Why was the second amendment written?

[rightwinger]

opinion only an opinion.

shall not be infringed is not an opinion.

Neither are well regulated militias

 

[rightwinger]

General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8

Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in everyone's best interest.

Doesn’t have to be
Only the country as a whole

 

[fncceo]

General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8

Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in everyone's best interest.

Doesn’t have to be
Only the country as a whole

That's where this whole Democracy thing comes in. Some people believe they will be helped by governmental assistance, others believe they will be devastated by it. Most will be affected in some way in which they won't care enough about to feel the need to participate in the discussion.

So, the people who they will benefit will vote for it, the people who believe they will hurt will vote against it, and the rest of us will stay home or follow their friends without really thinking.

Then, there will be the unintended consequences that people either didn't recognize, or deliberately ignored, that make the effects of the government program completely different than originally stated.

It's not a perfect way to run the commonweal, but it's better than any alternatives to date.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

It talks about a "well regulated militia", and that was because the US didn't have a standing military yet, so it depended on the people for defense.

Personally? I think that after we stood up our military, and made it one of the most formidable on the planet, that is when the 2nd became obsolete. And, while I'm from Montana and didn't know what store bought meat was most of my childhood, I'm also a hunter. And, if a person wants a 6 shooter, or any other kind of handgun, I would like the ammo to only be around 9 rounds before you have to reload. If you want to own a rifle, bolt action or lever action rifles are perfectly fine, and again, I'd like to see an ammo limit of about 10 rounds or less before reloading.

Semi automatic weapons that fire a round with each trigger squeeze that holds 30 plus rounds? Don't see the use of them. Handguns are better for home defense, and the AR-15 is designed to throw lots of ammo downrange quickly, which the only use I could see is in a war zone. And yeah, I served 20 years in the Navy.

The United States is a Republic, so it is a damn good thing that lefties don't get to decide the value of my life and / or come up with an arbitrary number of bullets that I might have in order to properly defend myself with.

Have you ever gotten out of bed in the middle of the night, confronted by multiple intruders and forced to spring into action? My neighbor did:

Video shows woman shoot at burglars in home invasion - CNN Video

So, you would try and insure the security of a free state with ten rounds when it's clear you might not be able to defend your own home with that few rounds? My personal safety, according to the courts, is my responsibility. If you feel safe with nine rounds, go with God. As for me, I might carry more like 109 bullets at a time.

Yes, I would fee safe having a handgun with only 10 rounds in it. Why? Because while I have heard of multiple burglars (2-4), I have never heard of a house being robbed by more people than that. And, even if it were 4 people invading my house, I have several advantages in already knowing the choke points and where the best cover is in my house, but I also qualified as a Sharpshooter while serving on the Security Force in Newport RI.

OMG. Another phony Special Forces wannabe with no common sense. My neighbor had none of that training; it was dark; if you had any common sense, you would realize that life and death scenarios never play out the way you intend:



Count the number of rounds expended on a single bad guy WITHOUT a gun. Those shots are being fired by experienced LEOs.

Don't ever pee down my neck and tell me it's raining.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Exactly

That is why we need them well regulated

Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.

Thanks for making that clear.

That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place

We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows

The security of a free state depends on it

Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile. The Founders understood that. The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt. Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.

That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well, I guess you're right about one thing. Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes. Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "regulation" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase. One of those struck a chord with me:

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias. Then, just as today, it was like herding cats. In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared. But, it wasn't happening. The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia. IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29. Hamilton stated:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security..."

Look at the wording carefully. WHAT is being regulated? It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated. The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready. Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain. Hamilton went on:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state. Continuing on, Hamilton says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

 

[rightwinger]

General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8

Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in everyone's best interest.

Doesn’t have to be
Only the country as a whole

That's where this whole Democracy thing comes in. Some people believe they will be helped by governmental assistance, others believe they will be devastated by it. Most will be affected in some way in which they won't care enough about to feel the need to participate in the discussion.

So, the people who they will benefit will vote for it, the people who believe they will hurt will vote against it, and the rest of us will stay home or follow their friends without really thinking.

Then, there will be the unintended consequences that people either didn't recognize, or deliberately ignored, that make the effects of the government program completely different than originally stated.

It's not a perfect way to run the commonweal, but it's better than any alternatives to date.

Actually, people in modern democracies do not want to see people suffering

Only asshole conservatives

 

[Porter Rockwell]

General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8

Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in everyone's best interest.

Doesn’t have to be
Only the country as a whole

That's where this whole Democracy thing comes in. Some people believe they will be helped by governmental assistance, others believe they will be devastated by it. Most will be affected in some way in which they won't care enough about to feel the need to participate in the discussion.

