# What Is a 'Well Regulated Militia,' Anyway?



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

*The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.*

Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor _well regulated_ implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in _Heller_, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.

The structure of the Second Amendment has invited decades of dueling interpretations. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," it says, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
................

The structure has invited decades of dueling interpretations- interpretation(s) can't exist without definition(s)- words mean things


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> *The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.*
> 
> Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor _well regulated_ implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in _Heller_, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...



It's certainly a lexicographical train wreck, isn't it.  Gives the impression that either it wasn't taken that seriously, or that some rough draft squeaked through to the final form without anyone noticing.

The 2A is unique among all the Bill of Rights ---- indeed among all the Amendments period ---- in the subordinate clause it begins with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ".  No other Amendment goes out of its way to establish a basis of reasoning for itself, nor does any Amendment need to .... yet there it is, performing what function nobody knows.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

Pogo said:


> The 2A is unique among all the Bill of Rights ---- indeed among all the Amendments period ---- in the subordinate clause it begins with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ". No other Amendment goes out of its way to establish a basis of reasoning for itself, nor does any Amendment need to .... yet there it is, performing what function nobody knows.


There is no train wreck except to people educated beyond their intellect. Words mean things, or they don't, If in fact they don't then what is the purpose of using them? Those educated beyond their intellect can't stand the idea that others have rights and are not answerable to their pseudo intellectual psychosis often referred to as sociopaths. The reqading of the constitution is not an esoteric endeavor except to control freaks, i.e., sociopaths.
*Profile of the Sociopath*


This website summarizes some of the common features of descriptions of the behavior of sociopaths.


Glibness and Superficial Charm 


Manipulative and Conning 
They never recognize the rights of others and see their self-serving behaviors as permissible. They appear to be charming, yet are covertly hostile and domineering, seeing their victim as merely an instrument to be used. They may dominate and humiliate their victims. 


Grandiose Sense of Self 
Feels entitled to certain things as "their right." 


Pathological Lying 
Has no problem lying coolly and easily and it is almost impossible for them to be truthful on a consistent basis. Can create, and get caught up in, a complex belief about their own powers and abilities. Extremely convincing and even able to pass lie detector tests. 


Lack of Remorse, Shame or Guilt 
A deep seated rage, which is split off and repressed, is at their core. Does not see others around them as people, but only as targets and opportunities. Instead of friends, they have victims and accomplices who end up as victims. The end always justifies the means and they let nothing stand in their way. 


Shallow Emotions 
When they show what seems to be warmth, joy, love and compassion it is more feigned than experienced and serves an ulterior motive. Outraged by insignificant matters, yet remaining unmoved and cold by what would upset a normal person. Since they are not genuine, neither are their promises. 


Incapacity for Love 


Need for Stimulation 
Living on the edge. Verbal outbursts and physical punishments are normal. Promiscuity and gambling are common. 


Callousness/Lack of Empathy 
Unable to empathize with the pain of their victims, having only contempt for others' feelings of distress and readily taking advantage of them. 


Poor Behavioral Controls/Impulsive Nature 
Rage and abuse, alternating with small expressions of love and approval produce an addictive cycle for abuser and abused, as well as creating hopelessness in the victim. Believe they are all-powerful, all-knowing, entitled to every wish, no sense of personal boundaries, no concern for their impact on others. 


Early Behavior Problems/Juvenile Delinquency 
Usually has a history of behavioral and academic difficulties, yet "gets by" by conning others. Problems in making and keeping friends; aberrant behaviors such as cruelty to people or animals, stealing, etc. 


Irresponsibility/Unreliability 
Not concerned about wrecking others' lives and dreams. Oblivious or indifferent to the devastation they cause. Does not accept blame themselves, but blames others, even for acts they obviously committed. 


Promiscuous Sexual Behavior/Infidelity 
Promiscuity, child sexual abuse, rape and sexual acting out of all sorts. 


Lack of Realistic Life Plan/Parasitic Lifestyle 
Tends to move around a lot or makes all encompassing promises for the future, poor work ethic but exploits others effectively. 


Criminal or Entrepreneurial Versatility 
Changes their image as needed to avoid prosecution. Changes life story readily.

