Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If it was a gun they were banning, I'd be upset.A journey of a thousand bans begins with but a single step Comrade.
But is just a needless accessory. ....
How about when they craft the law and state anything that increases the rate of fire on a weapon is banned? That is the bait and switch that the anti gunners are going for with the bump stock ban...which will then make trigger upgrades, or any other upgrade illegal from your stock gun....
------------------------------------------------- see the things that you anti gun people just don't know . But hey BusyBee , machine guns are LEGAL in quite a few States in the USA . I won't go into details but take it from me that Machine Guns are legal in quite a few USA States BusyBee .its not about your feelings
I could say there is no reason for you to be allowed to speak in public
It is a fact. A bump stock is not required to use a rifle.
SO WHAT, THAT CHANGES NOTHING
YES IT DOES. IT MEANS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUMP STOCKS.
you need to learn the original intent of the 2nd before you make a bigger ass of yourself,,,
the government has machine guns which means the people can have machine guns, and only commies disagree with that
You are a far right wing looney toon. Try owning a working machine gun and you will be arrested and jailed.
LolBump stocks are a silly accessory, and only wannabe military types own them.
I am a stanch supporter of the 2 Amendment and love guns.
But have no problem with them being banned. ...
Yeah, but that's just a foot in the door.
You do know the LV shooter had real automatic weapons, correct?
Several of them, and 1 of the ARs barrel melted.
I say don't give them an inch, no ban on anything!
I say you are cuckoo. There is no reason to own a bump stock.
its not about your feelings
I could say there is no reason for you to be allowed to speak in public
It is a fact. A bump stock is not required to use a rifle.
Irrelevant, Fucking pieces of shit control freaks like yourselves need to shut the fuck up
------------------------------------------------- see the things that you anti gun people just don't know . But hey BusyBee , machine guns are LEGAL in quite a few States in the USA . I won't go into details but take it from me that Machine Guns are legal in quite a few USA States BusyBee .It is a fact. A bump stock is not required to use a rifle.
SO WHAT, THAT CHANGES NOTHING
YES IT DOES. IT MEANS THAT THE SECOND AMENDMENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BUMP STOCKS.
you need to learn the original intent of the 2nd before you make a bigger ass of yourself,,,
the government has machine guns which means the people can have machine guns, and only commies disagree with that
You are a far right wing looney toon. Try owning a working machine gun and you will be arrested and jailed.
lolI
Nonsense.Bump stocks are a silly accessory, and only wannabe military types own them.
I am a stanch supporter of the 2 Amendment and love guns.
But have no problem with them being banned. ...
YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter
As is the case with the First Amendment, the Second Amendment isn’t ‘unlimited.’
Speech is subject to time, place, and manner restrictions, for example.
Likewise, the Second Amendment is subject to restrictions consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence – the banning of ‘bump stocks’ doesn’t interfere with the right of citizens to possess a firearm pursuant to lawful self-defense.
To support the Second Amendment is to support Second Amendment case law – the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law, including the Second Amendment.
And there’s nothing in that case law which renders the banning of ‘bump stocks’ as un-Constitutional.
I see the commie clayton is in the house....
hey clayton the 2nd amendment isnt about self defense dumbass, try keeping up and get some education
and like I said take your case law and shovel it you commie lover
Spoken like a true knuckle dragger. I’m guessing no matter WHAT, you’ll never change your stance.Bump stocks are a silly accessory, and only wannabe military types own them.
I am a stanch supporter of the 2 Amendment and love guns.
But have no problem with them being banned. ...
YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter
The original intent of the Second Amendment can be found here:I ain't a commie. I said I understood your point. Perhaps you should calm down. as far as vegas, I'd say you could have hit as many in that dense crowd with or without a bump stock. More accurately too.I understand your point but no stock is needed to bump fire a rifle. I don't like it either but they are useless.Bump stocks are a silly accessory, and only wannabe military types own them.
I am a stanch supporter of the 2 Amendment and love guns.
But have no problem with them being banned. ...
YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter
USELESS???
what about las vegas?? not so useless are they,,,,that might be why you commies want them gone
sorry but you cant be a 2nd supporter and be OK with banning
that makes you a closet commie
I suggest you and your other commie friends learn the original intent of the 2nd before you talk about it
you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can and cant have
Word on the street is they’re highly effective in mowing down large crowds of innocent people. What could possibly go wrong?I of course hope that GOA is successful in its lawsuit . I do not own a 'bump stock' but I have no problem with their use and people owning and using them .
Nonsense.No need to muddy the waters.Ok. What do you have a problem with being banned?
This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...
No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?
The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.
The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.
A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?
Both you and Trump are wrong, unsurprisingly.I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.YOU CANT BE A 2nd supporter and be OK with any ban,,,its like banning hate speech and being a 1st supporter
This all or nothing thing is going to end up with nothing or me owning an atomic weapon.
Let's not be ridiculous.
I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.
Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.
What I keep asking is what are those reasonable regulations? What are they? Everyone who is OK with the banning of the Bump stocks all say that it is a Reasonable Regulation. I see it as a Constitutional Violation.
Why? Not just the Second Amendment. You can not be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law. Due Process of law is not an announcement of turn it in and lose the money, or destroy it yourself, or go to jail. If we handled any other items that way the people would be outraged.
We object to Judges legislating from the Bench, why should we accept a man who is not even a Judge deciding what the law says, and announcing that we will have tens of thousands, or even hundreds of thousands of new criminals based upon his whim?
If you want to ban them, then you have to pass a law doing so. Not just make an announcement and tell anyone who objects to shut the hell up. There will be a Stay in place by some Federal Judge before the New Year is here.
This is actually the sort of thing that Trump said was wrong with Washington.
This is ignorant, wrong, and fails as a false comparison fallacy.The fees are a bit restrictive, but the wait makes no difference as far as I'm concerned.I'm ok with nothing. I am ok with private gun ownership, but if we can't put some reasonable regulations in place then we will just have to do without.It's eventually going to end up with nothing because reasonable people will be forced to go that way by the gun wackos.
I'm not totally sure which way you mean that.
Funny thing is your statement is so correct it will work either way.
NYC makes me wait 3-6 months and pay around $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in my own apartment legally.
How reasonable is that?
On the other end of things here in kansas I can walk into a pawn shop, sign the papers, and walk out concealed carrying with no phone or fees required. I can also have a compete arsenal in my basement. Again no permits or fees.
Some middle ground is needed.
Why is the wait not an issue? What are they waiting for? The whole purpose isn't to do a check, its to make the process so onerous people just quit.
How about we put a 10 day waiting period on abortions?
Seems very liberal this calling folks with unregistered weapons a militia.I dont see that in the 2nd amendment
the words are "shall not be infringed"...pretty simple
you cant have the very people the 2nd was meant to protect us against deciding what we can or cant have
Go join a militia if we're quoting the 2nd. It was written by a 3rd grader with ADD.
We can look at 1810 and see how the writers implimented it. Reading it....its like they left a flaw in there intentionally or screwed up.
The founders said that every able bodied male (actually it was every able bodied free male, meaning white, but I think we can adjust that to the modern interpretation of human unless you want to argue that women and minorities don’t have the same rights as white guys) was a member of the Militia and could be called up as needs the State. So everyone is already in the Militia.
That is the correct response.
One of the constitutionialists on here came back with an article about able bodied folks up to 45 years of age and this or that. It was pretty comical with its regulated vs unreglated and somewhat restrictive where I was waiting to read that sons of the Mayflowers, Trumps or Clintons did not need to join.
So yeah, join the National Guard and get your gun was my answer.
Well regulated meant the Governors could Commission Officers. To call up the Militia, what happened is an officer rode into town. The Census showed 100 able bodied free men in town. They were calling up twelve percent. So the Levy on the town was 12. More than that could volunteer, but the town was responsible for at least 12. If enough men did not volunteer, the men were “pressed” into service. Drafted to use the current term. These men had rifles, they were not issued firearms. Much like the Minutemen, they were already armed and had sufficient powder and shot for the deployment.
