• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

At the time the 2cd Amendment was written

Exquisitor said:
Doubtful.

Well regulated means they rise in the morning for calisthenics and know how to march in formation.

Well regulated to me means to have passed a class in Mental Health and Gun Safety.

Well regulated, so that no one will make careless threatening statements.

Well regulated, so that in an emergency the militia will know how to follow proper protocols and orders.
Click to expand...

No one cares what it means to you.

The fact is that at the time of the 2nd, "well regulated" meant arms in proper working condition.

{ William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible. }

 
TurtleDude said:
they can=when people are on active duty-just as a court can sequester a jury. Congress cannot regulate your arms when you are merely a potential militia member just as the court cannot sequester private citizens before they are part of a grand or petit jury
Click to expand...
Yes, I agree with you which is why.
Uncensored2008 said:
No one cares what it means to you.

The fact is that at the time of the 2nd, "well regulated" meant arms in proper working condition.

{ William Thackary’s 1848 novel (item 4) uses the term “well-regulated person”. The story is that of Major Dobbin, who had been remiss in visiting his family. Thackary’s comment is to the effect that any well-regulated person would blame the major for this. Clearly, in this context, well-regulated has nothing to do with government rules and laws. It can only be interpreted as “properly operating” or “ideal state”.

In 1861, author George Curtis (item 5), has one of his characters, apparently a moneyhungry person, praising his son for being sensible, and carefully considering money in making his marriage plans. He states that “every well-regulated person considers the matter from a pecuniary point of view.” Again, this cannot logically be interpreted as a person especially subject to government control. It can only be read as “properly operating”.

Edmund Yates certainly has to be accepted as an articulate and educated writer, quite capable of properly expressing his meaning. In 1884 (item 6), he references a person who was apparently not “strictly well-regulated”. The context makes any reading other that “properly operating” or “in his ideal state” impossible. }

Click to expand...
That's no argument.

Do you have a court case where regulated is meant to refer to the condition of arms and not persons?
 
Exquisitor said:
No reason the Federal Government can't regulate the Militia..
Click to expand...

In fact, they were given explicit powers to do so. The Federal government wasn't given any Constitutional powers to regulate the arms of the People.
 
Exquisitor said:
Yes, I agree with you which is why.

That's no argument.

Do you have a court case where regulated is meant to refer to the condition of arms and not persons?
Click to expand...
And the context of the amendment it's talking about it while regulated militia not a well-regulated firearm. So your question is answered within the text of the amendment.
 
Questerr said:
So the ATF’s definitions are what we’re talking about now? Would you like to see what they define as a “pistol” and then an example of what they define as a “short barreled rifle”?
Click to expand...
And why on one day something is perfectly fine to own but however the next it's not. The ATF does a real fine job of defining.
 
zsu2357 said:
And why on one day something is perfectly fine to own but however the next it's not. The ATF does a real fine job of defining.
Click to expand...
I'd like to see the supreme court ream out the ATF on its constantly changing definitions. Kavanaugh hates the Chevron Deference standard. It might be coming
 
Tigerace117 said:
No, gun obsessives
Click to expand...
To assume obsession because people don't agree in lock step with you about the place fire arms hold in our society is pigheadedness and bigotry equal to that of Christan fundamentalists with regard to homosexuals.

congratulations on this topic you're equally as insufferable as a Christian fundamentalist.
 
Exquisitor said:
Yes, I agree with you which is why.

That's no argument.

Do you have a court case where regulated is meant to refer to the condition of arms and not persons?
Click to expand...

There have been six major pieces of gun control legislation passed by Congress, all prior to Heller: NFA 1934, Gun Control Act of 1968, Firearm Owners Protection Act (including the Hughes Amendment) of 1986, the Brady Act, the Assault Weapons Ban and the Lautenburg Amendment.

The word militia isn't mentioned a single time in any of them. The words "individual", "person" and "citizen" are repeated hundreds of times.
 
CLAX1911 said:
To assume obsession because people don't agree in lock step with you about the place fire arms hold in our society is pigheadedness and bigotry equal to that of Christan fundamentalists with regard to homosexuals.

congratulations on this topic you're equally as insufferable as a Christian fundamentalist.
Click to expand...

Consideirng the fact that the Trump cult is happily allied with Christian fundamentalism, your posturing is rather laughable.
 
zsu2357 said:
I wonder what they call it when a person is assaulted without any firearm present? These anti gun people are funny huh.
Click to expand...
That doesn't matter because it doesn't involve a fire arm.

Should they ban farms the next thing is knives. London had a severe criminal element and the number of stabbings in skyrocketed and they banned knives. So banning guns doesn't dissuade criminals.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Consideirng the fact that the Trump cult is happily allied with Christian fundamentalism, your posturing is rather laughable.
Click to expand...
What posturing? I was drawing a comparison.

I'm called a sex obsessed pervert by fundamentalist Christians and I'm called a gun obsessed nutcase by you.

It's the same exact thing it's just a different subject.

I'm sorry you made it so easy to draw that compression maybe you should think before you type.
 
TurtleDude said:
fascists aren't the ones protesting overreaching government.. Fascists aren't private citizens hoarding guns. You clearly haven't a clue what you are talking about
Click to expand...

Fascists absolutely are protesting “overreaching government“ because they know that the federal government is the the only thing standing in the way of them co-opting local governments and(re)-instituting a tyrannical regime. The militias hoarding guns absolutely are fascists, right down to the obsession with “communism”.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Fascists absolutely are protesting “overreaching government“ because they know that the federal government is the the only thing standing in the way of them co-opting local governments and(re)-instituting a tyrannical regime. The militias hoarding guns absolutely are fascists, right down to the obsession with “communism”.
Click to expand...
that's just laughably stupid./ Most serious gun owners just want to be left alone by the government
 
CLAX1911 said:
What posturing? I was drawing a comparison.

I'm called a sex obsessed pervert by fundamentalist Christians and I'm called a gun obsessed nutcase by you.

It's the same exact thing it's just a different subject.

I'm sorry you made it so easy to draw that compression maybe you should think before you type.
Click to expand...

And given your politics its a utterly meaningless comparison, because your Dear Leader actively empowers fundamentalist Christians.
 
Tigerace117 said:
Fascists absolutely are protesting “overreaching government“ because they know that the federal government is the the only thing standing in the way of them co-opting local governments and(re)-instituting a tyrannical regime. The militias hoarding guns absolutely are fascists, right down to the obsession with “communism”.
Click to expand...
So demolishes hoarding guns in the 1600s were absolutely fascist they were doing it for the same reasons.
 
CLAX1911 said:
So demolishes hoarding guns in the 1600s were absolutely fascist they were doing it for the same reasons.
Click to expand...

Patently false on every level, especially considering that in the 1600s American colonists still completely thought of themselves as British and were loyal to the crown.
 
TurtleDude said:
More complete bullshit. Most of the people causing death and destruction are Democrat supporters
Click to expand...

Nope, the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorist killings—even if we leave out Oklahoma City—have been committed by the far right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom