Comments on: “A Well Regulated Militia….”

By: Freedom and the Second Amendment | PropaGUNda

Freedom and the Second Amendment | PropaGUNda — Thu, 21 Feb 2013 02:55:33 +0000

[...] itself, it is clear that the forefathers of the country meant for some sort of oversight. As this blog post points out: If we assume that a civilian population is required to keep arms to protect itself from [...]

By: Guns: Split The Difference; A Rational Approach « kavips

Guns: Split The Difference; A Rational Approach « kavips — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 22:36:23 +0000

[...] the NRA does, is violently accost anyone who proposes regulating firearms, (which btw, the Constitution commands us to do.) Just like the handling of snitches on the streets of Wilmington, they rough up advocates to [...]

By: mike w.

mike w. — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:52:53 +0000

You also fail basic reading skills here. What is being “regulated” in the sentence is not the “arms” but the “militia.”

Firearms were not the subject of that sentence which was to be “well-regulated” The militia was, so why are you being so disingenuous?

By: mike w.

mike w. — Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:50:11 +0000

Someone needs to brush up on his period english.

Hint. The term “regulated” did NOT mean “regulated” in the way we think of the term today.

It meant “sufficiently armed and trained in their use” which goes along perfectly with the 1792 militia act. If it meant “regulated” as in “regulated out of existence by government” the way we use the term today, itwould cease to make any sense.