Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

The_Dunedan · 09-20-2004, 05:55 PM

Grizzley;

In the parlance of 1798, "well-regulated" meant "In proper order" or "Functioning properly," not "Controlled by rules or authority." In the context of the 2A, this could be translated as "A Militia in proper order, being nessescary..." The "qualifying clause" is grammatically subordinate: in other words, the second part of the sentance is the one that matters...that bit about "shall not be infringed."

Second: the Militia Act defines the Unreglulated Militia as all persons between 17 and 45, capable of bearing arms, who are not members of the Nat'l Gaurd. This means that anyone between 17-45 is protected -absolutely- by the 2A. See section 311, USC.

Thirdly: I suggest you read up on your Jefferson. He made it -quite- clear that the reason for the existance of the 2A was to provide for the overthrow of a tyrannical, out-of-control government. He advises that "the people are never to be debarred the use of Arms," among other tidbits. Washington, Burr, and most of the other Founders agreed with him on this.

Fourthly, to rebut your "Racist 2A" nonsense, I suggest the following essay:
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?ID=916
"The Racist Roots of Gun Control"
I should also like to see some sources for your "southern states required it" statement. As the essay above makes clear, many slave states ( including some in the North, btw ) objected to the text of the 2A, on the grounds that it would allow freedmen to arm themselves. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that only Southern states owned slaves: read up on Maryland sometime, willya?

Fifthly, please consult the case of Miller vs US, in which the SCOTUS decided that any "militia suitable" weapon, that is any weapon suitable for military use, was protected by the 2A and that it's posession, therefore, could not be infringed upon FOR ANY REASON.

I am sorry if this comes off as a flame, but for a member of my own profession, teaching the impressionable young, to be so ignorant is inexcusable. This is either an apalling lapse in your own education or deliberate ignorance, and I have difficulty deciding which.

09-20-2004, 05:55 PM	#66 (permalink)
The_Dunedan Junkie	Grizzley; In the parlance of 1798, "well-regulated" meant "In proper order" or "Functioning properly," not "Controlled by rules or authority." In the context of the 2A, this could be translated as "A Militia in proper order, being nessescary..." The "qualifying clause" is grammatically subordinate: in other words, the second part of the sentance is the one that matters...that bit about "shall not be infringed." Second: the Militia Act defines the Unreglulated Militia as all persons between 17 and 45, capable of bearing arms, who are not members of the Nat'l Gaurd. This means that anyone between 17-45 is protected -absolutely- by the 2A. See section 311, USC. Thirdly: I suggest you read up on your Jefferson. He made it -quite- clear that the reason for the existance of the 2A was to provide for the overthrow of a tyrannical, out-of-control government. He advises that "the people are never to be debarred the use of Arms," among other tidbits. Washington, Burr, and most of the other Founders agreed with him on this. Fourthly, to rebut your "Racist 2A" nonsense, I suggest the following essay: http://www.keepandbeararms.com/infor...tem.asp?ID=916 "The Racist Roots of Gun Control" I should also like to see some sources for your "southern states required it" statement. As the essay above makes clear, many slave states ( including some in the North, btw ) objected to the text of the 2A, on the grounds that it would allow freedmen to arm themselves. You also seem to be under the misapprehension that only Southern states owned slaves: read up on Maryland sometime, willya? Fifthly, please consult the case of Miller vs US, in which the SCOTUS decided that any "militia suitable" weapon, that is any weapon suitable for military use, was protected by the 2A and that it's posession, therefore, could not be infringed upon FOR ANY REASON. I am sorry if this comes off as a flame, but for a member of my own profession, teaching the impressionable young, to be so ignorant is inexcusable. This is either an apalling lapse in your own education or deliberate ignorance, and I have difficulty deciding which. Last edited by hrdwareguy; 09-21-2004 at 06:53 AM..