It was always a powerful and destructive tool, but at least when we all owned printed dictionaries and also had ready access to numerous printed references, only a connotation could be changed in the blink of an eye.
Today, definitions can be rewritten and votes switched instantly. Interesting times indeed.
I mean he’s right though. Regulated means trained. There’s a reason “shall not be infringed” was included right after that. To reinforce the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is essenti
Yeah, though at the same time, the lefties be like "Well if its suppose to be trained, then they should spend like 4 years in training, and get certified to own gun ever so many months, etc etc.
A federal standing army was a terrifying idea to the founding fathers. However, they did recognize that each state could provide their own guard if necessary.
If we were to translate the amendment into modern English today, it would look much more like this:
"Because it is necessary to have a well prepared and armed police force and national guard to protect and enforce the rights of the people in a free State, it is also necessary that there shall be no restriction on the right of the people within that state to be armed and ready to act as a check and balance against that state."
Basically, the first part of the amendment recognizes that even though they would have preferred to eliminate all militarized elements of the new nation, it is not possible to remove enforcement power from the state entirely, otherwise security and order cannot be maintained. That is what is conveyed with the beginning "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," they are merely stating their reasoning for even putting this amendment into the Bill of Rights, as most of them actually believed that since this right was inherent, codification of it was not needed.
In the second half, they give the counterbalance to the state's military power, making it clear that because there is a great but necessary danger in having an armed government, there must never be any restriction placed on the ability of the sovereign people to defend themselves from the state. Any limitation would disturb that balance of power and provide the state the ability to enslave the people. Hence, the clear and unmistakable language, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Even that statement, gives us better context to consider. When they place the comma after "Arms" they are making that first part into a distinct and clear acknowledgement. Specifically, that the people have a right to own and use arms. Not to be mistaken with a privilege, or to be granted by the amendment, or given as authorization by the state. This is a right, which is immutable and cannot be given as it is already existent.
The last four words are actually the entire purpose of the amendment. The initial explanation and affirmation were all intended to give context to the demand and restrictive order given to the state. The state is in no way allowed to make any alterations, encroachments, restrictions, or conditions that would usurp the right of the people.
Another aspect to consider is the way the phrase was used at the time. There are many texts from that time period that use "a well regulated ____" which usually was intended as saying the 'blank' was properly directed, controlled, organized, or constrained. In most cases, this was spoken about the state being well regulated by the people. Not the other way around.
It is also interesting to consider that in military terminology at the time, "regulation" was used to describe the soldiers uniform, provisions, and weaponry. Again, also strictly connected with the explanation above as those thing provided order, direction, and authority to the soldier, and at all times being intended as a representative and servant of the people.
The left has already horribly bastardized the true intent and meaning of the Constitution. Don't let them continue.
Maybe, but after some deep dives into the wording of other period texts, I believe that this way of looking at it is actually more in line with the phraseology of the time, and it actually makes the purpose of individual ownership stronger.
Basically, they acknowledge that having a well controlled state enforcer is a necessary evil if we want to live in a lawful society, but because that poses a very real danger, there must never be any restrictions on the right of the people to be armed, as they must be able to pose a threat to the state as well.
Looking at it this way actually disarms the liberal argument right out of the gate. They claim that there is a difference between the Militia and the People, and they are right, but for the wrong reason. There was a difference, and that is why it is worded so differently. But the difference isn't that only the state Militia gets to be armed. It actually means that the Militia (read: military/ police) are to be well regulated, and the People are to be armed separately, to enforce the regulations of the Militia.
Now, anyone of the People has the right to be part of the Militia, but that doesn't constrain the People's rights.
I think you still give the fed/state too much power in the first section.
If you have a well trained militia, it could act as both a neighborhood watch style police force in conjunction with regular police and also as a national defense force.
Why would you need a well armed police force 95% of the time?
Exactly.
A "well regulated" militia is one that is on par with a regular army, e.g. the British Army Regulars.
Well regulated = well armed and trained.
Unfortunately, generations before us decided to give those powers over to pedo three letter agencies.
Private citizens in 18th century Britain owned their own warships complete with artillery
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privateer
The idea that the Founding Fathers didn't want American citizens to own "weapons of war" is preposterous
Lefties have been making inroads by corrupting the meaning of words for a long time. "Regulated." "Liberal." "Welfare."
"Racist", "Pandemic", "Peaceful", "Crisis", and the biggest change of late - "Infrastructure".
It saddens me to see once respected dictionaries turn on a dime and add new definitions so freely.
The rule for defining words was always based on common lexicon. Now it is based on anyone who bitches.
I'm old enough to remember when a "phobia" was a clinical "fear of". Now it just means "those who don't appreciate my lifestyle choices".
We will never survive as a country if we can't have faith in the very words we have in common to conduct simple conversations.
Thanks for the comment, RS.
2+2=5.
It was always a powerful and destructive tool, but at least when we all owned printed dictionaries and also had ready access to numerous printed references, only a connotation could be changed in the blink of an eye.
