Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

To: servo1969
Amendment II

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.

My Eenglish nawt two good butt... it appears to me that the word 'regulated' refers solely to the Militia.


2 posted on 11/08/2013 6:09:48 PM PST by TigersEye (Stupid is a Progressive disease.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: TigersEye

“Regulated” was not meant to equal regulations.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

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.


5 posted on 11/08/2013 6:15:24 PM PST by servo1969
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: TigersEye

Metcalf doesn’t seem to get “shall not be infringed” either. Unbelievable, enemies all around.

I was going to make a (very small) joke about being well regulated, but will let it pass. :o/


9 posted on 11/08/2013 6:24:44 PM PST by cyn (Benghazi.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: TigersEye

Right.

And the following phrase, “being necessary to the security of a free State,” also seems to me to promote state’s rights over the federal government.

I haven’t really thought this one through yet, or researched it...


14 posted on 11/08/2013 6:42:31 PM PST by FatherFig1o155 ("Most bad government results from too much government." -- Thomas Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: TigersEye

1780 well-regulated meant properly tuned up, ready, on time, functioning as designed like a good clock.

The idea of “government regulations” was not current then.


20 posted on 11/08/2013 7:03:22 PM PST by Travis McGee (www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: TigersEye
How do you know? I rather read as since a well regulated militia is necessary for a free state that is why the state must accede to Divine Will. For if these rights did not originate of God, of what value are they ultimately?
27 posted on 11/08/2013 8:09:34 PM PST by onedoug
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: TigersEye
My Eenglish nawt two good butt... it appears to me that the word 'regulated' refers solely to the Militia

-------------------------------------------------------

Some info (worth the read):

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

43 posted on 11/09/2013 9:22:56 AM PST by Peet (Oderint dum metuant)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson