Parker
10-09-2008, 12:08 AM
It's not ambiguous. Your understanding of the language may be, but militia, in the terminology of the day, meant a loosely organized group of men who were armed, would come and go as they please, and gathered in time of threat to jointly repel the threat. The largest threat as could be envisioned was specifically the overbearing and violent oppression by the people by a tyrannical government. The only way to counter that threat was to start killing those who worked for and were that government.
Well-regulated? Okay, it's pretty odd that this is your first post, and I'll assume for the moment that you are genuine and not a troll, but you have graduated high school in this country and therefore have in fact been required to pass a course in United States history, correct?
So, American Citizen, what the hell just happened when this country was founded, who founded it, and what means did they use? A well-regulated militia would be most easily described, again, not using re-constructionist nonsensical interpretations, but really a simple and genuine reading of the document as well as a proper understanding of the language it was written in, as follows: (I'll give you a break from a proper but longish compound sentence.)
Well - Properly. Frankly, I'm stunned that I've not had to explain this word to some idiot-brained anti gunner recently.
Regulated - regular as in regular attendance, training and in fact, disciplined. Understanding of the rules of order, battle and hierarchy of command.
Militia - a loosely organized group of men who were armed, would come and go as they please, and gathered in time of threat to jointly repel the threat.
So a Well-Regulated Militia would be described by these three words. Note that at the time of the Colonial Militia, there was no governing body which the Militias answered to outside of being an organization. A Militia is an entirely voluntary organization, and as such, a governing body has no authority over it whatsoever.
In fact, the governmental war on Militias is in fact unconstitutional just by this very provision being in the Constitution and as such any governmental agent or official who pursues such persecution is likely guilty of treason and should be hanged or shot.
The security of a free state does not refer to a State, as in Enemy of the State, or Free State, as in Wyoming, but the security of a free state simply refers to "being secure in a state of freedom.” You are free from oppression and tyranny. Yes, we still have laws, but these laws and regulations are put into effect after democratic vote, not imperial decree or the whim of a dictator.
Mick, you walk into a forum and start to decry the idea that I may want an anti-tank rifle - well, considering the Supreme Court just ruled that the Second refers to weapons in common use, I think that a LAW or RPG-7 or Hellfire are not only in common usage, but in fact would be excellent deterrents against governmental tyranny.
Even more effective would be an EMP or five. These are not so common, but only in the colloquial sense of the word. Common use can easily and I would believe properly be shown to be "Use In Common" and there is no good reason to deny law-abiding and good Citizens the same tools as allowable by those we in theory elect to serve us.
Maybe I'm being presumptive here, but I think perhaps your education in the actual usage of the English language needs a brush-up. It's likely not your fault if you went to basic public schools and did any post-high-school work in a field which did not require the careful reading of the language, you've not had a real opportunity to look at the language this way.
I can guarantee you that those fine men who wrote that document allowed NO ambiguity into it whatsoever. They allowed provisions to change it, and cautions against doing so. They forgot several very important factors -
First, the majority of men are not virtuous, they are selfish. Most selfish men are incapable of acting virtuously - I do not mean "pretending to be virtuous," I mean taking action in a virtuous and unselfish manner, particularly for an extended period of time.
Second, the founders realized that a vast majority of men are too thick, stupid, self-righteous or egotistical to learn to properly read or understand that their feelings don't mean fuckall in this argument. They realized that it's always going to be the case that some folks are too stupid to realize human nature is greed and self, versus virtuous behavior. This is why they put this provision in here. When greed and corruption reach tyrannical proportions, it's time for another revolution. It's time for another bloodletting.
Third, the only way for that to happen is if the People are armed in such a manner as to make it feasible to toss off those chains. Sounds like a revolutionary thought. It is. It was the ORIGINAL revolutionary thought.
I find the idea of a machine gun in my personal collection a goofy idea - not for any moral reasons, but mainly they're generally inaccurate, waste a LOT of ammo and tend to be a lot more maintenance-intensive than their semi-auto counterparts. That said, I'd love an Uzi or MP5-SD2, 'cause they are the shit. Maybe a Steyr MPi69 as well (go look that one up, nice improvement on the Uzi)
Or how about a BAR?
Or an M1 Abrams? Not feasible for me, but what if it was? Why not? Give me the legal and logical (not logical from a hyperkinetic emotional viewpoint) argument for any such prohibition, pls. Common Sense is not an argument against this, but in fact was an argument FOR revolution, and today that'd be easier with a bunch of Semtex and a few tanks.
