latin word meaning a group of volunteer civilians standing by in case of emergency, usually pertaining to fires.

    Overtime the meaning of those two words have evolved. That's why it's important to read the actual discussions had at the time of the bill of rights, where it is spelled out in non-ambiguous detail.

    As for the rest of it yes, indeed - the 2nd says "shall not be infringed", meaning we have the right naturally, it is not a product of the constitution, it is inherent to humanity, and the government has no right to strip us of it.
     
  5. Trent

    Trent Resident Wiseguy

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2010
    Messages:
    18,415
    Location:
    Illinois
    In 1670's, the word regulation meant rule for management - well regulated, is well managed, or well ordered.

    A well-regulated militia, at the time, would be "a well ordered militia, by which the standard is set." (If you were talking about a clock, it would be "a well regulated time piece, by which other time pieces could be set")

    In other words, a "well-regulated militia" is a militia held to a HIGH STANDARD.

    The idea at the time was to have a militia capable of serving in a capacity that required no national standing army. In other words, our militia (comprised of all able bodied men, capable of bearing arms) needed to be sufficiently armed and orderly so as to stand up to, and fight on equal footing, a regular army.

    Which it had just DONE, and subsequently did AGAIN in fighting AFTER the birth of the US.

    The argument from the other side (and this has been going on for the last 100+ years), is that "since we now HAVE a standing army, we do not NEED a militia". And they've effectively done just that!

    The reason for the shift is back in the late 1800's, the "Militia" had a rather horrible record, and motley bands of citizenry were not all that impressive when turned out.

    This lead to the passage of the Militia act, which called for the standardization of State militias with that of Federal - rank structure, tables of organization, equipment, and so on would match that of the Federal army.

    The Militia act also specified that anyone NOT in the organized state Militia was still part of the UNorganized militia, because - and I emphasize - they could not change the Constitution of the US, with the passage of a law, specifically Bill of Right number 2. That right specifically and clearly spelled out that ALL able bodied men are part of the militia of the United States.

    However, they've never taken the step of MODIFYING the original constitution's bill of rights.

    So the original purpose of the 2nd amendment still stands.

    The intent of which follows:

    "A well-equipped and orderly mass of able-bodied citizens, being necessary to secure the homeland and freedoms we have, from all enemies and sources, the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms of a type sufficient to that purpose, shall not be infringed."
     
    Last edited: Feb 6, 2013
  6. Creature

    Creature Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,709
    Location:
    Virginia Beach
    ...I guess my definition wasn't wordy enough.
     
  7. tgzzzz

    tgzzzz Member

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2013
    Messages:
    43
    Location:
    NC
    Heh heh, apparently not.

    This is interesting: "A well-equipped and orderly mass of able-bodied citizens, being necessary to secure the homeland and freedoms we have, from all enemies and sources, the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms of a type sufficient to that purpose, shall not be infringed."

    I can't imagine any weapon more suited to this purpose than a black, scary-looking one!
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page