_But whether we currently have a well-regulated militia doesn't control whether or not Americans have a right to keep and bear arms. The ideological background of the Second Amendment,* the plain meaning of its operative clause, parallel phrasing elsewhere in the Constitution,* and the militia clauses of Section I make it clear that they do. The Second Amendment, as Scalia rightly recognized, guarantees an individual right to the people, no matter how the federal government chooses to regulate the organized militia.
_
Scalia pointed out that the amendment refers to "the right of the people."_ *When that language is used elsewhere in the Bill of Rights—in the First and Fourth Amendments, for example*_—it plainly means a right that belongs to every individual, as opposed to a collective with special properties, such as a militia. A prefatory clause mentioning a purpose, Scalia argued, is not sufficient to overwhelm the commonsense and contextual meaning of a right guaranteed to everyone. Furthermore, he said, contemporaneous usage makes it clear that the phrase _bear arms_ cannot be restricted to a military context, as Justice John Paul Stevens suggested it should be in his dissent.


----------



## JGalt (Nov 16, 2019)

The phrase "well regulated" during that period of time referred to the property of something being in proper working order. It had nothing to do with the government "regulating" the militia.


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."


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

JGalt said:


> The phrase "well regulated" during that period of time referred to the property of something being in proper working order. It had nothing to do with the government "regulating" the militia.
> 
> 
> 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us *well-regulated* Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
> ...


Yet the elite to continue to argue contrary to that.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Nov 16, 2019)

It means whatever the NRA says it means.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> It means whatever the NRA says it means.


Wow- such an erudite reaction,


----------



## miketx (Nov 16, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> It means whatever the NRA says it means.


It means that europeon freaks tried to take our guns and we killed them.


----------



## JGalt (Nov 16, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> It means whatever the NRA says it means.



The NRA did not pen the US Constitution, they merely support and defend the Second Amendment and gun rights of American citizens. They're actually America's oldest civil rights organization.

It must suck for you guys and girls to not have a Second Amendment like we do. The best you can hope for is for the Bobbies to show up after you're murdered, so they can draw the chalk outlines around the body and clean up the blood.


----------



## JGalt (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > It means whatever the NRA says it means.
> ...



He's British, so what do you expect? They can't even own knives with sharp points.

He'd probably go into shock if he saw my collection of pointy-stabby things.


----------



## Tommy Tainant (Nov 16, 2019)

JGalt said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > It means whatever the NRA says it means.
> ...


Yes, all of my friends wish we had guns so we could be safe like in the US.


----------



## Bob Blaylock (Nov 16, 2019)

JGalt said:


> The phrase "well regulated" during that period of time referred to the property of something being in proper working order. It had nothing to do with the government "regulating" the militia.



  I think the best way to understand what was meant by a _“well regulated militia”_ is to contrast it with a disorderly mob.


----------



## JGalt (Nov 16, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



You must be hanging out with the wrong caliber of "friends". Personally, there is no safer place in the world right now, than within my four walls. And I have enough firearms to start WW3. It's not like any of them are going to jump up and shoot you in ass or anything.


----------



## miketx (Nov 16, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Yeah, the muslim hordes are really making you idiots safe.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

Tommy Tainant said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


Your safety is an obligation to you- not only does in involve the most basic right, choice, it also involves the most basic self preservation process- defending what is your's.


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 16, 2019)

I'm not an Originalist in any sense of the word ... but I do think it's important to keep in mind the problem the 2nd Amendment was meant to solve ... the previous 500 years of English histroy saw a tug-of-war between the Crown and Parliament as to who controlled the English military ... during the reign of George III, this balance was swung over to the Crown ... our rebellious forefathers decided forevermore to put control of the US military firmly in the hands of Congress ... 

One of the safeguards against the President sending troops to fight wars willy-nilly was to model the US military after the English Baron's right to keep armies and make the King beg a promise rewards to the Barons to provide troops ... the President was to beg and promise rewards to the individual States to provide the troops ... we see this in the US Civil War, many groups are identified by the States from where they came:  Tennessee's 2nd artillery company, New York's 4th infantry, the Army of Ohio ... 

That was then and this is now ... obviously this one safeguard isn't necessary anymore and almost all military falls under the Dep't of Defense ... most States don't even have militias anymore ... one exception is the Maryland Defense Forces ... Who We Are ... "The Maryland Defense Force operates under the command of the Governor, as state Commander-in-Chief, and falls under the command and control of The Adjutant General of Maryland. State Defense Forces receive no federal funds and are supported entirely by the state." ... and the MDF is separate from the Nation Guard ... 

