Now here's a classic case of someone jumping into a discussion and criticizing a point without having any idea (or caring to, I'd wager) what the context behind the point was.



Not only should be, but is. And those who were responsible for putting the 2nd Amendment in the Constitution felt the same way.



I also stated in the same response that the amendment applies only to the federal government. So yes, you lied about my position, once again.


Leaving aside the falsity of your implication that the first clause is a "limiting" factor, without that clause someone might be able to define "arm" in such a way as to only include arms for self-defense and hunting. Don't believe me? Look at the modern court opinions that try to say "arms", within the meaning of the 2nd Amendment, don't include handguns.


Because a well regulated militia is better able to defend the security of a free state than an unregulated and undisciplined militia. So by all means, regulate the militia. But that in no way changes the fact that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

My apology Blackstone. The next time I decide to rain on your parade by “jumping into a discussion,” I’ll ask your permission. The context statement is a great way to leave wiggle room for plausible denial.

BTW: We had an extended debate a while back on whether or not the Declaration of Independence is a legal document.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=153630

Oooh, so now the desperation avoidance tactic had upgraded. Now I'm not being accused of 'misquoting' as you avoid the question, now I am 'lying' as you avoid the question.

Of course neither is remotely true, I laid out that post, in your own words, listing the four (now five) places you had wiggled and squirmed and doged to avoid answering a simple question: now you have upgraded to ad hominum attacks as well. Colour me surprised.

Yes, you said it applied to the federal government, So Did I. I never implied you said otherwise. Stop wiggling Blackstone, and answer the question. WHY is this so difficult for you? This is now the sixth time you have been asked the simple straightforward question. Why is it so impossible for you to answer?



That is so full of wrong:

Firstly, no my interpretation is not false, you have simply asserted it is false with no substantiation whatsoever for your position.

Secondly: You assertion that 'people would assume limits' if the clause just said 'the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed' is absurd. How can making the statement MORE absolute result in people interpreting it as LESS absolute? That doesn't even pass the laugh test for logic.

Pity you didn't choose to answer any of the rest of the post. Been taking lessons from Ted?



And we come full circle. Again you just pretend the first clause doesn't exist, or more specificlly just 'emphasises' (but you define emphaises different from the dictionary, as established) it. Except that it doesn't. Read it over. It simply doesn't.

The firct clause is either a limiting factor, or its meaningless contextualisation. Of those two the second hardly seems likely unles you presume the founders were drunk.


But then, you believe civilians should have access to the whole range of military weapons including heavy machine guns tanks and mustard gas, so I find your other opinions on the meaning of the first amendment to be somewhat suspect.

Do you have any source to back up members were required to own their own guns.

From what I have read a long long time ago, a gun was very very expensive in those times. That it was the equivalent of something like several years worth of average wages. Thus the argument was this clause was not for the common person, just for the elitists to own the guns.

I have searched for that information a while back and can not find it too many hits on guns all over the place. Someone who is a gun history buff may have this data.

Yes, inventor and I’ve already addressed that here in the same post you quoted from. Sorry you missed it.



http://hnn.us/roundup/comments/32795.html



Edited to add:

The words of David McCullough, in 1776 describing the Continental Army of which George Washington took command, are telling.

Precisely.

However, as to the "means to revolt," this is totally outside the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

Also as for "civic rights" outside the rights of the states, constitutionally there is no such thing. The Constitution is a compact between the states and the Bill of Rights is a set of enjoinments on federal action. That is all. There is no positive right to anything asserted by the Bill of Rights; certainly no such thing as a "civic right."

BoF, Ok, not what I was looking for. I am looking for a the cost of a gun during those years in their present day buying terms. From the manufacturing standpoint it does not seem realistic a average person could afford a gun, confirming what I had heard many years ago. A good for instance if a machine shop was going to make guns (not assembly line) at about $100.00 per hour cost it would take a heck of a lot of hours, not 20 or 40, for a state of the art gun to be made. Obviously today's mass production factories with expensive optimized tooling can make then cheaply. Before the modern day assembly line cars could not be made/afforded by the average person.

if some gun historian can give us a link I would appreciate it.

Here is what I have found, . seems the british enemies did the supplying, so there were obviously not a lot of weapons here in the colonies.

http://www.militaryhistoryonline.com/revol.../caribbean.aspx
Clandestine Arms Supplies – 18th Century Style




these are great reads, see how this person was attacked for doing his research. Funny to read the wikipedia page and the comments, how the fanatics keep attacking the author with rude edits. to object to the second amendment with research can be harmful to your occupation and the attacks this person has endured is unreal. But that is why I am here expressing my opinion via not traceable. I have had a gun put in my face as well as a knife by two fanatics. One a KKK member and the other a thief who stole democrat signs which is a federal offense he was let off of. My sympathy goes to Dr, Bellesilles. shame in america we can not have civil debate.


http://www.oah.org/pubs/nl/2001nov/bellesiles.html
http://www.news.emory.edu/Releases/B_statement.pdf

Here is a guy (one of many) that did not like the previous author.
http://www.fee.org/publications/the-freema...le.asp?aid=2644


Now this gets close to the argument I heard many years ago that the cost was prohibitive of owning a gun. But I see furthur guns and gun powder were not made in this continent.

Well, then it makes the importance of protecting the individual right to keep and bear one when one was forced to supply one's own weapon at such high cost, then doesn't it?


But you asked BoF very specifically if he could back up his argument that members were required to suppy their own arms. He did so. How can you claim that this wasn't the information you were looking for?

Members of the militia were required to supply and store their own weapons. This is why it was necessary to protect the right to keep and bear arms. If they didn't protect this right, they wouldn't have had a well-regulated militia. But this isn't the case anymore. Which is why the 2nd Amendment is in need of an overhaul.

It was not the information I was specifically looking for, is what I meant; I was looking for the economic data. which I still have not found.

Well the documentation I have posted shows the person was not required to supply/buy and store their own weapons. In fact the guns were at times of peace stored by the community, as evidenced by the surveys of the inventories kept by the towns, and by the gifting of guns by the French to fight the English.

http://hnn.us/articles/691.html



the below says two months of wages. I would like to see this in a second source. they also point out till the 1840s colt perfected the design. the civil war time guns were then mass produced.
http://www.bookreporter.com/reviews/0375402101.asp




another attacker, but polite... note one of the main issues has been cleared up the data that was claimed in San Francisco was actually found in Contra Costa, and the authors notes were damaged in a flood at the university which whether he got the information at San Francisco or contra costa is a pathetic argument by the detractors.
http://www.etherzone.com/2002/antl011102.shtml thus we have a debate...

http://www.historycooperative.org/cgi-bin/...9.1/rakove.html

http://www.corporatemofo.com/stories/040201bellesiles.htm

http://www.historyhouse.com/book/0375402101/

Well, here is the 1792 law:

Militia Act of 1792

And here is the appropriate quote from that Act:



I don't think that your author, Bellesiles, is correct in his assertion. I could find nothing in that Act requiring Congress to supply guns to militia members.

endspeak, thanks for posting the act, and I thought my grammar was bad....

but I find you may have missed the most important parts of the paragraph in question. and missed another concept in another. which clearly for one shows the militia is not your average citizen but a armed force now known as the national guard.



I interpret the above that anyone can be drafted for the militia by the local commander between the ages of 18 and 45 and at most spend 3 months in a year. And the required guns must be had by the Malia member within 6 months of said notice. and that they use government money to pay for it by deducting the money from taxes.

then in IV we note the following... where we see clearly if the guns were at the members expense it would have been clearly written as shown below as the members must pay for their uniform..

Inventor, the 2nd Amendment did not arrive in a vacuum, but was a product of the years of experience dating to times before the revolution.

In his definitive seven volume biography, perhaps the greatest biographer and military historian of his day, Douglas Southall Freeman had this to say about the Virginia of Washington’s youth.



From this, I think we can say that gun ownership was common, regardless social standing or wealth. It was a matter of necessity.

