NO, you dumbass of course it was.
So like I stated, WHERE does it state in ANY 18th century dictionary that well regulated means "good working order"?
Teabaggers just make shit up.
It doesn't mean what it used to mean in the early 21st century.
The Role of Government in Maintaining a Well Regulated Militia!?!
- Thread starter progressive hunter
- Start date
So like I stated, WHERE does it state in ANY 18th century dictionary that well regulated means "good working order"?
Teabaggers just make shit up.
- Banned
- #22
The concept of a "militia" is actually moot since the Supreme Court declared the right to keep and bear arms to be an individual right not connected to membership of any organization.
The only duty of the government is to not infringe upon that right.
multivita-man
Platinum Member
- Aug 10, 2022
- 5,291
- 2,676
- 938
Nah, the issue isn't settled because the Supreme Court is blatantly corrupt and doing paid work for highly partisan special interest groups. And the reasoning behind some of their recent decisions strains credulity, to put it mildly. There is no reason the American public should have faith in their recent 5-4 or conservative-majority rulings because their decisions are rendered strictly along ideological lines.
I think court packing is totally in play if the Dems ever get the power again, though if they do, I'd rather they use it to hammer out bi-partisan agreement for massive judicial reform, to include re-examination of some of those dubious decisions they've made since, oh, 2005 or so. Reject it? Then it's court packing time.
Kruska
Diamond Member
Ups... hit the nerves of a gun Drumpfter - booh..hooh....Maaaama dey wana dake ma gun away.
This thread isn't about gun rights - but about Drumpfter inspired gun wackos that want to play Militia - since according to them, the Police, National-Guard and the US army can't protect the country or a state sufficiently. Now, shoo, shoo and exercise your 2nd amendment "individual" rights.
Last edited:
Abatis
Platinum Member
The Oxford English Dictionary shows "regulated" has an obsolete definition applied to military affairs:
Of troops: Properly disciplined.
And then "discipline" has an obsolete definition again applying specifically to military affairs:
Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill. Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally; military skill and experience; the art of war.
You should examine dictionaries that focus on actual English usage (as in Britain that note obsolete uses) not American dictionaries focused on modern usage.
Perhaps you could examine the Cambridge English (UK) Dictionary?
Definition 3 speaks to the definition I am referring . . . To adjust the operation or function of an item or system for proper operation.
In horology the term "regulate" certainly aligns with the usage I am citing; the adjustment of a timepiece so it will keep time in the different positions in which it may be carried and kept. An older (mechanical) wristwatch which has been so designed and adjusted, is said to be "regulated" and likely have the word stamped or engraved on its back-plate.
There is even a use for regulated that is used for firearms as functional objects . . . A multi-barrel firearm (e.g., a double barreled shotgun) must be adjusted so that the barrels shoot to the same point-of-aim. If a double-barreled shotgun or a three barreled "drilling" fails to shoot properly, it is considered to be "out of regulation" and needs to be "re-regulated".
Abatis
Platinum Member
The most important example of contemporaneous (with the 2ndA) usage of "well regulated" is found in The Federalist 29, written by Hamilton and focusing on the Constitution's militia clauses where the actual regulation of the militia would be authorized. This excerpt speaks expressly and directly to the concept of "well-regulated militia" and what that designation means and what the repercussions would be of a demand that "all the militia" actually be, "well regulated."
"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 endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."
The Federalist 29
Let's scrutinize this from top to bottom . . .The Federalist 29
From the start it is clear that "the project of disciplining" has more to do with -practice makes perfect-than -Congress shall have the power to regulate-. "Expertness in movements" is not something the militia can achieve by having a parchment sent from Washington DC read to them, it "is a business that requires time and practice".
The "yeomanry" was a familiar term describing the class of English subjects who were liable to serve in British militia. Hamilton's adding of, "and of the other classes of citizens" is a direct refutation and condemnation of the exclusions outlined in English common law and their bill of rights that the framers held in contempt. That general inclusion, -of every class of citizen-, without regard for land ownership, religion or title, told the people that no exclusions or qualifications attached to a citizen's status were to be enacted or inferred onto arms keeping and bearing by the proposed constitution.
Again, "well regulated" used to describe militia is merely an accolade; it describes a quality; ("the character of") the unit and the men. That description is earned. It is earned only after extensive "military exercises and evolutions" and demonstrating expertness in military readiness and order ("acquire the degree of perfection"). It is a description that is bestowed ("entitle them to"), it certainly is not describing the legally constrained condition of simply being under regulations that you are claiming.
After exploring and explaining the futility of any requirement that the "whole nation" actually perform as a "well regulated" militia, Hamilton resigns himself to the only legitimate level of obligation the government could enforce upon the citizens; "Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped . . . [and] assemble them once or twice in the course of a year", just to make certain their arms and physical condition was suitable for service.
Well, you have been operating on an incorrect conclusion relying on a superficial reading and modern reinvention of the words used. Perhaps you should go a little deeper in your learning than your confirmation bias is allowing you to comprehend at the moment?