It made sense back then for the citizen-soldiers to show up to muster with their own guns ... so we had to give them the right to own a gun ...


----------



## Jimmy_Chitwood (Nov 16, 2019)

JGalt said:


> Tommy Tainant said:
> 
> 
> > JGalt said:
> ...




Tammy gets drunk and does crazy things.


----------



## miketx (Nov 16, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> I'm not an Originalist in any sense of the word ... but I do think it's important to keep in mind the problem the 2nd Amendment was meant to solve ... the previous 500 years of English histroy saw a tug-of-war between the Crown and Parliament as to who controlled the English military ... during the reign of George III, this balance was swung over to the Crown ... our rebellious forefathers decided forevermore to put control of the US military firmly in the hands of Congress ...
> 
> One of the safeguards against the President sending troops to fight wars willy-nilly was to model the US military after the English Baron's right to keep armies and make the King beg a promise rewards to the Barons to provide troops ... the President was to beg and promise rewards to the individual States to provide the troops ... we see this in the US Civil War, many groups are identified by the States from where they came:  Tennessee's 2nd artillery company, New York's 4th infantry, the Army of Ohio ...
> 
> ...


It also makes sense in case the government tried to take the guns.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> so we had to give them the right to own a gun ...


We had to give them the right? Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted. Privilege is given and often taken. Power is given and often (though not often enough) taken.
Your confusion is indicative of society in general.


----------



## 007 (Nov 16, 2019)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...


_"Tammy"_ ...


----------



## ReinyDays (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> ReinyDays said:
> 
> 
> > so we had to give them the right to own a gun ...
> ...



That wasn't well understood in 1789 ... almost everything in the Bill of Rights was brand new and never been tried before ... aristocrats had rights, common folk none ... bad mouthing your overlord was the death penalty ...


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

ReinyDays said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > ReinyDays said:
> ...


That all changed for the better.


----------



## progressive hunter (Nov 16, 2019)

Pogo said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > *The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.*
> ...




the function is simple,,,because a militia is necessary to the security of a free state it is imperative that the people be armed,,hence "the right of the people to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed,,,

what good is a militia that doesnt have any arms/guns???
isnt that just a neighborhood BBQ


----------



## Dick Foster (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> *The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.*
> 
> Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor _well regulated_ implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in _Heller_, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...



Well regulated in that day and age more or less meant shipshape and well equiped to do the job. A militia is a fighting force composed of  civilian citizenry and not of any government body. The miniutemen for example,  like those of Lexington and Concord about which the second was penned in the first place. Those events kicked off to the revolution so were fresh in the founders minds and they wanted to guard against another tyrannical and oppressive government.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted.


Ah, wordplay..
Shaken, not stirred.
Restricted, not infringed.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > Rights are inherent. They can't be given or taken, only restricted.
> ...


I don't play with words.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...


Me neither.


> English Language Learners Definition of _*infringe*_
> : to do something that does not obey or follow (a rule, law, etc.)
> : to wrongly limit *or restrict* (something, such as another person's rights)


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > The 2A is unique among all the Bill of Rights ---- indeed among all the Amendments period ---- in the subordinate clause it begins with, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, ". No other Amendment goes out of its way to establish a basis of reasoning for itself, nor does any Amendment need to .... yet there it is, performing what function nobody knows.
> ...



Exactly.  Thus the mystery of an Amendment's language making its case.  The whole point of a Constitution is to dictate, "here's how things will work".  Thus there is no reason, or point, in "defending" or rationalizing what follows.  It's a series of declarative sentences.  All of that hashing out of reasonings and rationales would have been in the formulating discussion, the pros and cons of this and that.  It has no function in the actual _text_.

And yet --- there it is.  Thus the train wreck of a horribly edited word salad.



Gdjjr said:


> Those educated beyond their intellect can't stand the idea that others have rights and are not answerable to their pseudo intellectual psychosis often referred to as sociopaths.



Unfortunately I posted nothing about anyone's "rights" or what I can "stand".  I posted about the strange _*language of the text*_, which is, after all, _where you started this thread_.  Apparently your only reaction is to read in things that aren't there and then proceed to this utterly irrelevant superfluous sophistry about sociopathy.  Perhaps there's a psychological reason you needed to derail to that, but clearly you seem afraid of the point.  Which is strange since you brought it up.