If the Militia was never activated in your town you were still counted as an able bodied free man.
The National Guard is not the modern equivalent to the Militia. It is more like the modern equivalent of the Armies of the 1850’s. They were part of the 20th Maine. Volunteers for a term of service.
But yeah, liberally this makes some sense
Nonsense.No need to muddy the waters.Ok. What do you have a problem with being banned?
This thread ain't about me. It's about the bump stock ban. ...
No, you said you support the Second Amendment. But you have no problem with banning bump stocks. So what would you have a problem with being banned. Come on, give us an example. How about bolt action rifles that fire a .50 BMG round that can penetrate four inches of reinforced concrete?
The Second Amendment covers guns not bump stocks. Reasonable regulation does not violate the Constitution.
The definition of reasonable regulation is what we are trying to define. What is reasonable? It was reasonable to have blue laws covering among other things free speech, and those laws were struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the First Amendment. It was reasonable to “encourage” via physical means in order to get a man to confess, until it was struck down by the Supreme Court as a violation of the Cruel and Unusual punishment and the right not to testify against yourself.
A lot of things were reasonable. And now they aren’t. So what I am trying to find out is what everyone thinks is reasonable regulation. For the anti gunners, the reasonable restriction is a complete ban on private ownership. Is that going to be a mere reasonable restriction in the near future?
No one advocates for the ‘banning’ of the private ownership of firearms.
The Supreme Court has already held that the banning of handguns is un-Constitutional; and the courts have likewise held that the carrying of concealed firearms is Constitutionally protected.
What is considered to be a ‘reasonable restriction’ will be decided by the courts – ultimately the Supreme Court.
And until such time as the Supreme Court rules on a given firearm regulatory measure, those measures will be considered both reasonable and Constitutional.
Seems very liberal this calling folks with unregistered weapons a militia.Go join a militia if we're quoting the 2nd. It was written by a 3rd grader with ADD.
We can look at 1810 and see how the writers implimented it. Reading it....its like they left a flaw in there intentionally or screwed up.
The founders said that every able bodied male (actually it was every able bodied free male, meaning white, but I think we can adjust that to the modern interpretation of human unless you want to argue that women and minorities don’t have the same rights as white guys) was a member of the Militia and could be called up as needs the State. So everyone is already in the Militia.
That is the correct response.
One of the constitutionialists on here came back with an article about able bodied folks up to 45 years of age and this or that. It was pretty comical with its regulated vs unreglated and somewhat restrictive where I was waiting to read that sons of the Mayflowers, Trumps or Clintons did not need to join.
So yeah, join the National Guard and get your gun was my answer.
Well regulated meant the Governors could Commission Officers. To call up the Militia, what happened is an officer rode into town. The Census showed 100 able bodied free men in town. They were calling up twelve percent. So the Levy on the town was 12. More than that could volunteer, but the town was responsible for at least 12. If enough men did not volunteer, the men were “pressed” into service. Drafted to use the current term. These men had rifles, they were not issued firearms. Much like the Minutemen, they were already armed and had sufficient powder and shot for the deployment.
If the Militia was never activated in your town you were still counted as an able bodied free man.
The National Guard is not the modern equivalent to the Militia. It is more like the modern equivalent of the Armies of the 1850’s. They were part of the 20th Maine. Volunteers for a term of service.
But yeah, liberally this makes some sense
One of the biggest mistakes we can make in trying to study, and truly understand History is application of modern language and norms to the era. If we are to truly understand what someone was saying, we must take their words as they were used in the era spoken, not in the way modern interpretations would have us believe.
Yeah. Every single able bodied man was in fact, according to the Militia Act of 1792, a member of the militia. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
The first Militia Act was passed in May of 1792, six months after the Second Amendment had been ratified. If anything is going to give us a clue as to what the Founders really intended with the Second Amendment, the law they passed to define what the word Militia meant, six months later, is about as close as you can get.
Today, we call the National Guard the Militia, but that isn’t the case at all in History. Further, it doesn’t mean that only the National Guard can have weapons, as again, the original intent, as expressed by the Congress and the Nation, was that the Militia was every able bodied free man.
