'Freedom Is About Authority': Excerpts From Giuliani Speech on Crime

New York Times ^ | March 22, 2007

[flashbunny]

And I've been dealing with the 2nd amendment for years and have had my work featured on many 2nd amendment websites and magazines.

But hell, what do I know. You read a book!

[Luis Gonzalez]

If you're required to report to the militia, and you;re required to bring a specific weapon, that's regulation.

You HAD to own that weapon and those supplies.

So, the Founders REGULATED the weaponry of the militia.

[Luis Gonzalez]

...and you stayed at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

[Spyder]

It includes those who are yet unconceived.

Alrighty then... and I thought the every sperm is sacred group was out in the deep end.

[airborne]

First you state "expected".

Now you insist "required".

Pray tell, which is it?

And if a poor farmer could only provide something of similar description, would he be permitted to serve?

[Spyder]

Thanks! Bookmarked.

[airborne]

Do you suppose Rudy will "regulate" my communities' militia by expecting/requiring all men to have a gun and such?

[Luis Gonzalez]

"I've explained to you, at the time of the founding, well regulated meant well equipped in this context."

When Madison introduced the Bill of Rights to Congress, he said the following about the proposed amendment covering this topic;

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Funny...he made a distinction between well regulated and well armed; but you claim that they mean the same thing.

But hey..what did Madison know about the BOR anyway?

He was never published in any magazine.

[Luis Gonzalez]

He can't...tha's Congresses' job.

Read your Constitution.

[flashbunny]

This is getting tiresome. You're trolling.

Here, let me give you another lesson which you're going to ignore. At least the pro 2nd amendment people here who haven't seen this before can get some more ammo:

http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html

On the original meaning of the 2nd Amendment

Henry E. Schaffer

"Whereas in all well regulated Governments, it is the indispensable duty of every Legislature to consult the Happiness of a rising Generation, and endeavour to fit them for an honorable Discharge of the Social Duties of Life, by paying the strictest attention to their Education."

These resounding words were the opening of a November 12, 1789 Act of the North Carolina Legislature which was passed on December 11, 1789 and which chartered the University of North Carolina. Noting that this Act was contemporaneous with the Bill of Rights (which was transmitted to the state legislatures on September 25, 1789) and that the North Carolina Legislature was active at that time, North Carolina being one of the original 13 states, let us pay particular attention to the usage of the words "well regulated" found both in this Act and in the 2nd Amendment of the BoR. The use of "well regulated" in this act can shed some light on the meaning of the 2nd Amendment.

The 2nd Amendment reads: "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."

The debate between the collectivist and the individualist interpretations of the 2nd has often focused on the meaning of "well regulated" in the opening phrase "well regulated Militia". The collectivists claim this this refers to a Militia which is tightly controlled by the government, deducing this from the etymology of "regulated" which relates to "ruled". However, this ignores the usage of the word "regulate" in which the "rule" refers to the proper operations of a device rather than to man-made laws. We still see this in the word "regular", which in many contexts means "properly operating."

Let me give two examples of usage of the word "regulate" which have been in existence for quite a long time and which have the same "properly operating" interpretation.

1) Horology: The adjustment of a portable timepiece so it will keep time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept (and perhaps at the different temperatures which it may encounter.) A (mechanical) wrist-watch which has been so designed and adjusted is said to be "regulated" and likely has this word stamped or engraved on its back-plate.

2)Firearms: The adjustment of a multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double barrelled shotgun) so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim. If such a gun (a double-barrelled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling") fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and needs to be "re-regulated".

Both of these uses have meanings *related* to the "to rule" of man-made laws, but are more in the nature of "to adjust to or to be in a state of proper functioning". So a "well regulated watch" or a "well regulated double barreled shotgun" both would have meaning of "having been put into properly functioning condition".

From my reading of material from the colonial era, I have come to understand that "well regulated militia" had a meaning at that time (ca. 1789) in the nature of "a properly functioning militia" - which would mean something along the lines of a properly trained and equipped militia (since it was common at that time for militiamen to bring their own firearms, with which they were already proficient.)

The language of the NC Legislature in 1789 strengthens this interpretation. What can "well regulated Governments" mean other than "properly functioning Governments"? Surely it didn't and couldn't refer to a government under the control of man-made laws, for it is the government itself which makes these laws, and it would neither be noble nor sensible for the Legislature to be proclaiming that it is controlling itself.