Abatis
Platinum Member
The question you should be asking your arrogant, ignorant self is, WHERE DOESN'T 18TH CENTURY USEAGE OF "WELL REGULATED" MEAN, IN "GOOD WORKING ORDER"?
It's funny that there's a term that is the antonym of "well regulated" used to describe the condition and operational order of militia . . .
"Ill regulated" is a characterization assigned to troops not equipped properly, who demonstrate substandard military discipline and whose general condition renders them unfit for battle. "Ill regulated" has been used for centuries to describe such substandard military condition and readiness and amazingly, it just chugs quietly along under the political radar, being used in modern times just like it was in the 1600's.
- "For this reason I shall examine, by what has passed of late years in these nations, whether experience have convinced us, that officers bred in foreign wars, be so far preferable to others who have been under no other discipline than that of an ordinary and ill-regulated militia..." -- Fletcher, Andrew, A DISCOURSE OF GOVERNMENT With relation to MILITIA'S, Edinburgh, 1698. Reprinted in Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun Selected Political Writings and Speeches, David Daiches, Scottish Academic Press 1979, Edinburgh
It is still in usage today;
- Acute viral hepatitis and cholera were the two major diseases that Russian medical personnel had to contend with. Both are endemic to squalid living conditions and confined living space found in ill-regulated field camps and deployment areas. -- VIRAL HEPATITIS AND THE RUSSIAN WAR IN CHECHNYA, U.S. Army Medical Department Journal, May/June 1997 issue
I would be more likely to see Jesus riding sidesaddle on a rainbow farting unicorn waving a double-ended dildo, then seeing any leftist wackadoodle still using the term "teabagger" being correct about anything about the Constitution and/or gun rights.
Oh yeah, that's brilliant!
Last edited:
Blues Man
Diamond Member
- Aug 28, 2016
- 35,513
- 14,915
- 1,530
"Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined," says Rakove. "It didn't mean 'regulation' in the sense that we use it now, in that it's not about the regulatory state. There's been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight." In other words, it didn't mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty
In the last link search for well regulated and you will see that the term is used in the definition of the word "orderly"
Therefore well regulated as used in the 18th century was defined as orderly. So it seems that saying the term "well regulated" was used as meaning in good working order.
Last edited:
Abatis
Platinum Member
The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent on the 2ndA /RKBA for going on 150 years.
The dissents in Heller admit this, that the individual right interpretation has always been what is represented in the Court's precedents and that the entire Court that day, in three opinions, subscribe to that interpretation.
Abatis
Platinum Member
It is worthy of mentioning, Rakove is a devotee of Saul Cornell and is a hard-core "collective right" interpretation supporter. For him to state that about the words of the 2ndA is a surprising example of intellectual integrity from a devout anti-gunner.
.
multivita-man
Platinum Member
- Aug 10, 2022
- 5,291
- 2,676
- 938
This is categorically wrong. It's more gun lobby propaganda that is nothing more than a steaming pile of bullshit.
John Paul Stevens was pretty clear in rejecting the idea of individual gun rights; he argued that the right to keep and bear arms was a collective right in the context of the militia. He argued further - and correctly - that the Court had been consistent in treating the right to keep and bear arms in that context - as a collective right, not an individual right.
As with so many of their decisions since becoming an ideologically-driven majority, the right wing justices basically rewrote Court doctrine to be consistent with their ideology. Their decisions are largely divorced from history, valid legal rationale, or judicial precedent. And Heller was mild compared to some of the crap they've been shitting out lately.
progressive hunter
Diamond Member
- Dec 11, 2018
- 67,999
- 42,755
- 2,615
- Thread starter
- #32
youre so cute and stupid all at ponce,,
of course the people that the 2nd A is meant to protect us against are going to try and make a law that forbids us from anything that threatens their power,,,
you still havent proven he was wrong about anything,,
just that youre one of those people the founders warned us about,,
- Banned
- #33
Sorry Moon Bat but Scalia and the majority on the Court said that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right in the Heller judgement, not a damn collective right. It was later reaffirmed in McDonald and driven home big time in the Bruen case.
You are barking up the wrong tree there, Sport. You lost this one.
You sicko Leftest believe everything should be collective, don't you? You hate the concept of individual rights, don't you?
Failzero
Platinum Member
We trained on BLM lands liaised with Sheriffs on Search & Rescues In 4 Counties , marched in Redding Rodeo parade 2 years in a row ( 65 marchers and mounted Color Guard , and served Thanksgiving dinners at the mission 3 years in a row all in uniform ) and we are in California , there are Militia all over the country training and forming up Legally
Abatis
Platinum Member
What are you, 12 years old?
Correct, and I have spoken extensively and correctly why he is wrong on the law. It's fine if all you can add to the conversation is childish gibberish, I now know there is no need to consider you a competent voice on anything.
As if I need your permission . . .
You are dismissed.
.
Abatis
Platinum Member
But that's what the dissents actually say . . .
