Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Nope you are - shown by your reaction in regards to associating/comparing yourself - as a gun owner, with gun MILITIA wackos, being human scumbag supporters.What are you, 12 years old?
That is why you had received 2 positive reactions scores from meCorrect, and I have spoken extensively and correctly why he is wrong on the law.
Just your Mama'sAs if I need your permission . . .
Shoo, shoo ... off you go.You are dismissed.
Disagree. One of the things Stevens pointed out was that at no time in the Court's history had they ever made it a point to treat 2nd amendment right to keep/her arms as an individual right. It was never treated as such. I think the right to keep some guns exists under the 9th, but not the 2nd.
Cruikshank and Presser are admittedly not great examples b/c of those held an outdated (and frankly wrong) view of dual federalism, which was updated by cases in the 20th Century, evolving into what became the "incorporation doctrine," and I think that's the part that Scalia actually did get right in some of their cases (Heller & MacDonald v Chicago).
But Stevens basically got it right. The 2nd Amendment right to keep and bear arms was in the context of militia service and that's how it's been understood for most of the country's history, irrespective of the incorporation doctrine.
No, he didnt. They dont want normal people to own guns and tailored their ruling for that purpose.
That "tyrannical" government - was never in view to the own US government (since the USA and it's people are protected by it's constitution) - but outside governments, endangering a newly founded Federal Republic - without a sufficient regular army. It's people like you and your church the NRA, and the human scumbag - that came up with this fanatic idiocy of facing an own US tyrannical government.we get it,, you hate the constitution and the 2nd A because it allows the people a defense against a tyrannical government,,
BORING!!!!That "tyrannical" government - was never in view to the own US government (since the USA and it's people are protected by it's constitution) - but outside governments, endangering a newly founded Federal Republic - without a sufficient regular army. It's people like you and your church the NRA, and the human scumbag - that came up with this fanatic idiocy of facing an own US tyrannical government.
regulateThe 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?
NO, it doesn'tDefinition 3 speaks to the definition I am referring . . . To adjust the operation or function of an item or system for proper operation.
No, it doesn't.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".
WTF?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."Let's scrutinize this from top to bottom . . .
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.
See above.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.
Perhaps you should.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?
Orderly.
"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.
Orderly.
Means regulated.
noun
noun: orderly; plural noun: orderlies
- an attendant in a hospital responsible for the nonmedical care of patients and the maintenance of order and cleanliness.
- a soldier who carries out orders or performs minor tasks for an officer.
NO, it doesn't.
2.......NOT tumultuous.
Meaning of tumultuous in English
tumultuous
adjective
formal
US
/tuːˈmʌl.tʃu.əs/ UK
/tʃuːˈmʌl.tʃu.əs/
very loud, or full of confusion, change, or uncertainty:
IMO it's moot to discuss about this. - since NRA and gun wackos (I am not talking about "normal" gun owners like myself) will never acquit to facts that don't suit them.Meaning of tumultuous in English
tumultuous
adjective
formal
US
/tuːˈmʌl.tʃu.əs/ UK
/tʃuːˈmʌl.tʃu.əs/
very loud, or full of confusion, change, or uncertainty:
Yes, just like the NG is today, orderly.You wanted the definition of "well regulated" from an 18th century dictionary and now you have it.
Well regulated meant orderly
The NG has nothing to do with the civilian militiaYes, just like the NG is today, orderly.
Why are they so orderly?
{from order}
The civilian militia doesn't exist.The NG has nothing to do with the civilian militia
No, shit.The NG is the reserve force of the government's standing army
So it is not the militia. And the second amendment has nothing to do with the militia and everything to do with the "right of the People"The civilian militia doesn't exist.
No, shit.
YES, it does.So it is not the militia. And the second amendment has nothing to do with the militia and everything to do with the "right of the People"
YES, it does.
Why do you think they prefaced militia, with well regulated?
The militia was replaced by the NG.
WTF?That's not what the federal government says. The NG is under the aegis of the US government and is part of the standing army.
The militia is not solely the people that are part of the standing army.
YES, it does.And again this has nothing to do with the "right of the People" to keep and bear arms.