How much did guns cost? That’s a good question. In colonial Virginia, for example, both English and Spanish coin were used. Rectors of the Church of England, sent from the mother country or approved by the crown from people in the colonies, were paid 16,000 lbs of tobacco. At today’s rate this would be a salary of about $24,000.00 per year. I doubt the poorest of Episcopal ministers makes this paltry a sum.

Inflation does not hit everything the same way. I doubt you could answer this question without a great deal of research. Perhaps you are up to that and I don't mean Google seaches, but looking for obscure primary source documents in dusty out of the way libraries. There are some things, that require one to do their own difficult digging if they really want an answer to a question.



From the antecedents of the 2nd amendment in colonial time to the Civil War is, give or take, about a century of history. You have drawn your scope over such a long and change filled period of history that your position is incomprehensible and unmanageable.



You are quibbling here. Some people already owned a gun as I've illustrated in my previous quote from David McCullough and this one here from Douglas Southall Freeman. If the person did not own a gun, they still had to buy it before they could deduct the item from their taxes. It’s not much different from today. To be able to deduct items whether individual or business - through depreciation - one has to spend the money first.

I have a question for you inventor. After deducting the gun from from a person's taxes, did the individual own the gun or did it become government property?

Inventor...



provide himself...



Although the rhetoric is archaic, it is clear when you break it down. It basically states that every citizen enrolled in the militia - being required to provide himself with arms, ammunitions and accoutrements - shall keep them (that is what is meant by 'hold the same') and these arms, ammunitions and accoutrements can't be seized or forfeit for the reasons listed... including payment of taxes. When you owe money people can seize goods in lieu of cash - hence the phrase, "losing your shirt." Because citizens enrolled in the militia were required to provide themselves with arms, those arms couldn't be subject to seizure for the reasons listed or be required to be sold in order to pay a debt.

Only if they were at least 17 years old, not older than 45, able-bodied, male, and white.

All these arguments do not address people that fall outside of the definition of a militia at that point in time. And since we have a standing army now, you can't use those weapons when called to service.

So, your argument would be that the second allows you to be armed to fight bad guys, but when called to serve, you can't use them. This is as bad as somebody's premise that our right to violently overthrow the government is protected, but actually doing it is illegal.

Although I rarely agree with many of Artemise's politics she makes some very strong points here and I completely agree with her thinking(although I find it funny other liberals in this thread ignored her points ).

Disarming the citizenry is a perfect way for a government gone bad to keep a hold on the people. I ,like Artemise, believe the founders saw this, and knew that eventually a government would come to be that the citizens would have to rise against.

Ok I like your encryption better... but of the line but the part where it states and providing himself with only makes sense to be included if the gun is not being provided to him. Otherwise one would not say and providing himself with.

and again the other paragraph was very clear where it said the individuals MUST pay on their own for the uniform. in absence of this for the guns it is obvious to me that the guns did NOT HAVE to be paid for by the member. But certainly could be and once you did on your own it could not be removed if you were in the militia for collection, but did not exclude for breaking the law or other causation.

BoF, I searched for that specific quote and could not find it on the internet. Thus I would like to see the context of it.

as far as the inflation point I agree that this is a hard thing to quantify in todays terms. But from what I understand and as in the book I referenced a gun was not greatly available to all. as noted we received gifted guns from France and Spain to fight the English, seems we were not well armed as some say if other nations had to give us the weapons to secure our freedom. I think that is a glaring hole right there.

I also note from the book I referenced as he pointed out from the crime statistics murder rate only went up significantly when colt was making reliable multishot guns in mass production around the civil war time.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/...ews_v_state.txt

Cite as Matthews v. State, 237 Ind. 677 (1958)

MATTHEWS v. STATE OF INDIANA.

[No. 29,574. Filed March 6, 1958.]



the footnote 4 was from your cited person...




http://www.fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/200...dex_html?page=2

http://americanhistory.si.edu/militaryhist...ject.asp?ID=446
General History


http://www.rbais.com/cfl-vassar/lewis.html



just trivia... there is a photo of the gun on this link.

http://www.maineantiquedigest.com/articles...irearms0507.htm

Inventor you have led us off a cliff here. None of the quotations from your preceeding post are mine. Other than the ones you provided, they are, as best I can tell, all from entspeak. If you were referring to something I wrote in an earlier post, please be specific.

