Posted on 04/24/2007 7:13:04 PM PDT by Ultra Sonic 007
"Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." - Manuel II Palelologus
“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.
no matter how people try to mangle this, no matter how they try to say the comma are to allow you to inhale (gasp!), the above statement means...you can own a gun and NO ONE can take that right from you.
people have the right to bear arms. you may not like it. you can cross reference as many statements as you like from the forefathers..the CONSTITUTION SAYS, you have the right to bear arms and IT SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.
read it and buy a gun, or read it and weep...either way, you have a choice.
oh and by the way, i live in a country where they are banned..and if you think for ONE MINUTE that banning guns will stop gun crime...you have an incredibly childlike and simplistic view of criminality...the only people until recently who were unarmed here were honest citizens...something i would like to change. if someone breaks into my house now...i have no ability to defend my family and even the law provides limited protection for any action i can take. the burgular has more rights! that is the slippery slope you are on, my friend...
bearing arms has a cost, but so does loosing the right to have them. stop trying to paint a gunless nirvana ...it doesnt exist...
So true, though the proper term is, "The Illiterati", some of whom are also charter members of "The Unilluminati".
Bump for Individual RKBA.
I agree. I am still hung up on the "well-regulated" part however. I have heard some arguments that the meaning of "regulated" has changed over the centuries and I can understand but am not 100% convinced.
What is your take on the "regulation" requirement?
The answer is that it wouldn't. I'm sure the founders would fall down laughing at the libs who insist that all guns should be held in some sort of contained facility. Given what the fathers knew about tyranny and how we became independent, I doubt they would endorse some plan to take away the firearms of it's citizens...many of whom used firearms to secure food and for protection. The idea of a central holding tank for the guns of the country's citizens is ludicrous on the surface.
Obviously, a well-regulated militia is one that is trained well.
Why is that at all obvious? Well-regulated could also mean certain specifications for their weapons. It could mean physically fit and a clear assumption that they know how to shoot.
The definition of "regulated" is as ambiguous and multi-faceted as "militia". Whereas I am convined that "militia" is essentially everyone. I still am not sure what "regulated" actually implies. It isn't there for fun. It is not like the 2nd amendment is an exercise in verbosity. It has a well thought out place and meaning.
It amazes (amuses?) me when the gun grabbers try to convince us that the government needed an amendment to the constitution to guarantee itself the right to keep and bear arms.
Perhaps I was a bit too hasty in just throwing out “trained”, as though it only applied to physical fitness.
By “trained well”, I mean a militia that has good combat organizational skills (can work cohesively as a squad in battle), can shoot accurately, repair their respective weapons, are physically fit, and so on.
“The ‘smart’ people who support Gun Control - who are capable of reading and have read these statements have no excuse. They are, simply put, traitors to America who wish to see the people disarmed and tyranny empowered. The others who support it are ignorant dolts who follow the traitors like sheep heading for the slaughter.”
Agreed.
"-- 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. --"
Eini; -- if only "well regulated" members of the militia are able to bear arms, are they any different from the army that has no opposition from an unarmed populace?
Your concern about the wording 'well regulated' is misplaced. -- In context - as was noted; "-- a well regulated militia is one that is trained well. --"
Why should the term imply anything beyond its obvious and well thought out meaning? -- Better yet, do you ~want~ it to imply something more?
Sorry, I must be a bit thick. Maybe you can explain its obvious and well-thought out meaning to me. If it is that simple, it shouldn't take long.
Alot of the gun control advocates think that the word milita means what we call the National Guard today.
"-- 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. --"
Eini; -- if only "well regulated" members of the militia are able to bear arms, are they any different from the army that has no opposition from an unarmed populace? --- Can you answer this question?
Your concern about the wording 'well regulated' is misplaced. -- In context - as was noted; "-- a well regulated militia is one that is trained well. --"
Why should the term imply anything beyond its obvious and "-- well thought out -- meaning"? [ Your words.]
-- Better yet, do you ~want~ it to imply something more?
-- its obvious and well thought out meaning?
Sorry, I must be a bit thick. Maybe you can explain its obvious and well-thought out meaning to me. If it is that simple, it shouldn't take long
The 2nds obvious and well thought out meaning protects our right to own and carry arms from ~any~ infringements.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Appparently the defintion of “well-regulated” is not so simple, since you didn’t define it.
I am not surprised, I don’t actually think you even understand the question I posed. You just have a conclusion so everything else is “obvious” to you. Maybe you can try again.
Nickh, I don’t understand the issue with Ultra Sonic 007. He/she posted an article that defends 2A. How is that view consistent with the views at DU?
"-- It is not like the 2nd amendment is an exercise in verbosity. It has a well thought out place and meaning. --"
"-- 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. --"
Eini; -- if only "well regulated" members of the militia are able to bear arms, are they any different from the army that has no opposition from an unarmed populace? --- Can you answer this question?
Your concern about the wording 'well regulated' is misplaced. -- In context - as was noted; "-- a well regulated militia is one that is trained well. --"
Why should the term imply anything beyond its obvious and "-- well thought out -- meaning"? [ Your words.]
-- Better yet, do you ~want~ it to imply something more?
-- its obvious and well thought out meaning?
Sorry, I must be a bit thick. Maybe you can explain its obvious and well-thought out meaning to me. If it is that simple, it shouldn't take long
The 2nds obvious and well thought out meaning protects our right to own and carry arms from ~any~ infringements.
Why is that so difficult for you to understand?
Appparently the defintion of "well-regulated' is not so simple, since you didn't define it.
Not so, it's been defined; - in context - as was noted: "-- a well regulated militia is one that is trained well. --"
I am not surprised, I don't actually think you even understand the question I posed.
Everyone here is well aware of why you are "posing" these questions. -- And why you can't/won't answer ours.
You just have a conclusion so everything else is 'obvious' to you. Maybe you can try again.
Yep, the 2nd, as you admit, "-- has a well thought out place and meaning. --" It shall not be infringed. -- What more need be said?
Nick posted before reading the whole thing. I think my initial bolded paragraph (a quote from a British woman on another forum) threw him off.
While “gorilla” tactics might be effective in the jungle what won the Revolution was Washington’s creation of the Continental army. Militia was very ineffective outside of a few conspicuous exceptions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.