. . . in the very opening of his dissent, that there is any question remaining whether the 2ndA protects a "collective" or "individual" right; he states the 2ndA protects a right possessed and enforceable by individuals.
- "The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. . . . "
In reality, the original "collective right" theory, hatched in the LOWER federal courts in 1942, has been abandoned by everyone but ignorant loudmouths on internet message boards.
Stevens in his Heller dissent argues a watered down, stripped down, mere shell of the original "collective right" theories advanced in those 1942 decisions, Cases v US (1st Circuit) and US v Tot (3rd Circuit). Stevens argues a new theory is now guiding 2ndA interpretation, a theory that was hatched in the 1990's by Saul Cornell who called it the, "militia conditioned individual right".
That of course is still garbage because it still depends on the destroyed by precedent theory that the right is conditioned by the words of the 2ndA; that position demands one believes the RKBA is granted / given / created by the 2ndA, and that theory violates foundational rights doctrine and clear, SCOTUS precedent that has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court multiple times, for going on 150 years.
How such a "militia conditioned individual right" interpretation forces the Court to sustain the DC laws, (which were not predicated on, or enacted under any -regulate the militia- statue) was not established by Stevens.
Copying and pasting histrionic hyperbole from Salon or the Washington Post is not effective argumentation.
Last edited:
multivita-man
Platinum Member
- Aug 10, 2022
- 5,291
- 2,676
- 938
I've read Heller. I know what was expressed in the dissent. Your splicing it doesn't change fiction to fact.
Abatis
Platinum Member
And yet you cannot quote or cite any legal support to prove me wrong.
And yet SCOTUS way back in1886 held that a state law that, "forbid(s) bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law" does not violate any right retained by the citizen:
- "The right voluntarily to associate together as a military company or organization or to drill or parade with arms without and independent of an act of Congress or law of the state authorizing the same is not an attribute of national citizenship. Military organization and military drill and parade under arms are subjects especially under the control of the government of every country. They cannot be claimed as a right independent of law. Under our political system, they are subject to the regulation and control of the state and federal governments, acting in due regard to their respective prerogatives and powers. The Constitution and laws of the United States will be searched in vain for any support to the view that these rights are privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States independent of some specific legislation on the subject."
- "Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 (1886) , held that the right to keep and bear arms was not violated by a law that forbade “bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law.” Id., at 264–265. This does not refute the individual-rights interpretation of the Amendment; no one supporting that interpretation has contended that States may not ban such groups."
Well, except goofballs like the idiot in your video and I guess you . . .
But I know what the Court has said and I had hoped that you would have some intellectual curiosity and go looking on your own. I cited the cases, you could have learned where you were wrong on your own, but you are apparently one of those guys who are a stubborn puppy and needs your nose rubbed in your mess.
That's funny, I'm the one here solidly standing on the Constitution and SCOTUS decisions enforcing the Constitution. You have been reduced to arguing Oath Keeper conspiracy theories.
.
Bell Huey
Diamond Member
And yet the militia is part of US Code.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
(a)
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b)The classes of the militia are—
(1)
the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2)
the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes
Abatis
Platinum Member
Dissents . . . multiple, two opinions that each are mutually referential, Breyer's dissent like I said, is the most emphatic in rejecting your "collective right" BS and it cites Scalia's majority opinion and the dissents as all standing on the singular point of the Court's precedents endorsing the "individual right".
Breyer does violate precedent by agreeing with Stevens that, "the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. . . . " How can a right that SCOTUS has repeatedly held is pre-existing and not granted by the 2ndA, be interpreted by Breyer (and Stevens) to be conditioned and qualified by the 2ndA?
The Court has been boringly consistent for going on 150 years, that because the RKBA is not granted by the 2ndA, the right does not in any manner depend on the Constitution for its existence. How can Breyer claim the right recognized and secured by the 2ndA is a limited version of what the people possessed and exercised before the 2ndA was ratified?
Is it Breyer's opinion that the framers of the 2ndA 'gave back' to the people a limited, qualified, conditioned "right" that the people never parted with? Where is that theory represented in Court doctrine or holdings?
Breyer and Stevens both argue legal and logical absurdities that expressly violate SCOTUS precedent:
Supreme Court, 1876: "The right . . . of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose" [that of self-defense in public from the KKK by ex-slaves in Louisiana] . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . ."
Supreme Court, 1886: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . . "
Supreme Court, 2008: "it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment, like the First and Fourth Amendments, codified a pre-existing right. The very text of the Second Amendment implicitly recognizes the pre-existence of the right and declares only that it “shall not be infringed.” As we said in . . . 1876 , “[t]his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, . . .”
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Gabbard slams 'politically motivated' surveillance as effort to 'intimidate' her following criticism of Harris
- Started by shockedcanadian
- Replies: 1
-
Tennessee prepares to execute Oscar Smith, 3 years after last-minute reprieve- Started by Mack The Finger
- Replies: 1
-
TREASON, Insurrection SEDITION AND SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES = Trump Party
- Started by merrill
- Replies: 0
-
