Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
well regulated
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means (in 2A context).
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
And what does a well regulated militia mean to the NRA? Are biker gangs in Texas considered well regulated militias?
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Which word? "Well" or "regulated?" And I think that was the first time I ever used "regulated" in this context.Dan H wrote:You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means (in 2A context).
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
You are either regulating the militia well, or the arms.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Two hundred years ago, well-regulated meant 'in good working order'. Two hundred years ago, a f****t was a bundle of sticks. Today if I said I was going to burn a f****t I'd be turned into the police, but you can't fathom that the meaning of well-regulated hasn't changed in some form during the same time frame?
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
First, it isn't hyphenated.
As ratified by the states and vetted by Jefferson:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You can argue what "well" means if you like, but we probably agree on it.
"Regulated" doesn't have to mean controlled by laws, but it does mean controlled by rules. Your quote is correct, but is only for the "well" portion of the phrase. "Well regulated" is to control something in a way so that it is in good working order.
Even if you go back through the etymology and look at late middle english through to latin, you will see that "rules" has been the root going back to BC days. We didn't change what it meant in the late 1700s after nearly 2000 years of it meaning one thing, only to change it back in the 1800s.
As ratified by the states and vetted by Jefferson:
A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
You can argue what "well" means if you like, but we probably agree on it.
"Regulated" doesn't have to mean controlled by laws, but it does mean controlled by rules. Your quote is correct, but is only for the "well" portion of the phrase. "Well regulated" is to control something in a way so that it is in good working order.
Even if you go back through the etymology and look at late middle english through to latin, you will see that "rules" has been the root going back to BC days. We didn't change what it meant in the late 1700s after nearly 2000 years of it meaning one thing, only to change it back in the 1800s.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Actually, depending on which state, they are variously missing one or more commas or have hyphens or not. So you're using 200-year old transcription errors as a point of debate . . . 
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
As for as the etymology of the term, you're simply incorrect.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
BTW - the Second Amendment is the only one which includes the phrase "shall not be infringed." All other Amendments have some sort of caveat as to when those rights can be infringed; IE, you're secure in your papers unless there's a warrant, you can't be forced to let soldiers live in your house unless it's during wartime and the Congress has passed a law. It's interesting how the the "shall not be infringed" is so easily tossed out the window in front of the rest of the article. The meat of the Amendment is the latter half, the well-regulated part is merely the reasoning behind it. There are also no caveats - other Amendments lay out the exceptions and the requirements to bypass them. There is no such requirement here.
Additionally, in US v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held that the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. Heller to some extent confirmed this decision more recently.
http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
As for as the etymology of the term, you're simply incorrect.
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
BTW - the Second Amendment is the only one which includes the phrase "shall not be infringed." All other Amendments have some sort of caveat as to when those rights can be infringed; IE, you're secure in your papers unless there's a warrant, you can't be forced to let soldiers live in your house unless it's during wartime and the Congress has passed a law. It's interesting how the the "shall not be infringed" is so easily tossed out the window in front of the rest of the article. The meat of the Amendment is the latter half, the well-regulated part is merely the reasoning behind it. There are also no caveats - other Amendments lay out the exceptions and the requirements to bypass them. There is no such requirement here.
Additionally, in US v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held that the right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government. Heller to some extent confirmed this decision more recently.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Oddly enough as more details come out it looks like the police department did the vast majority of the shooting and that many of the weapons recovered from the bikers were knives and chains. Only one rifle was reported, all of the other guns were handguns.Nodack wrote:And what does a well regulated militia mean to the NRA? Are biker gangs in Texas considered well regulated militias?
http://theconservativetreehouse.com/201 ... me-police/
Always be dubious of breaking news until everything shakes out, especially when it comes to shootings.
For example, when this story first broke, the guy was a mass-shooter who "shot 9 people." Turns out everyone shot was shot by the NYPD.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2012/08/25/ny ... e-gunfire/
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
I will take Thomas Jefferson's personal ratification of the text version I used over the article from a guy whose expressed intent is to support the NRA.Actually, depending on which state, they are variously missing one or more commas or have hyphens or not. So you're using 200-year old transcription errors as a point of debate . . .
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Given that Madison was actually the writer of the 2nd Amendment, isn't it a bit arbitrary to use Jefferson as your end-all, be-all?
BTW, don't care much for the NRA, of which I am not a member. Organizations like the SAF and JPFO are much more clear-headed IMO.
BTW, this whole hyphen argument is descending to the level of trolling on your part, honestly. You want hyphens? Say hello to my little hyphens.
Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitutions:
VIRGINIA
(June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
DELAWARE
(September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
PENNSYLVANIA
(September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MARYLAND
(November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA
(December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
VERMONT
(July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …
MASSACHUSETTS
(October 25, 1780)
XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
(June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:
INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT
(November 26, 1787)
It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."
MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION
(December 12, 1787)
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.
DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION
(February 6, 1788)
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(June 21, 1788)
Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
VIRGINIA CONVENTION
(June 27, 1788)
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 7,1788)
That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.
NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 26,1788)
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(May 29, 1790)
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
BTW, don't care much for the NRA, of which I am not a member. Organizations like the SAF and JPFO are much more clear-headed IMO.
BTW, this whole hyphen argument is descending to the level of trolling on your part, honestly. You want hyphens? Say hello to my little hyphens.
Eight of the original states enacted their own bills of rights prior to the adoption of the United States Constitution. The following states included an arms-rights provision in their state constitutions:
VIRGINIA
(June 12, 1776)
13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
DELAWARE
(September 11, 1776)
18. That a well-regulated militia is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free government.
PENNSYLVANIA
(September 28, 1776)
XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
MARYLAND
(November 11, 1776)
XXV. That a well-regulated militia is the proper and natural defence of a free government.
NORTH CAROLINA
(December 18, 1776)
XVII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the State; and, as standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under the strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
VERMONT
(July 8, 1777)
XV. That the people have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State …
MASSACHUSETTS
(October 25, 1780)
XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.
NEW HAMPSHIRE
(June 2, 1784)
XXIV. A well regulated militia is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a state.
In addition to these legislative enactments of bills or declarations of rights, there were numerous other proclamations being promulgated at the time. For example:
INSTRUCTIONS OF TOWN MEETING, PRESTON, CONNECTICUT
(November 26, 1787)
It is our ardent wish that an efficient government may be established over these states so constructed that the people may retain all liberties, privileges, and immunities usual and necessary for citizens of a free country and yet sufficient provision made for carrying into execution all the powers vested in government. We are willing to give up such share of our rights as to enable government to support, defend, preserve the rest. It is difficult to draw the line. All will agree that the people should retain so much power that if ever venality and corruption should prevail in our public councils and government should be perverted and not answer the end of the institution, viz., the well being of society and the good of the whole, in that case the people may resume their rights and put an end to the wantonness of power. In whatever government the people neglect to retain so much power in their hands as to be a check to their rulers, depravity and the love of power is so prevalent in the humane mind, even of the best of men, that tyranny and cruelty will inevitably take place."
MINORITY OF THE PENNSYLVANIA CONVENTION
(December 12, 1787)
That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and their own state, or the United States, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public inquiry from individuals.
DEBATES OF THE MASSACHUSETTS CONVENTION
(February 6, 1788)
And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press, or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms.
NEW HAMPSHIRE RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(June 21, 1788)
Congress shall never disarm any citizen, unless such as are or have been in actual rebellion.
VIRGINIA CONVENTION
(June 27, 1788)
17th. That the people have a right to keep and bear to arms; that a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people trained to arms, is the proper, natural and safe defence of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and therefore ought to be avoided, as far as the circumstances and protection of the community will admit; and that, in all cases, the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 7,1788)
That the militia should always be kept well organized, armed and disciplined, and include, according to past usages of the states, all the men capable of bearing arms, and that no regulations tending to render the general militia useless and defenceless, by establishing select corps of militia, of distinct bodies of military men, not having permanent interests and attachments to the community, ought to be made.
NEW YORK CONVENTION
(July 26,1788)
That the people have the right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
RHODE ISLAND RATIFICATION CONVENTION
(May 29, 1790)
XVII. That the people have a right to keep and bear arms; that a well-regulated militia, including the body of the people capable of bearing arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free state.
Last edited by Dan H on Thu May 21, 2015 12:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
I am not using Jefferson as an arbitrary ruler of the truth. It was actually his job. He was Secretary of State at the time, and part of his job was to verify that the version ratified by the states was appropriate. The one with the unusual use of punctuation and capitalization is not the one the states actually ratified.Dan H wrote:Given that Madison was actually the writer of the 2nd Amendment, isn't it a bit arbitrary to use Jefferson as your end-all, be-all?
BTW, don't care much for the NRA, of which I am not a member. Organizations like the SAF and JPFO are much more clear-headed IMO.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
The title of this thread is ironic since a gun can make somebody a vegetable.
"Too little, too late, too unbothered."
- Phoenix Suns 2023-2024 season motto.
"Be Legendary."
- Phoenix Suns 2023-2024 season motto.
"Be Legendary."
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
. . . and swimming pools, and Jarts, and cars, and botulism-tainted food, and . . .Superbone wrote:The title of this thread is ironic since a gun can make somebody a vegetable.
It's a scary world out there. Fetch the bubble-wrap.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
A well regulated militia is going to mean different things to different people depending on which side of the fence you are on. All this hyphen crap is just that. The term is kind of vague and leads to these silly arguments.
All these arguments about what the Constitution says or doesn't will continue forever. The bottom line for me is what we Americans of today decide what things should be. People argue about how the Constitution is this unbendable document written in stone, but it isn't. It was written hundreds of years ago by men who had no idea what life would be like in the future. It has been amended several times to change with the times. If America decides to arm all of it's citizens with rocket launchers or the decide to ban all guns altogether it will happen if we Americans want it to regardless of the Constitution.
All these arguments about what the Constitution says or doesn't will continue forever. The bottom line for me is what we Americans of today decide what things should be. People argue about how the Constitution is this unbendable document written in stone, but it isn't. It was written hundreds of years ago by men who had no idea what life would be like in the future. It has been amended several times to change with the times. If America decides to arm all of it's citizens with rocket launchers or the decide to ban all guns altogether it will happen if we Americans want it to regardless of the Constitution.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
It shouldn't, either way, regardless of the Constitution. If it should happen either way there is as you've said a formal process for doing so.Nodack wrote:A well regulated militia is going to mean different things to different people depending on which side of the fence you are on. All this hyphen crap is just that. The term is kind of vague and leads to these silly arguments.
All these arguments about what the Constitution says or doesn't will continue forever. The bottom line for me is what we Americans of today decide what things should be. People argue about how the Constitution is this unbendable document written in stone, but it isn't. It was written hundreds of years ago by men who had no idea what life would be like in the future. It has been amended several times to change with the times. If America decides to arm all of it's citizens with rocket launchers or the decide to ban all guns altogether it will happen if we Americans want it to regardless of the Constitution.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
There is a formal process and we have been using that formal process for a long time. I think we have pretty much settled on a medium stance in this country. Both the pro gun and anti gun people aren't happy which means it's about where it will be.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
Honestly, this is the only amendment people try and use to say that Constitution is like scripture and shouldn't be changed. Like you both said, that is stupid; and there is a well-regulated process to change it.
Re: Edited: easier to buy guns than vegetables?
http://crimepreventionresearchcenter.or ... nsing-law/
As the authors of the study note, from 1995 to 2005 the firearm homicide rate in Connecticut indeed fell from 3.13 to 1.88 per 100,000 people, representing a 40% drop over a ten-year period (“We estimate that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place“). However, unexplained is that the firearms homicide rate was falling even faster immediately prior to the licensing law. From 1993 to 1995, the Connecticut firearms homicide rate fell from 4.5 to 3.13 per 100,000 residents, which means more than a 30% drop in just two years. This represented a greater decline than the 17% national decline over those two years. Of course, Rudolph and his co-authors do not address this inconvenient fact (though if one looks at their Figure 1 on page 3 this preceding drop is clearly visible).
Their results are also extremely sensitive to the last year that they pick. While it is true that Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate fell by 40% from 1995 to 2005, it only fell by 16% between 1995 and 2006 and 12.5% between 1995 and 2010. Meanwhile the drops for the US and the rest of the Northeast are much greater. From 1995 and 2006, the firearm homicide rates for the US and the rest of the Northeast fell respectively by 27% and 22%. From 1995 and 2010, the drops were 39% and 31%. The longer samples show a relative increase in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate whether Rudolph et al. had looked at one additional year or five additional years.
As the authors of the study note, from 1995 to 2005 the firearm homicide rate in Connecticut indeed fell from 3.13 to 1.88 per 100,000 people, representing a 40% drop over a ten-year period (“We estimate that the law was associated with a 40% reduction in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rates during the first 10 years that the law was in place“). However, unexplained is that the firearms homicide rate was falling even faster immediately prior to the licensing law. From 1993 to 1995, the Connecticut firearms homicide rate fell from 4.5 to 3.13 per 100,000 residents, which means more than a 30% drop in just two years. This represented a greater decline than the 17% national decline over those two years. Of course, Rudolph and his co-authors do not address this inconvenient fact (though if one looks at their Figure 1 on page 3 this preceding drop is clearly visible).
Their results are also extremely sensitive to the last year that they pick. While it is true that Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate fell by 40% from 1995 to 2005, it only fell by 16% between 1995 and 2006 and 12.5% between 1995 and 2010. Meanwhile the drops for the US and the rest of the Northeast are much greater. From 1995 and 2006, the firearm homicide rates for the US and the rest of the Northeast fell respectively by 27% and 22%. From 1995 and 2010, the drops were 39% and 31%. The longer samples show a relative increase in Connecticut’s firearm homicide rate whether Rudolph et al. had looked at one additional year or five additional years.