I was refering to your post on Freeman... here to get you back on good footing, in the above I found a citation that is directly related to the subject. I posted it above but here it is again from the author you cited, Freeman. This specifically implies the opposite of what many are contending. This statement was used as a source in a court ruling. Then I posted a foundry that I assume was a state of the art as it was to be protected by a request in a letter to Jeferson, this gunnery was producing 20 guns a week. you can not arm a heck of a lot of people with 20 guns a week.

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/...ews_v_state.txt

Cite as Matthews v. State, 237 Ind. 677 (1958)

MATTHEWS v. STATE OF INDIANA.

[No. 29,574. Filed March 6, 1958.]


QUOTE

I'm not sure the two passages are in contradiction. The one I sat and typed out from the book was from the Virginia of Washington's youth, meaning from 1732-1758. The quotation you lifted from the Matthew case was from nearly two decades later at the beginning of the Revolutionary War. In Vol. 3 Freeman discusses armaments in detail in the chapter on the siege of Boston. I don't have time to read this right now. You will note that your own link indicates that domestic production of firearms was inadequate. Further, Washington was thinking about more than firelocks and muskets. In the same paragraph you mention from Freeman, Vol, 3, page 442, the author goes on to talk about cannon. Freeman says that Washington probably knew about those taken at Ticonderoga, but had little knowledge of how many might be left from the close of the French and Indian War. Uh, context?

Here is another, source - americanrevolution.org.



http://www.americanrevolution.org/soldier4.html

Please note that it does mention some things about the price of muskets in the colonies.

Again David McCullough indicates that the Revolutionary Army Washington took command of supplied their own guns, at least in the beginning.



Given...

1. Freeman's statement in Vol. I,

2. McCullough's statement reposted above,

3. The quotation from Saul Cornell's A Well Regulated Militia,

http://www.amazon.com/Well-Regulated-Milit...6806&sr=1-2

4. The article from american revolution.org, I linked above, and

5. Entspeak's link to the Militia act of 1791,

there is a pretty overwhelming array of evidence against your position.

I'm not sure how much in the way of armaments the French povided. It should be remembered that the colonies were at war with the French and Indians during the first of Washington commands as a young man in his early 20s. What Washington encountered at that time was much the same as what the British general Braddock encountered - a general lack of supplies including wagons and food. The French did provide a substantial amount in loans, thanks to the efforts of Benjamin Franklin.

Part of the problem, Inventor is that we're talking about a rather long period of history. from Washington's birth to the Militia act of 1791 is a fifty-nine or sixty years of history. Yet it seems private ownership of guns was a thread than ran throughout. If you add the Civil war, as you did earleir, were talking about a century.



I guess that just goes to show that not all information is on the internet. Have you tried the public library? Without sittting here typing it out I will, however, povide some context. The words I quoted from Freeman, Vol. 1, concerned life in Virginia during Washington's youth. This paagraph came from a section on amusement. Those of high station in Virginia's class system used guns for sport - hunting. Those of lesser station used them to hunt for food. Listed in that paragraph are the type of game in the woods of Virginia. Whether one was hunting for fun or food, or perhaps trying to keep from getting scalped by Indians, one still needed a gun.

BTW: I don't particularly have a dog hunting in the 2nd Amendment controversy. By choice, I do not own a gun and have never owned anything more than a BB gun. I don't particularly like them, but living in Texas, I have a number of friends who do own them. That's their business and besides anti-gun arguments simply can't be won here.

So those over 45 were required to turn over their weapons? How about women, they weren't permitted to own firearms? That's a historical detail I'm unfamiliar with.



I don't know of any country outside of the third world that requires its soldiers to bring their own personal arms. It's an issue of quality control. This isn't ancient Sparta.

Edited to add: People seem to forget in these sorts of debates who the enemy was during that time. Our primary fear wasn't that the British would launch a new campaign against us...it was the Native Americans who seemed to believe that they had the right to live* on the property we deemed to be our "free state"...even as it moved west (*that was sarcasm in case it's missed). The population secured that free state, and it was comprised of every able-bodied non-slave. That included people younger than 17, and women. The only ones it didn't include were slaves and they weren't covered under any other Constitutional guarantees.