You say Unregistered Weapons. Do you know when Serial Numbers on Civillian Weapons became the norm? When it became required? For most weapons, it was not until 1934, although I have an inherited rifle from my Father, that he got when he was 16, a .22 rifle, that has no Serial Number, because it wasn’t mandated for those weapons until 1968. How could you register a weapon without any means of identification? Weapons at the time of the Revolution were generally made in small shops, by talented Gunsmiths, some more talented than others. In other words, anyone could make a weapon. Including in their own back yard if they had the skills.
In fact, you could purchase cannon, and yes, I mean exactly what you think I do. Those big black powder cannon firing an iron ball weighing several pounds. Private ownership of Machine Guns was also fine and dandy. Teddy Roosevelt when he led the charge up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders did so supported by two Machine Guns that had been purchased privately, and donated to the unit. Seriously. Look it up.
The issue isn’t complicated, but to really discuss it you have to know the history. The brief overview of the history would take you thirty minutes or so to cover. If you think I’m making this up, then look to the writings of the era. The famous book Last of the Mohicans. The beginning of the book shows the British marching into the village and announcing that the Militia is being activated. This predates the Constitution and the Revolution. Yet the Militia was all the men in the town able to fight. Yes the book is a work of fiction to tell the story of the French and Indian wars. But why would they put a scene in there that no one would possibly believe if it wasn’t common practice?
Veterans of that war would provide the backbone, the experience the American Army needed to fight the British a few years later, for our Independence.
Everyone was armed, and everyone was ready to fight to protect their homes, their farms, their families, and the same of their neighbors. We did a lot of things wrong in History, but the Militia wasn’t one of them IMO.
Seems very liberal this calling folks with unregistered weapons a militia.The founders said that every able bodied male (actually it was every able bodied free male, meaning white, but I think we can adjust that to the modern interpretation of human unless you want to argue that women and minorities don’t have the same rights as white guys) was a member of the Militia and could be called up as needs the State. So everyone is already in the Militia.
That is the correct response.
One of the constitutionialists on here came back with an article about able bodied folks up to 45 years of age and this or that. It was pretty comical with its regulated vs unreglated and somewhat restrictive where I was waiting to read that sons of the Mayflowers, Trumps or Clintons did not need to join.
So yeah, join the National Guard and get your gun was my answer.
Well regulated meant the Governors could Commission Officers. To call up the Militia, what happened is an officer rode into town. The Census showed 100 able bodied free men in town. They were calling up twelve percent. So the Levy on the town was 12. More than that could volunteer, but the town was responsible for at least 12. If enough men did not volunteer, the men were “pressed” into service. Drafted to use the current term. These men had rifles, they were not issued firearms. Much like the Minutemen, they were already armed and had sufficient powder and shot for the deployment.
If the Militia was never activated in your town you were still counted as an able bodied free man.
The National Guard is not the modern equivalent to the Militia. It is more like the modern equivalent of the Armies of the 1850’s. They were part of the 20th Maine. Volunteers for a term of service.
But yeah, liberally this makes some sense
One of the biggest mistakes we can make in trying to study, and truly understand History is application of modern language and norms to the era. If we are to truly understand what someone was saying, we must take their words as they were used in the era spoken, not in the way modern interpretations would have us believe.
Yeah. Every single able bodied man was in fact, according to the Militia Act of 1792, a member of the militia. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
The first Militia Act was passed in May of 1792, six months after the Second Amendment had been ratified. If anything is going to give us a clue as to what the Founders really intended with the Second Amendment, the law they passed to define what the word Militia meant, six months later, is about as close as you can get.
Today, we call the National Guard the Militia, but that isn’t the case at all in History. Further, it doesn’t mean that only the National Guard can have weapons, as again, the original intent, as expressed by the Congress and the Nation, was that the Militia was every able bodied free man.