An additional contemporaneous document which exhibits the same meaning is the Federalist Paper #29, in which Hamilton is discussing the composition of the militia and says, "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." (emphasis added)

Note that "well-regulated" clearly refers to how well the militia functions and how well trained are the militia members. It does not refer at all to the degree to which the government controls the militia or the members of the militia.

This interpretation is also borne out by some old or obsolete definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. "Regulated" has an Obsolete definition (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military, "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war."

The "people" have the 2nd Amendment right, not the militia. Today many people make a large distinction between the two groups, perhaps confusing "militia" and "Army". The militia is more inclusive, including the Armed Forces, the National Guard and the unorganized component described in the U.S. Code as "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except [for felons], under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..." The age and gender restrictions might be challenged as discriminatory. The historical basis for a more inclusive definition includes the U. S. Supreme Court statement that "It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved militia force or reserve militia of the United States as well as the States; ..." From this we see that the mention of the militia does not conflict with the individualist interpretation.

Therefore I conclude that the meaning of the 2nd Amendment is, "A properly functioning Militia is necessary to the security of a free State; therefore the (pre-existing) right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed."

References:

Act of NC Legislature of Nov. 12, 1789 - Legislative Papers, H. of C., 1789, AH. Cited in A Documentary History of The University of North Carolina 1776-1799 Compiled and Annotated by R. D. W. Connor The University of North Carolina Press 1953. Volume 1, page 23.

Original Charter of the University, December 11, 1789, An Act to Establish a University in this State. N. C. Laws, 1789, S. R., XXV, Chap. XX, 21-25. Cited in Connor (1953) Volume 1, page 34.

Federalist Paper #29

Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989.

United States Code, Title 10, Section 311(a)

Supreme Court, Presser v. Illinois 116 U.S. 252

[Luis Gonzalez]

Required.

Read the Act.

[The Spirit Of Allegiance]

Allow me to commend you on the tactical maneuvering.

Of course, whether I've asked similar questions of none or a hundred prior to asking you, I asked you. The asking or the replies of others are irrelevant to our conversation. Don't like the message? Don't shoot the messenger. Or questioner, as the case may be. I did not ask to be offensive but rather to determine your position. Would an answer put you in a defensive position?

No, you don't have to answer. But since you again evade the questions which in posts 274, 284, 292, 316 and 352 I first asked you--I'm disengaging.

If you will review my comments, you will note that I concur with a number of your premises, with some qualifications. If you choose to reply to my questions, that would be taken as your own show of good faith. We are all Conservatives here....

Good night.

[flashbunny]

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

"Funny...he made a distinction between well regulated and well armed; but you claim that they mean the same thing."

It means several things with regards to the readiness of the militia. I've already said that. You've ignored it. You keep trying to twist things that are against your claims into supporting them.

I have to say you come across as one of the most intellectually dishonest posters I've ever seen on this board.

[Luis Gonzalez]

Well, as long as you're quoting the SCOTUS on the subject of who is restricted by the Second Amendment of the Constitution:

United States v. Cruikshank (1876)
The right of the people to keep and bear arms predated the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. They ruled that the right to bear arms was not dependent on the Constitution for its existence; consequently, the Second Amendment only forbade Congress, not the states, from infringing on it.

The SCOTUS supports a State's right to infringe.

Bringing up the SCOTUS was a bad idea.

[airborne]

Required. Read the Act.

It was you who used two different terms, sir. Not I.

[flashbunny]

"Required.

Read the Act."

Now you say "required" but before you said was limited to those things.

Did you even read the full act once before you copied and pasted it?

[Luis Gonzalez]

You can say that you're the queen of Egypt...

Madison. in introducing the Bill of Rights to the First Session of the First Congress made a distinction between well armed and well regulated...why would he do that if in his time they both meant the same thing?

I ignore you and listen to Madison...he was involved in writing the BOR, you weren't.

[Luis Gonzalez]

I've read it many times.

Discussed several times in this forum.

Did you know that it existed before tonight?

P.S. Excuse me for changing a word at 2 something in the morning...I mean required, it's made quite clear by the letter of the act.

Now...are you going to explain your first post n this thread or not?

Talk about intellectually dishonest.

[TheThinker]

Sounds like dictatorial propaganda. Hugo Chavez couldn't have said it better himself.

[airborne]

There are so many other disturbing things in Rudy's speech that I could be here till the sun comes up. Which is in 4 hours.

Good night all. Or more correctly, good morning.