Huh?




Yes. Thus your author, Bellesiles, is wrong when he argues:



Congress doesn't supply guns to militia members, they must provide themselves with guns.



What the line you mention refers to is the manufacture of the uniforms. The Brigadier in command of the brigade would determine the fashion and color and then it was up to the individual to have it made at their own expense. And, if you note, the uniform line only refers to a company of artillery and troop of horse (calvary). And each calvaryman (dragoon) was to furnish himself with a horse. It wasn't furnished by the government... yet there is no mention of how the horse was to be paid for. It makes sense for Congress to say, "Bring your own weapon - we won't be supplying that, calvarymen bring your own horse - we won't be supplying those either... now, artillery and calvary need uniforms and the fashion and color will be determined by the Brigadier commanding the brigade, but we will not be paying for them... the members of those companies must furnish themselves with uniforms at their own expense."

It seems to be a matter of emphasis.

Would someone please say what all this detailed parsing of archaic militia ordinances is about, one way or the other? I do not see its relevance to the issue.

In contradiction to Arimise, neve, when there actually was a militia was this equated with the totality of the citizenry or with the group of all armed citizens. Equally it is true that there were not permanent rolls. A militia existed from the time it was formed, typically after a call to arms went out for some particular purpose, e.g., Virginia's invasion of the Ohio country in 1774. It was organized into companies and larger units, typically with elected officers. Most often 60 or 90 days, about as long as the summer campaign season, was the contemplated duration of service. Usually it served under a state-appointed or nationally-appointed commander (as when Lord Dunmore personally led the Virginia militia into the West, or earlier when Henry Bouquet led the Pennsylvania militia into Ohio). In every case while the militia was in service, there was a chain of command from the supreme territorial authority down to the lowliest private. That is what it means to have a well-regulated militia.

It was not at all unusual that people reported for duty without any, or without adequate, firearms. That almost all Americans were well-armed at the time of the revolution is a myth. The lives of the the majority frontiersmen were apallingly hardscrabble; even a hoe or an iron pot was quite expensive, and these things were vastly more useful to preserving life than a gun. The cultivation of corn, not hunting, was the life-or-death pursuit, and it occupied the great bulk of the labor most households. Those who were moderately well off could afford a cow and a few pigs. The eastern woodlands were never rich in game; even the Shawnee and the Iroquois, who were expert hunters, spent most of their time growing corn.

In any case, it is obvious why national leaders in the late 1700s would have wished to foster and preserve the local militias (which were under state aegis). At the time and particularly on the frontier, these were the only means of territorial defense. Equally obviously, any federal enactments impeding access to arms would have undermined the militias, and yes, is there in black and white that this was the precise concern that underlay the 2nd Amendment.

The local militias vanished with the defeat of Tecumseh; there was no further need. Equally for that reason, the 2nd Amendment became essentially vacant. It would only have practical force if it became necessary, once again, to form territorial militias, and these required, Swiss-Army-like, the keeping of arms at home. Very simply and decisively for this discussion, there is no military chain of command into gun-owning households. Hence there is no well-regulated militia.

It is perhaps worth observing that the Constitution does not say "The right of a people to rise up in rebellion against the government being necessary to a free society," and so forth. There is no valid basis for assuming that it means anything of the kind. But if that were the basis of the 2nd Amendment, it would very difficult to restrict even heavy arms, 50-caliber machine guns and 80-mm mortars, for example, since these are quite useful for purposes rebellion.

It goes to why the first clause was included and, ultimately, why the right was protected in the Constitution.

If a member of the militia was required to provide himself with arms and might be called upon to use those armaments, to have a law infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms would have an adverse effect on the Militia. So, being that 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.

No, rebuking you for lying isn't ad hominem. Saying, "you believe civilians should have access to the whole range of military weapons including heavy machine guns tanks and mustard gas, so I find your other opinions on the meaning of the first amendment to be somewhat suspect." - that's ad hominem (and a lie).


And the substantiation of your position is where to be found, exactly? If you want substantiation, I can provide it, but you'll have to pay attention.

The phrase "well regulated militia" was not invented by the authors of the 2nd Amendment, and "regulated", in this context does not mean civilian gun control. One of the older definitions of the word "regulated", as applies to a body of troops, is, "properly disciplined" (you can look this up in the unabridged Oxford English Dictionary if you don't believe me).

So when Article VI of the continental confederation, drafted in 1776, prescribed that "every State shall always keep up a well-regulated and disciplined militia, sufficiently armed and accoutered," it was not calling for states to enact gun control laws to keep people from shooting each other in the streets. If that was ever a concern at all, it was at most a local concern, and in drafting the Articles of Confederation, its authors were completely unconcerned with local matters. What they wanted were militias that were capable of competing with regular soldiers ("regular" being defined in this military context by the OED as "properly and permanently organized").

So when the 2nd Amendment (echoing state constitutions) holds that a "well regulated" militia is the best defense, it refers to a well disciplined, properly trained militia. Militias were constantly characterized as being just the opposite by supporters of standing armies. So the "well regulated" was there to emphasize that not just any militia was called for, but one that was actually capable of doing its job. So to answer the thread's question, another way of saying the exact same thing as the 2nd Amendment is: Because an effective civilian fighting force is essential to the security of a free society, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Now it should also bear mention that when Madison proposed the Bill of Rights to Congress, the gun rights amendment was not the only one with an explanatory clause:


Keep in mind, this was not simply Madison addressing his colleagues. These were the actual words he was proposing to have inserted into the Constitution. So, was it his intent to "limit" the freedom of the press by having an explanatory clause? There's no difference of principle between that and what's stated in the gun rights provision. The only thing that would make a modern reader think there was a limiting factor there is the presence of the word "regulated", which in this context, as I just explained now, had nothing to do with limiting or conditioning anything upon anything.

Now, I'd like you to provide your substantiation for your so-far COMPLETELY unevidenced assertion that this was intended as a "limiting" clause. Not more ad hominems, not more nitpicking over the meaning of the word "emphasis", not more melodrama - just your evidence, please.

You've made a great case why many of us beleive (not saying you do) the 2nd is a collective right - not an individual right. As I stated earlier, to say otherwise would mean that Timothy McViegh was his own militia protected by the 2nd.

But really, as I have been saying, it is very clear from historican context why the states would have been concerned with preserving their separate abilities to organize militia, n'est pas? What difference does it make whether a prospective militiaman was required to own his firearm?

Also as I have been saying, it was only when the militia was mustered that there was such a thing as a roll. I don't know, perhaps by the years before the Civil War, they maintained permanent militia rolls, but on the frontier -- which is where the militia was actually making any difference -- I am rather sure they didn't. The roll and the chain of command only existed during muster. Hence, regardless of what an ordinance may have required of militiamen, it would've been impossible to enforce. When there was a call to arms, people showed up, with no particular timeliness and with no particular acoutrement. If someone was on some sort of permanent roll and didn't show up, I am sure the prospect of punishment was very slight.

The bottom line is, what these antique militia ordinances have to say about gun ownership is of scant importance; the important thing is that the 2nd Amendment was in the furtherance of the state militias, and that is all that it was. Regardless of whether anyone was required to own arms (for all the good that would have done!), significant restrictions on possessing arms would have impeded the organization of the militia.



It is perhaps worth observing that regardless of Madison's statements or those of any of the founders, it is very well recognized that there is no positive right conferred anywhere in the Constitution. The Bill of Rights in particular is a set of enjoinments against government action; and that is all that it is.

The question is only, what sort of government enactments does the 2nd Amendment enjoin against? The important thing is not that there is a conditional clause, but what that clause says. Clearly in this case, the intent is to preserve the means of organizing what Madison calls "well-armed and well-regulated militia." A "well-regulated" militia is surely a militia with regulations and with a chain of command. Anything else is a mob, and I am quite sure that Madison would have agreed.