You say Unregistered Weapons. Do you know when Serial Numbers on Civillian Weapons became the norm? When it became required? For most weapons, it was not until 1934, although I have an inherited rifle from my Father, that he got when he was 16, a .22 rifle, that has no Serial Number, because it wasn’t mandated for those weapons until 1968. How could you register a weapon without any means of identification? Weapons at the time of the Revolution were generally made in small shops, by talented Gunsmiths, some more talented than others. In other words, anyone could make a weapon. Including in their own back yard if they had the skills.
In fact, you could purchase cannon, and yes, I mean exactly what you think I do. Those big black powder cannon firing an iron ball weighing several pounds. Private ownership of Machine Guns was also fine and dandy. Teddy Roosevelt when he led the charge up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders did so supported by two Machine Guns that had been purchased privately, and donated to the unit. Seriously. Look it up.
The issue isn’t complicated, but to really discuss it you have to know the history. The brief overview of the history would take you thirty minutes or so to cover. If you think I’m making this up, then look to the writings of the era. The famous book Last of the Mohicans. The beginning of the book shows the British marching into the village and announcing that the Militia is being activated. This predates the Constitution and the Revolution. Yet the Militia was all the men in the town able to fight. Yes the book is a work of fiction to tell the story of the French and Indian wars. But why would they put a scene in there that no one would possibly believe if it wasn’t common practice?
Veterans of that war would provide the backbone, the experience the American Army needed to fight the British a few years later, for our Independence.
Everyone was armed, and everyone was ready to fight to protect their homes, their farms, their families, and the same of their neighbors. We did a lot of things wrong in History, but the Militia wasn’t one of them IMO.
And I am not saying it was a mistake.
Well regulated meant something else then?
Seems very liberal this calling folks with unregistered weapons a militia.That is the correct response.
One of the constitutionialists on here came back with an article about able bodied folks up to 45 years of age and this or that. It was pretty comical with its regulated vs unreglated and somewhat restrictive where I was waiting to read that sons of the Mayflowers, Trumps or Clintons did not need to join.
So yeah, join the National Guard and get your gun was my answer.
Well regulated meant the Governors could Commission Officers. To call up the Militia, what happened is an officer rode into town. The Census showed 100 able bodied free men in town. They were calling up twelve percent. So the Levy on the town was 12. More than that could volunteer, but the town was responsible for at least 12. If enough men did not volunteer, the men were “pressed” into service. Drafted to use the current term. These men had rifles, they were not issued firearms. Much like the Minutemen, they were already armed and had sufficient powder and shot for the deployment.
If the Militia was never activated in your town you were still counted as an able bodied free man.
The National Guard is not the modern equivalent to the Militia. It is more like the modern equivalent of the Armies of the 1850’s. They were part of the 20th Maine. Volunteers for a term of service.
But yeah, liberally this makes some sense
One of the biggest mistakes we can make in trying to study, and truly understand History is application of modern language and norms to the era. If we are to truly understand what someone was saying, we must take their words as they were used in the era spoken, not in the way modern interpretations would have us believe.
Yeah. Every single able bodied man was in fact, according to the Militia Act of 1792, a member of the militia. Militia Acts of 1792 - Wikipedia
The first Militia Act was passed in May of 1792, six months after the Second Amendment had been ratified. If anything is going to give us a clue as to what the Founders really intended with the Second Amendment, the law they passed to define what the word Militia meant, six months later, is about as close as you can get.
Today, we call the National Guard the Militia, but that isn’t the case at all in History. Further, it doesn’t mean that only the National Guard can have weapons, as again, the original intent, as expressed by the Congress and the Nation, was that the Militia was every able bodied free man.
You say Unregistered Weapons. Do you know when Serial Numbers on Civillian Weapons became the norm? When it became required? For most weapons, it was not until 1934, although I have an inherited rifle from my Father, that he got when he was 16, a .22 rifle, that has no Serial Number, because it wasn’t mandated for those weapons until 1968. How could you register a weapon without any means of identification? Weapons at the time of the Revolution were generally made in small shops, by talented Gunsmiths, some more talented than others. In other words, anyone could make a weapon. Including in their own back yard if they had the skills.