So, the people who they will benefit will vote for it, the people who believe they will hurt will vote against it, and the rest of us will stay home or follow their friends without really thinking.

Then, there will be the unintended consequences that people either didn't recognize, or deliberately ignored, that make the effects of the government program completely different than originally stated.

It's not a perfect way to run the commonweal, but it's better than any alternatives to date.

Actually, people in modern democracies do not want to see people suffering

Only asshole conservatives

So, are you saying democrats want to see "asshole conservatives" suffer?

 

[rightwinger]

Well regulated means the PEOPLE have the guns, and they are in good working order with plenty of ammunition.

Thanks for making that clear.

That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place

We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows

The security of a free state depends on it

Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile. The Founders understood that. The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt. Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.

That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well, I guess you're right about one thing. Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes. Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "regulation" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase. One of those struck a chord with me:

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias. Then, just as today, it was like herding cats. In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared. But, it wasn't happening. The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia. IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29. Hamilton stated:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security..."

Look at the wording carefully. WHAT is being regulated? It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated. The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready. Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain. Hamilton went on:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state. Continuing on, Hamilton says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

 

[fncceo]

General Welfare means do what is in the best interests of We the People

Today that includes welfare, Medicaid and Section 8

Nothing at all, with the possible exception of Salted Caramel ice cream, is in everyone's best interest.

Doesn’t have to be
Only the country as a whole

That's where this whole Democracy thing comes in. Some people believe they will be helped by governmental assistance, others believe they will be devastated by it. Most will be affected in some way in which they won't care enough about to feel the need to participate in the discussion.

So, the people who they will benefit will vote for it, the people who believe they will hurt will vote against it, and the rest of us will stay home or follow their friends without really thinking.

Then, there will be the unintended consequences that people either didn't recognize, or deliberately ignored, that make the effects of the government program completely different than originally stated.

It's not a perfect way to run the commonweal, but it's better than any alternatives to date.

Actually, people in modern democracies do not want to see people suffering

Only asshole conservatives

Everyone says they don't want to see anyone suffering when asked, even arsehole conservatives.

But, almost no one will give up their rec room, their car, or their nice lawn to do anything about it.

We will only help others when it doesn't entail any personal sacrifice for ourselves.

That's not a bad thing, that's just survival instinct. You don't save anyone by ensuring your own destruction.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

That’s a start....it also means we know who we can count on if invaded, who to call, the people we call are trained, we have a command structure in place

We don’t want a bunch of untrained gun nuts running around shooting at shadows

The security of a free state depends on it

Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile. The Founders understood that. The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt. Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.

That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well, I guess you're right about one thing. Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes. Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "regulation" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase. One of those struck a chord with me:

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias. Then, just as today, it was like herding cats. In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared. But, it wasn't happening. The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia. IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29. Hamilton stated:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security..."

Look at the wording carefully. WHAT is being regulated? It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated. The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready. Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain. Hamilton went on:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state. Continuing on, Hamilton says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

 

[rightwinger]

Most gun nuts are better trained than law enforcement, and by a country mile. The Founders understood that. The Founders also understood that people like you are corrupt. Regulations like you want are easily controlled by the corrupt.

That's why the Founders specified SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

Well, I guess you're right about one thing. Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes. Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "regulation" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase. One of those struck a chord with me:

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias. Then, just as today, it was like herding cats. In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared. But, it wasn't happening. The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia. IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29. Hamilton stated:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security..."

Look at the wording carefully. WHAT is being regulated? It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated. The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready. Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain. Hamilton went on:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state. Continuing on, Hamilton says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

 

[westwall]

Well, I guess you're right about one thing. Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes. Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "regulation" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase. One of those struck a chord with me:

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias. Then, just as today, it was like herding cats. In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared. But, it wasn't happening. The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia. IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29. Hamilton stated:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security..."

Look at the wording carefully. WHAT is being regulated? It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated. The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready. Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain. Hamilton went on:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state. Continuing on, Hamilton says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

Exactly. The Founders set up our system to be adversarial. That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.

They were brilliant men.

 

[rightwinger]

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

Exactly. The Founders set up our system to be adversarial. That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.

They were brilliant men.

The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed

 

[Porter Rockwell]

Well, I guess you're right about one thing. Gun nuts are better trained insofar as the Second Amendment goes. Now, I'd like to say something relative to this "regulation" issue:

Back in post # 94 EvMetro pointed out some uses of the phrase. One of those struck a chord with me:

"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."

When the debates were taking place, local governments set up civilian militias. Then, just as today, it was like herding cats. In theory, the founders / framers wanted the militia to muster on a regular schedule in order to be prepared. But, it wasn't happening. The framers had actual militia experience and got a lot of practice trying to get farmers, merchants, etc. to set business aside in order to spend some time training.