As I have pointed out elsewhere on this thread, when there was a muster of the militia, one of the first things that happened was that the men were organized into companies and provided with officers (often, elected ones). It is very difficult to imagine that Madison or the other founders were thinking of anything else than that when they spoke of "a well-regulated militia." "Well-regulated militia" means an organized militia; it is not a metaphor for the entirety of the citizenry.

While I agree, that premise has been turned on it's head with the "unorganized militia". That is where proponents hang their hat on the individual right.



People have inferred this to mean anybody that is not in the national guard or some such non-sense. With that definition, the "well regulated militia" term should be thrown out and restated simply as "the people"

No Blackstone it is neither. I'm sorry, you haven't a leg to stand on here. I laid out how this is not only NOT a lie, but a question about a statement you made and then confirmed in a seperate post: A statement several people on this board have asked you to justify, and yet you have repeatedly evaded, doidged or ignored the question. At first you just repeatedly claimed to be 'misquoted', then when that didn't work you upgraded the insulting rhetoric to 'lying'. Neither is true.

Seriously, I laid all this out in excrutiating detail in post #45. What, do you think nobody read it? Do you think if you repeat this blatant avoidance tactic often enough, people will believe it? Do you think nobody will notice what you have written?

And we are all still waiting for you to justify the comment... Still waiting.

Oh, and you will forgive me if I think you really need to look up the phrase ad hominum. Clearly it doesn't mean what you think it means.




I did. This version of 'regulated' is listed 'rare', and dated at 1690. The primary version of 'regulated'. meaning: Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard is cited as common in examples as far back as 1704.

So unless you can provide some evidence that your version, rare and archaic even at the time of the writing of the constitution, is more likely than the far more common definition I listed, then that seems to me to be grasping at straws.

Interestingly, according to the example given, your definition of 'regulated' has an entirely different grammatical usage, which is not the same at all as it was used in the first amendment.




You realise that if your definition were correct, which is highly unlikely, the sentence would mean that every state should always keep up a well disciplined and disciplined militia. And you are trying to have people believe that makes sense?


In fact the very quote you provide shows that regulated was NOT being used as 'disciplined', but as its far more common definition, Governed by rule, properly controlled or directed, adjusted to some standard. And that article of the continental confederation itself goes a LONG way to disproving your basic contention about the second amendment. Thanks for that.

The confederation article declared every state MUST keep a formal well regulated militia. The constitution declares that 'a well regulated militia being necessary'... seems to me pretty clear they mean it in terms of a formal militia, regulated by law and in service of the government. Thats not even close to what you asserted it is. This is your 'evidence'?

Please explain how this premise is turned on its head; I haven't noticed this in the other side's argumentation. It says in black and white, "a well-regulated militia." To say that that is equivalent to a merely armed, utterly unorganized citizenry would seem to quoin a new usage for these plain English works. I venture that you could scour the dictionaries of our time, or that of the founders, without finding support for that.

I can't because I don't think you can. "unorganized" and "well regulated" have nothing to do with each other. My point is simply that people that beleive the 2nd affords individual rights have to hang their hat on the unorganized definition because the organized definition is spelled out without much wiggle room.

They interpret the clause saying "anybody not belonging to the national guard" or whatever term was used to mean everybody. To me, that defies the purpose of "a well regulated militia" and could have said "anybody with a pulse" and been much clearer.

Again, the reason it is worded the way it is, is because John Adams and the anti-federalists did not want mob rule. The verbiage is a compromise between the federalists and anti-federalists. Nobody won that debate - the 2nd is the result. To say every individual has a right to own a gun without being part of a regulated group of people would be saying that no compromise ever happened. In other words, the federal papers became law. That did not happen. The federal papers were used as a tool to explain what the federalists wanted the constitution to say and get the states to ratify it. It never happened. It took debate and it took compromise.

No, only you've raised an issue about it. That's easily confirmable from the record.


To which I responded in my following reply. You then implausibly dismissed the response as irrelevant. But it's hardly irrelevant to point out that because a prohibition only applies to the federal government, it's therefore not comprehensive.


That's an excellent suggestion. If you do so yourself, you'll find out (in addition to its proper spelling) that it's not a synonym for "rebuke".

Now, back to the substance of the debate: