Why keep bringing up the 2nd Amendment?

[Deanimator]

I wasn't referring to the Battle of the Bulge, which took place in France.

I believe it took place in Belgium. But,no matter.

Do you remember the cute comic strip "Calvin & Hobbs"?

If so, do you remember the story where rather than do the research for his assigned report on bats, Calvin instead winged it and wrote, "Bats are bugs."? The whole class laughed at him, including Susie Derkins.

When Timmy cites "facts" it's kind of like that...

 

[NickEllis]

Timmy, this question of the dictionary definition of well-regulated is an interesting point, and one that needs more airtime:


From the 1700's meaning of "well regulated": "Of troops, properly disciplined."

See the following contexts from that period of time:

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 conveys the meaning of well regulated:
"Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army."
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

1690 London Gazette 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."


"I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got."
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations, but rather the militia that is best equipped and trained/prepared.

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

In short, when the constitution was written the phrase "well-regulated" was different than the common modern vernacular. Example after example from that time period shows that when "regulated" is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

See here: http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

 

[natman]

Timmy, I've been arguing this issue for 40 years and I've heard your arguments before many times. In 2008 the Supreme Court settled most of them with DC v Heller. Here are the main points:

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. (page 1)

In addition, in Heller the court commented on a previous decision, US v Miller which was about the National Firearms Act, which regulated machine guns, short barreled shotguns, etc:

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation.

Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, 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. (page 2).

[emphasis added]

Now if there was ever a gun that is in common use for lawful purposes, it's the AR15 that some want to ban. It's exactly the sort of gun that the second amendment is all about. The proposed ban flies directly in the face of the second amendment in general and Heller in particular.

That's why the second amendment is relevant to the discussion.

I strongly advise you to read Heller yourself, you'll find it enlightening:

http://www.scotusblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/07-290.pdf

 

[9MMare]

I have two questions for those of you who seem to hold what I would regard as an absolutist viewpoint of the 2nd Amendment:

1. Currently it is extremely difficult for a private citizen to possess a fully automatic weapon. Do you believe that any American citizen should be able to possess such a weapon without restriction?

2. In the first part of the 2nd Amendment, what does the term "well-regulated" mean?

You can no longer counter arguments on high cap magazines so you attempt to shift the discussion?

I dont know much about full-autos but 'well-regulated' means 'trained' in the usage of the time. Hence there still are 'Army regulars.'

There, courtesy answers....I hope you'll continue with the same.

 

[Deanimator]

The word "regulated" has a very specific meaning.

Really?

What does it mean when referring to a double rifle?

 

[skeeziks]

"Someone did post that before, but thanks. I skimmed the article. Later I'll read it in it's entirety. I don't think it's going to justify a 30 round magazine as a NECESSITY for home defense, however."

Yes...that was Me. I posted it.
I am just reminding you because it is very important and can save your life.

 

[c4v3man]

But I don't find "well-schooled" to be analogous with "well-regulated". The word "regulated" has a very specific meaning. It seems to me that this phrase allows the government to make reasonable restrictions regulating the militia, which in this case means the people. Thus, while we cannot unreasonably restrict the ownership of firearms, we can reasonably regulate their ownership. Is this a reasonable interpretation?

No, it is not.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=2739870581644084946&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose. The Amendment could be rephrased, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

The Supreme court has decided. You can have your own opinion, but it carries no weight.

 

[StrikerPaws]

Someone did post that before, but thanks. I skimmed the article. Later I'll read it in it's entirety. I don't think it's going to justify a 30 round magazine as a NECESSITY for home defense, however.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeQiVBvy0m0

 

[Ironman]

Timmy,

Please sit back, grab a beer and watch this Penn and Teller Gun Control special. Just bear with me. It helps explain the meaning of the 2a.....

Check out this video on YouTube:

http://youtu.be/0XrNzE39J8E


Sent from my iPhone

 

[Solo]

Eh, not enough nudity in that episode.