Gdjjr said:


> The reqading of the constitution is not an esoteric endeavor except to control freaks, i.e., sociopaths.
> *Profile of the Sociopath*
> 
> 
> ...



Whatever.  Amusing, but utterly irrelevant here.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...



You sure the hell did in post 3.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

Pogo said:


> Unfortunately I posted nothing about anyone's "rights" or what I can "stand". I posted about the strange _*language of the text*_, which is, after all, _where you started this thread_.


Well, the language of 2a clearly states the "right" of the people, so I guess I'm correct.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 16, 2019)

Hamilton and Madison explained the militia of the states use of force against the use of force by federal usurpers in Federalist numbers 28 and 46. The Federalist being, of course, the blueprint for the constitution.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 16, 2019)

Natural Citizen said:


> Hamilton and Madison explained the militia of the states use of force against the use of force by federal usurpers in Federalist numbers 28 and 46. The Federalist being, of course, the blueprint for the constitution.


Meh- just so much "word salad" is what the pseudo intellectuals claim.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Unfortunately I posted nothing about anyone's "rights" or what I can "stand". I posted about the strange _*language of the text*_, which is, after all, _where you started this thread_.
> ...



That's got ZERO to do with what I pointed out.


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro (Nov 16, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> *The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.*
> 
> Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor _well regulated_ implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in _Heller_, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...



"I ask, sir, what is the *militia*? It is the whole people except for a few public officials." - George Mason


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 17, 2019)

So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?


----------



## Wyatt earp (Nov 17, 2019)

Jimmy_Chitwood said:


> JGalt said:
> 
> 
> > Tommy Tainant said:
> ...



Tilly?


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?



“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.”
27 words in simple, easy to read, English, doesn't need an essay- it's not an esoteric endeavor.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 17, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> English, doesn't need an essay- it's not an esoteric endeavor.


Yet away you went:


Gdjjr said:


> *The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.*
> 
> Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor _well regulated_ implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in _Heller_, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


Now slap yourself silly.


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > English, doesn't need an essay- it's not an esoteric endeavor.
> ...



My essay is not a higher educated one- I can read simple English- you might try it.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 17, 2019)

Logical destruction? No thanks. Learning to laugh at yourself. Try that.

Carrying ("bearing") a bazooka. Try that.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> Grumblenuts said:
> 
> 
> > So You Think You Know the Second Amendment?
> ...



Apparently not that simple, since you yourself started a thread questioning what it means, and then want to deflect to other shit when anyone else agrees that that is a valid question.

You're lost dood.


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 17, 2019)




----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2019)

Grumblenuts said:


>


----------



## Gdjjr (Nov 17, 2019)

Pogo said:


> Gdjjr said:
> 
> 
> > Grumblenuts said:
> ...


I posted it for the brain dead, erudite, pseudo intellectuals believing the constitution is an esoteric endeavor- I've read more about the twisting, spinning, castigating and bastardizing than I can remember- I'm not afraid to read contrary opinion though and I have- it still boils down to "words mean things", specifically; shall not be infringed.

I lost nothing doodess.


----------



## Pogo (Nov 17, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> Pogo said:
> 
> 
> > Gdjjr said:
> ...



"Doodess" ?

Words mean things, absolutely.  But the words I picked out mean things just as much as the words you picked out do.


----------



## sparky (Nov 17, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> The structure has invited decades of dueling interpretations- interpretation(s) can't exist without definition(s)- words mean things



It sure has

seems everyone has their interpretations these days

originally, i'd wager the FF's simply wanted every farmboy to arm themselves against British Invasion , which occurred in 1812

~S~


----------



## Grumblenuts (Nov 17, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> it still boils down to "words mean things", specifically; shall not be infringed.