In fact, you could purchase cannon, and yes, I mean exactly what you think I do. Those big black powder cannon firing an iron ball weighing several pounds. Private ownership of Machine Guns was also fine and dandy. Teddy Roosevelt when he led the charge up San Juan Hill with the Rough Riders did so supported by two Machine Guns that had been purchased privately, and donated to the unit. Seriously. Look it up.
The issue isn’t complicated, but to really discuss it you have to know the history. The brief overview of the history would take you thirty minutes or so to cover. If you think I’m making this up, then look to the writings of the era. The famous book Last of the Mohicans. The beginning of the book shows the British marching into the village and announcing that the Militia is being activated. This predates the Constitution and the Revolution. Yet the Militia was all the men in the town able to fight. Yes the book is a work of fiction to tell the story of the French and Indian wars. But why would they put a scene in there that no one would possibly believe if it wasn’t common practice?
Veterans of that war would provide the backbone, the experience the American Army needed to fight the British a few years later, for our Independence.
Everyone was armed, and everyone was ready to fight to protect their homes, their farms, their families, and the same of their neighbors. We did a lot of things wrong in History, but the Militia wasn’t one of them IMO.
And I am not saying it was a mistake.
Well regulated meant something else then?
Well Regulated. OK. We have to start with some basic history. The Militia act codified the standard practice. All able bodied males were in the Militia. Automatically. The way the Militia was activated is that an officer would ride into town, and announce they were activating the militia and the town was responsible for ten percent. If the town had one hundred able bodied males, that meant that at least ten had to go and fight. If they had more than ten, that was fine. But at least ten had to go.
If ten men did not volunteer then the leaders of the town would “Press” the men into service. That is what the Draft was called before we had the Draft. You were Pressed into service. This is where Well Regulated comes in.
The Governors of the newly established States could Commission Officers. That is to say they gave you a piece of paper that said you were a General. Generals could Commission officers to ranks below them. You derived your authority from the senior officer, who derived his authority from the political leadership. Clear so far?
Well Regulated meant that the Officers were in command, and followed the laws of war, and the Militia who were serving, including those who were volunteers as well as those who were Pressed into Military Service, were subject to the Orders and military discipline. In other words, if you as a soldier, a Private, were given an order, you had to follow it or be subject to Courts Martial for your disobedience.
Well Regulated did not mean restrictions on weapons. But clear chains of command, and subject to military discipline. Recognizing the authority of the Officers and the Political Leadership to carry out their duties.
Again, this is all covered under the Militia act, and writings of the era. I would ask if you ever read the book, but perhaps it is better to start with the Movie Last of the Mohicans. The British march into the village and announce that the Militia has been activated. Hawkeye says no, but enough other men say yes so there is no need to Press the men into service. BTW that is where the term Pressed into Service originated. Often the Militia would place conditions on their service. They would go for a set time, providing they could return to plant the crops or bring the crops in. The terms were often negotiable, as while the Militia was activated, they were also the responsibility of the convening authority to feed and house and care for. It gets really expensive to feed a hundred men three meals a day to no purpose. Most often the Militia were rounded up to fight a defensive action, to counter a larger force marching on one of the local towns. Or they were activated to participate in an attack, to give a larger advantage to the attacking force. After those events were taken care of the Militia was often released to return home.
The Militia was as I linked to and showed above, every single able bodied free man. Not according to the Supreme Court, but the actual laws of the era defining what they meant by Militia, and what Well Regulated meant. It meant that when you fought in a conflict, you were subject to the orders of the Officers.
One of the two biggest mistakes we make studying history is using modern definitions for words. The famed “Throw another Faggot on the fire” is not a homophobic call to destroy a gay man by burning him at the stake in context. It is an instruction to throw a small piece of wood onto a fire, feed fuel to the fire in other words.
Once you understand the language in context, how it was used in the era, then sometimes it really is as bad as it sounds today, and other times it isn’t. The founders did not envision any restrictions on the type and number of firearms anyone could own.
So where did the Supreme Court get the idea that any restrictions were exactly what the Founders intended? Because to me, it sounds like they should have struck down the very first Gun Control legislation because it obviously goes against the very plainly stated desires and intent of the Founders.
