Quote:
Originally Posted by dksuddeth
well regulated, when inserted in to the 2nd Amendment did not mean what people think it means today. Well regulated meant well trained, well versed, and in good working order. It had absolutely zilch to do with a government ordered standing army, especially considering that the founders mistrusted standing armies. If the people aren't 'well-regulated', whos fault is that? If you're not well regulated, that is your fault.
|
I didn't say it had to be a government-ordered standing army, but it does have to be well regulated. You sitting on your front porch polishing a shotgun is not well regulated.
Quote:
|
I'm not getting away with anything because nothing of what I said is circumspect. If you'd read the actual historical documents like the federalist papers, anti-federalist papers, and the constitutional convention documents, you'd know what I was saying is completely truthful.
|
Granted. You were completely accurate in that the 2nd amendment's authors did not implicitly intend us to carry missiles because they didn't know what a missile was.
By this logic, you no longer have the right to free speech except orally and in a newspaper. Government can forbid radio, TV, and the internet (including TFP) from saying anything it wants, because the founders didn't specifically mean speech via electronic medium.
The right to free travel only exists on horseback, horse-drawn carriage, or on foot. Park your car, you have no constitutional right to drive it anywhere.
They didn't know what an air force was either, so it's perfectly OK for the government to require you to quarter military aviators in your home.
Shall we keep dissecting it in this way, or can we agree that "right to bear arms" does not only refer to pistols and swiss army knives?