Today, definitions can be rewritten and votes switched instantly. Interesting times indeed.
"Access to" meaning "someone else pays for".
"Conspiracy theory."
It also was a reference to the nation's military as OPPOSED to the PEOPLE whose right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. PERIOD.
It meant that the people have the right (and duty IMO) to create their own militia on par with the military.
Including equivalent weaponry.
https://twitter.com/marcorandazza/status/1383910493765570565
"For a people who are free, and who mean to remain so, a well organized and armed militia is their best security" --Thomas Jefferson
I mean he’s right though. Regulated means trained. There’s a reason “shall not be infringed” was included right after that. To reinforce the idea that the right to keep and bear arms is essenti
He left out the training aspect.
Regulated = “like a regular”
Yeah, though at the same time, the lefties be like "Well if its suppose to be trained, then they should spend like 4 years in training, and get certified to own gun ever so many months, etc etc.
true that
That's what happens when you simply pop the clutch.
yup “well-trained”
Hence why corrupting language is one of the main commie objectives.
No Rev Limiter, just Valve Float.
Everyone needs to get their shit in order and tell their close and trusted to get their shit in order.
"Everything which is not forbidden is allowed."
"nOt On My WaTcH!" -Libtards
Well regulated == armed with standard weapons.
He ruined his own comment by using their language. “...not subject to infringements and restrictions like everything else you fuckers ruined...”
I have a bit of a different take on it.
A federal standing army was a terrifying idea to the founding fathers. However, they did recognize that each state could provide their own guard if necessary.
If we were to translate the amendment into modern English today, it would look much more like this:
"Because it is necessary to have a well prepared and armed police force and national guard to protect and enforce the rights of the people in a free State, it is also necessary that there shall be no restriction on the right of the people within that state to be armed and ready to act as a check and balance against that state."
Basically, the first part of the amendment recognizes that even though they would have preferred to eliminate all militarized elements of the new nation, it is not possible to remove enforcement power from the state entirely, otherwise security and order cannot be maintained. That is what is conveyed with the beginning "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," they are merely stating their reasoning for even putting this amendment into the Bill of Rights, as most of them actually believed that since this right was inherent, codification of it was not needed.
In the second half, they give the counterbalance to the state's military power, making it clear that because there is a great but necessary danger in having an armed government, there must never be any restriction placed on the ability of the sovereign people to defend themselves from the state. Any limitation would disturb that balance of power and provide the state the ability to enslave the people. Hence, the clear and unmistakable language, "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Even that statement, gives us better context to consider. When they place the comma after "Arms" they are making that first part into a distinct and clear acknowledgement. Specifically, that the people have a right to own and use arms. Not to be mistaken with a privilege, or to be granted by the amendment, or given as authorization by the state. This is a right, which is immutable and cannot be given as it is already existent.
The last four words are actually the entire purpose of the amendment. The initial explanation and affirmation were all intended to give context to the demand and restrictive order given to the state. The state is in no way allowed to make any alterations, encroachments, restrictions, or conditions that would usurp the right of the people.
Another aspect to consider is the way the phrase was used at the time. There are many texts from that time period that use "a well regulated ____" which usually was intended as saying the 'blank' was properly directed, controlled, organized, or constrained. In most cases, this was spoken about the state being well regulated by the people. Not the other way around.
It is also interesting to consider that in military terminology at the time, "regulation" was used to describe the soldiers uniform, provisions, and weaponry. Again, also strictly connected with the explanation above as those thing provided order, direction, and authority to the soldier, and at all times being intended as a representative and servant of the people.
The left has already horribly bastardized the true intent and meaning of the Constitution. Don't let them continue.
I really appreciate your input, Fren, but I think you might have missed the point.
Maybe, but after some deep dives into the wording of other period texts, I believe that this way of looking at it is actually more in line with the phraseology of the time, and it actually makes the purpose of individual ownership stronger.
Basically, they acknowledge that having a well controlled state enforcer is a necessary evil if we want to live in a lawful society, but because that poses a very real danger, there must never be any restrictions on the right of the people to be armed, as they must be able to pose a threat to the state as well.
Looking at it this way actually disarms the liberal argument right out of the gate. They claim that there is a difference between the Militia and the People, and they are right, but for the wrong reason. There was a difference, and that is why it is worded so differently. But the difference isn't that only the state Militia gets to be armed. It actually means that the Militia (read: military/ police) are to be well regulated, and the People are to be armed separately, to enforce the regulations of the Militia.
Now, anyone of the People has the right to be part of the Militia, but that doesn't constrain the People's rights.
I think you still give the fed/state too much power in the first section.
If you have a well trained militia, it could act as both a neighborhood watch style police force in conjunction with regular police and also as a national defense force.
Why would you need a well armed police force 95% of the time?
Just for using the term pop the clutch get massive ups from me,
https://patriots.win/p/12i48hk7ej/a-well-regulated-militia-meant-t/