You can make any argument you want about unstable people not being equipped with the same weapons as the police or military, but the moment that my government begins to fear me, it's time for the contingency plans to be made. Fear makes us all irrational, and an irrational government needs to be armed less than WE, the CITIZENS of that nation.
I look forward to your response.
Well-regulated? Okay, it's pretty odd that this is your first post, and I'll assume for the moment that you are genuine and not a troll, but you have graduated high school in this country and therefore have in fact been required to pass a course in United States history, correct?
So, American Citizen, what the hell just happened when this country was founded, who founded it, and what means did they use? A well-regulated militia would be most easily described, again, not using re-constructionist nonsensical interpretations, but really a simple and genuine reading of the document as well as a proper understanding of the language it was written in, as follows: (I'll give you a break from a proper but longish compound sentence.)
Well - Properly. Frankly, I'm stunned that I've not had to explain this word to some idiot-brained anti gunner recently.
Regulated - regular as in regular attendance, training and in fact, disciplined. Understanding of the rules of order, battle and hierarchy of command.
Militia - a loosely organized group of men who were armed, would come and go as they please, and gathered in time of threat to jointly repel the threat.
So a Well-Regulated Militia would be described by these three words. Note that at the time of the Colonial Militia, there was no governing body which the Militias answered to outside of being an organization. A Militia is an entirely voluntary organization, and as such, a governing body has no authority over it whatsoever.
In fact, the governmental war on Militias is in fact unconstitutional just by this very provision being in the Constitution and as such any governmental agent or official who pursues such persecution is likely guilty of treason and should be hanged or shot.
The security of a free state does not refer to a State, as in Enemy of the State, or Free State, as in Wyoming, but the security of a free state simply refers to "being secure in a state of freedom.” You are free from oppression and tyranny. Yes, we still have laws, but these laws and regulations are put into effect after democratic vote, not imperial decree or the whim of a dictator.
Mick, you walk into a forum and start to decry the idea that I may want an anti-tank rifle - well, considering the Supreme Court just ruled that the Second refers to weapons in common use, I think that a LAW or RPG-7 or Hellfire are not only in common usage, but in fact would be excellent deterrents against governmental tyranny.
Even more effective would be an EMP or five. These are not so common, but only in the colloquial sense of the word. Common use can easily and I would believe properly be shown to be "Use In Common" and there is no good reason to deny law-abiding and good Citizens the same tools as allowable by those we in theory elect to serve us.
Maybe I'm being presumptive here, but I think perhaps your education in the actual usage of the English language needs a brush-up. It's likely not your fault if you went to basic public schools and did any post-high-school work in a field which did not require the careful reading of the language, you've not had a real opportunity to look at the language this way.
I can guarantee you that those fine men who wrote that document allowed NO ambiguity into it whatsoever. They allowed provisions to change it, and cautions against doing so. They forgot several very important factors -
First, the majority of men are not virtuous, they are selfish. Most selfish men are incapable of acting virtuously - I do not mean "pretending to be virtuous," I mean taking action in a virtuous and unselfish manner, particularly for an extended period of time.
Second, the founders realized that a vast majority of men are too thick, stupid, self-righteous or egotistical to learn to properly read or understand that their feelings don't mean fuckall in this argument. They realized that it's always going to be the case that some folks are too stupid to realize human nature is greed and self, versus virtuous behavior. This is why they put this provision in here. When greed and corruption reach tyrannical proportions, it's time for another revolution. It's time for another bloodletting.
Third, the only way for that to happen is if the People are armed in such a manner as to make it feasible to toss off those chains. Sounds like a revolutionary thought. It is. It was the ORIGINAL revolutionary thought.
I find the idea of a machine gun in my personal collection a goofy idea - not for any moral reasons, but mainly they're generally inaccurate, waste a LOT of ammo and tend to be a lot more maintenance-intensive than their semi-auto counterparts. That said, I'd love an Uzi or MP5-SD2, 'cause they are the shit. Maybe a Steyr MPi69 as well (go look that one up, nice improvement on the Uzi)
Or how about a BAR?
Or an M1 Abrams? Not feasible for me, but what if it was? Why not? Give me the legal and logical (not logical from a hyperkinetic emotional viewpoint) argument for any such prohibition, pls. Common Sense is not an argument against this, but in fact was an argument FOR revolution, and today that'd be easier with a bunch of Semtex and a few tanks.
You can make any argument you want about unstable people not being equipped with the same weapons as the police or military, but the moment that my government begins to fear me, it's time for the contingency plans to be made. Fear makes us all irrational, and an irrational government needs to be armed less than WE, the CITIZENS of that nation.
I look forward to your response.