 

[timmy4]

OK, now I have to leave, and this time I doubt I will be able to return for at least a couple days or so. Too much to do, and I've spent way more time than I should in this forum.

I want to apologize if I have offended anyone here. I very much enjoy the debate and discussion.

 

[NickEllis]

While you're away, do us a favor and look up the definition of "Well Regulated", and then do come back and be prepared to discuss.

 

[DennisTheMenace]

Thanks for this post and thank you for your service.

But I don't find "well-schooled" to be analogous with "well-regulated". The word "regulated" has a very specific meaning. It seems to me that this phrase allows the government to make reasonable restrictions regulating the militia, which in this case means the people. Thus, while we cannot unreasonably restrict the ownership of firearms, we can reasonably regulate their ownership. Is this a reasonable interpretation?

No, I don't believe it is a reasonable interpretation. While "well-schooled" is not synonymous with "well-regulated", in this context I don't believe it matters.

The framers didn't say that a well-regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms. They said the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

The introductory phrase regarding a well-regulated militia is a justification for guaranteeing the right, not a prerequisite. They could just as easily have said an all-male militia; if they had I don't think anyone would be suggesting that only males have the right to keep and bear arms.

Dennis

 

[Al Thompson]

As for folks needing more ammunition, this book has several instances:

http://www.amazon.com/Lessons-Armed-America-Kathy-Jackson/dp/1453685553

 

[Solo]

No, I don't believe it is a reasonable interpretation. While "well-schooled" is not synonymous with "well-regulated", in this context I don't believe it matters.

The framers didn't say that a well-regulated militia has the right to keep and bear arms. They said the people have a right to keep and bear arms.

The introductory phrase regarding a well-regulated militia is a justification for guaranteeing the right, not a prerequisite. They could just as easily have said an all-male militia; if they had I don't think anyone would be suggesting that only males have the right to keep and bear arms.

Actually, the US Code defines the militia as composed of all males in a certain age range. Says nothing about women...

 

[dfunde01]

Here are a few facts on issues that have been covered in this discussion:

-The police have no legal obligation to come to the aid of an individual that is in mortal danger. A google search for "police obligation to protect an individual" will return numerous examples of court rulings on that subject. You and you alone are responsible for providing for the immediate safety of yourself and your family.

-A lack of knowledge regarding fire arms and ammunition makes it impossible to determine what tools are needed to best protect yourself in different situations. When in a low risk environment many will carry small light pocket handguns with only 5-7 rounds. If you have an encounter with a single armed assailant you are probably OK. If you are accosted by a group you are in deep stuff. While at home many will have more powerful handguns near, if not a shotgun, or rifle providing substantial fire power to deal with a potential home invasion for instance. In your vehicle many will choose something with a larger magazine capacity. If you haven't studied or planned for different situations you would not know what is reasonable. A .223 AR15 round is less lethal within 25 yards or so than a .357, .45, or 10mm handgun for example. A 30 round magazine is not excessive if several bad guys are kicking your door in. The more knowledge you have the safer you and those around you will be.

I spend over 40 years in technology consulting. I told everyone that ever worked for me that knowing what you don't know is more important than only relying on what you think you do know.

One of my favorite all time quotes: "Ignorance is not knowing something, stupidity is not admiting your ignorance"

Dave

 

[SpazC]

Timmy,

In the vernacular of the day " well regulated " meant practiced or disciplined. I.E. a militia that practiced regularly.

It had nothing to do with limiting, surpressing or controlling.

Aside from that, if you are taking the words with today's meaning. Then the militia could be regulated, but not the arms. Look at the sentence structure.

Look it up for yourself if you choose not to believe me.

Sent from my ADR6425LVW using Tapatalk 2

 

[BullfrogKen]

Timmy has announced he's taking a break from the forum for a while.


Seeing as how he started this thread to open a dialogue with us, I'm closing it.

Timmy if you decide to come back, start a new thread.


And be prepared to have a discussion. It might be helpful if you didn't reject aspects of the argument out-of-hand because you don't personally buy into them.