I was elected to five consecutive 2 year terms as the Commanding Officer in state civilian militia. IMO, that makes me qualified to say I might understand the tone of the framers, especially when Hamilton wrote about the militia in Federalist # 29. Hamilton stated:

"If a well-regulated militia be the most natural defense of a free country, it ought certainly to be under the regulation and at the disposal of that body which is constituted the guardian of the national security..."

Look at the wording carefully. WHAT is being regulated? It is the militia, NOT the weaponry being regulated. The initial objective is to have the militia (i.e. the people) trained and ready. Experience shows (and I have a little of that to draw on) is that the framers idea of a militia was nearly impossible to sustain. Hamilton went on:

"By a curious refinement upon the spirit of republican jealousy, we are even taught to apprehend danger from the militia itself, in the hands of the federal government."

So much for standing armies, but we still need to have a way to insure the security of a free state. Continuing on, Hamilton says:

"The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it.

To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endure.

Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped..."

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

The Bill of Rights and the concept of unalienable Rights - Rights that are so sacred that they transcend government and are above the law is beyond the legitimate bounds of government.

 

[Porter Rockwell]

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

Exactly. The Founders set up our system to be adversarial. That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.

They were brilliant men.

The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed

Shall not be infringed is not a broad term. The Right of the People is equally unequivocal in its meaning.

 

[Gdjjr]

Only the country as a whole

As in everybody's-

 

[rightwinger]

Your little discussion on the Militia as related by Hamilton was before the Constitution was written and two years before the 2nd A. became part of COTUS within the first 10 Amendments. The fact is Art I. sec. 8 and Clause 15 & 16 use the phrase "well regulated"; making Hamilton's opinion only an opinion.

The founders / framers (especially the framers) debated heavily before the Constitutional Convention. Us gun nuts (sic) know a little more history than you, so don't waste your desperation with non sequitirs.

Not only were we left with a Constitution, but the words explaining the meanings and intent of that Constitution. Let me leave you with some more of their wisdom:

"...on every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

Founders Online: From Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 12 June 1823

I understand. When the facts call your narrative into question, you have to try something to refute them. The problem is, you have nothing to refute the truth with. And you are losing sight of what the OP asked.

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

The Bill of Rights and the concept of unalienable Rights - Rights that are so sacred that they transcend government and are above the law is beyond the legitimate bounds of government.

Our Constitution and laws give people more rights than the Bible does

 

[rightwinger]

“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and Constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.” Thomas Jefferson

Was bolding that supposed to try and silence the truth? Did you read the quotes I have used of Jefferson's on this this thread? Do you need me to repeat them?

First, and foremost, George Washington disagrees with what you are trying to sell. There is a way to make changes. Here is George Washington's words. Hell, let me make them big and bold so you can see them. Maybe that's been your problem... type is too small:

"If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."

FAREWELL ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES

The American people are free to change their form of government, the concept of unalienable Rights is NOT what Jefferson was alluding to. There are limits to what government can change in our Republic. Let us quote Thomas Jefferson again:

Nothing is unchangeable but the inherent and unalienable rights of man. - Thomas Jefferson

In today’s political climate, amending the Constitution is impossible. It hasn’t been amended in over 40 years

Our constitution is written in broad terms. Leaving up to future generations what they want to do

Exactly. The Founders set up our system to be adversarial. That way the Rights of the individual would be much harder to take away through legislative fiat.

They were brilliant men.

The Constitution is written in broad enough terms that Amendments are rarely needed

Shall not be infringed is not a broad term. The Right of the People is equally unequivocal in its meaning.

Open to interpretation. Nobody has unlimited arms rights
You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile
You cannot fire your weapon any time or any place you want

 

[Gdjjr]

Our Constitution and laws give people more rights than the Bible does

The bible has nothing to do with our rights, which CANNOT be given, or taken- when either happens they become privilege or grants- rights are inherent, defined by the exercising of- when no harm is committed there is no foul to be punished- laws are intended to punish for criminal action not enriching the enFORCErs or the writers of the laws and should not restrict a person's rights based on what if, which is nothing more than mind reading based on a statistic which can be skewed to justify/excuse bad behavior by bad actors and punish non-criminals.

 

[Gdjjr]

Open to interpretation. Nobody has unlimited arms rights
You cannot buy an RPG or Stinger missile
You cannot fire your weapon any time or any place you want

Interpretation cannot exist without definition- words mean things- shall not be infringed leaves no wiggle room- anything can be bought if one has the resources (see the District of Criminals for evidence)- a weapon can be fired anytime one wants- that some fear it *might* (and there is the possibility it could) harm another- BUT, if it doesn't why is it a criminal action?