So, in your opinion, does that mean restricting it is okay because that "means" something clearly different? If so, how's that work?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 17, 2019)

Gdjjr said:


> *The Founders liked militias, but they also liked an armed citizenry. To them, the two ideas were inseparable.*
> 
> Their argument is based on that amendment's reference to "a well regulated militia," which they define as a military force organized and supervised by the government. Outside a well-regulated militia, they suggest, the Second Amendment has no practical effect a lawmaker need respect. Some gun control advocates also argue that the descriptor _well regulated_ implies that the government has wide latitude to decide who may have which weapons under what circumstances. But as the Supreme Court correctly concluded in _Heller_, these arguments are inconsistent with the text and context of the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


It's a red flag amendment...our founding fathers were dead set on proving/making us, the free-est country to ever exist and that that was not merely just some bogus blathering.
The second amendment is a red flag amendment, it is designed to alert the citizenry to who it is that threatens their/our freedom...

...What on this earth says freedom more than a populace allowed to determine for themselves what weapons they are allowed to possess?...
...All governments of every kind that preceded us had arms control laws, that the government dictated who was/were allowed to own them, and be owned by whom was what made totalitarianism/despotism/dictatorships, etc. possible, we were the first to give that right of determination to the citizens themselves, if it were not guaranteed to us, the citizens, then there would be no need to even mention it in the constitution...
...The NRA has a nearly zero crime rate making it the very definition of the "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" the constitution had in mind, while the constituency of government dictators force those who favor gun control to need a distraction by poo-pooing the constitution and blaming the NRA, a well regulated militia.

The most telling argument coming from gun control advocates about what their real objective is, is the argument that the second amendment is over 200 years old and that makes it obsolete...the entire constitution fits that bogus argument for them.


----------



## Picaro (Nov 20, 2019)

It's deliberately vague wording, like much of the Constitution, that allows for the real ruling classes to broadly interpret such statutes to their own personal liking and existential needs at any given time. As we know from history, it's whatever the local leaders say it means, and that included denying the right to own certain weapons to black people based on their color, mostly, but also based on land ownership and 'character' in many places, and out west it meant the sheriff could decide to disarm anybody entering their town or certain parts of town, or they just didn't like somebody's looks, and any other special circumstances the moment might require. Of course, both right and left wingers will insist on their own fantasy versions wherein it was all 'settled law n stuff', and their silly version is the 'right' one, whichis why we have 689,097,123,2334 new threads on the innernetz about this rubbish every week.


----------



## Porter Rockwell (Nov 20, 2019)

Picaro said:


> It's deliberately vague wording, like much of the Constitution, that allows for the real ruling classes to broadly interpret such statutes to their own personal liking and existential needs at any given time. As we know from history, it's whatever the local leaders say it means, and that included denying the right to own certain weapons to black people based on their color, mostly, but also based on land ownership and 'character' in many places, and out west it meant the sheriff could decide to disarm anybody entering their town or certain parts of town, or they just didn't like somebody's looks, and any other special circumstances the moment might require. Of course, both right and left wingers will insist on their own fantasy versions wherein it was all 'settled law n stuff', and their silly version is the 'right' one, whichis why we have 689,097,123,2334 new threads on the innernetz about this rubbish every week.





That simplifies it


----------



## Picaro (Nov 20, 2019)

Porter Rockwell said:


> Picaro said:
> 
> 
> > It's deliberately vague wording, like much of the Constitution, that allows for the real ruling classes to broadly interpret such statutes to their own personal liking and existential needs at any given time. As we know from history, it's whatever the local leaders say it means, and that included denying the right to own certain weapons to black people based on their color, mostly, but also based on land ownership and 'character' in many places, and out west it meant the sheriff could decide to disarm anybody entering their town or certain parts of town, or they just didn't like somebody's looks, and any other special circumstances the moment might require. Of course, both right and left wingers will insist on their own fantasy versions wherein it was all 'settled law n stuff', and their silly version is the 'right' one, whichis why we have 689,097,123,2334 new threads on the innernetz about this rubbish every week.
> ...



It *is* very simple; they left it to the individual states to decide, same as with a state established religious sect, same as they let states decide who were eligible voters and who weren't, and lot so of other fun decisions. What 'changed' is the increasing powers of the SC, as Congress gradually shed itself of powers, beginning with Lincoln's corrupt Chase Court and the following decades of judicial activism at all levels, as the Senate became dominated by big business interests and the Trusts and railroads; the Senate decided on the makeup of the Courts during the 'Gilded Age' and set the precedents for the modern 'judicial activism', which right wingers now try to blame on the left wing now they that plundered and robbed so many people the worm turned on them politically.


----------

