ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Regulated . . . again?
The two words that seem to cause the most stumbling are REGULATED and MILITIA.
1) In the language of the day, a MILITIA was all able-bodied men. In the language engendered by political correctness, today that would be able-bodied persons.
2) In the language of the day, REGULATED had the common meaning of DISCIPLINED, PRACTICED, or SKILLED.
It is therefore completely valid to write this as,
"A prepared citizenry well-practiced at arms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people . . ."
or
"A prepared citizenry disciplined and skilled at arms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people . . ."
In any case, as has been clearly remarked by such notables as the US Attorney, nowhere in the constitution is the word "right" used in any context other than those applying to individuals. The governments (State and Federal) are mentioned in the context of "power" and "authority" but never as having rights.
It's a right. Rights are only viable as a concept as being an attribute of an individual. There are, constitutionally, no "group" rights. If groups have rights, it is only as a consequence and extension of the individual right.
The two words that seem to cause the most stumbling are REGULATED and MILITIA.
1) In the language of the day, a MILITIA was all able-bodied men. In the language engendered by political correctness, today that would be able-bodied persons.
2) In the language of the day, REGULATED had the common meaning of DISCIPLINED, PRACTICED, or SKILLED.
It is therefore completely valid to write this as,
"A prepared citizenry well-practiced at arms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people . . ."
or
"A prepared citizenry disciplined and skilled at arms being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people . . ."
In any case, as has been clearly remarked by such notables as the US Attorney, nowhere in the constitution is the word "right" used in any context other than those applying to individuals. The governments (State and Federal) are mentioned in the context of "power" and "authority" but never as having rights.
It's a right. Rights are only viable as a concept as being an attribute of an individual. There are, constitutionally, no "group" rights. If groups have rights, it is only as a consequence and extension of the individual right.