It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Founders on the 2nd Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms

page: 10
60
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

Geez, I wonder if they cite where they pulled the definition.

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989)




posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:04 AM
link   
***ATTENTION***

Knock the back and forth off immediately. If it continues, you WILL lose your posting privileges immediately. This thread isn't about each other, it's about The Founders on the 2nd Ammendment and the Right to Bear Arms. I suggest everyone remember that, and keep to it.

Do not reply to this post.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:07 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:14 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

www.constitution.org...


The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment: 1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations." 1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world." 1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial." 1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor." 1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding." 1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city." The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:39 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:43 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:44 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 11:59 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5
No explosive rounds are permitted just slugs and FLARES.
Didn't know that huh?



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:25 PM
link   
a reply to: cavtrooper7

Apparently Hamilton was using the wrong dictionary.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 12:35 PM
link   
Since apparently no one can read Staff notices, thread closed for review.



posted on Jun, 26 2014 @ 10:17 PM
link   
Understand this. The thread is being reopened under intense staff scrutiny. Anyone that goes off topic WILL BE immediately post banned. This thread has gone far enough off topic, and it stops now.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 09:58 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: Zaphod58
Understand this. The thread is being reopened under intense staff scrutiny. Anyone that goes off topic WILL BE immediately post banned. This thread has gone far enough off topic, and it stops now.


Thank you for your consideration.

I know this is a passionate debate, everyone please keep to the topic.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

The Founders were certainly intelligent and thoughtful men. However, the constitution was written 225 years ago in a time when being on parity with the military meant something entirely different than it does now. I'm not for disarming people but let's not delude ourselves into thinking that it's practical for the public to possess military weaponry.

Fighter jets?
Bombers?
Drones?
Tanks?
Nukes?

The Constitution creates the foundation for an extensible framework, it's not equatable to something intended to be immutable like the Ten Commandments.



What you are missing in a tactical comparison and timeframe relativity is that the people have the right to resist tyranny with the force of arms. Thus it extends.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

Geez, I wonder if they cite where they pulled the definition.

EX: The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989)


(A) Please provide a link.
(B) The definition of "regulate" offered in 1980 does not seem relevant when searching for the meaning of the word at time of writing the 2ND Amendment.
(C) 1690 is the year most dictionaries provide for the ORIGIN of the word, NOT a definition. I could be wrong about you or the original author, whomever they be and the confusion there...but it is impossible to tell when sources and links are not provided. Apart from that confusion over word origin vs. definition...1690 was a CENTURY before the 2nd Amendment.

The most relevant definition would be near the time the 2ND amendment was written. 1791.

Here is a definition from 1792 (With direct links to the dictionary)

To Regulate [Regula Latin]
1. To adjust by rule or method
2. To direct


Link to Dictionary 1791
edit on 27-6-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-6-2014 by Indigo5 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:38 AM
link   

originally posted by: TKDRL
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus
It's even worse, the feds have many "armies", and a good deal of them armies are pointed right at the people. ATF, IRS, FBI etc etc. Like 95% of the alphabet agencies should have never been allowed to be formed.


Whats more is that the "national guard" has become far federalized to qualify its justification under a 2nd amendment establishment. Does anyone actually trust, if such were the case, that your state guard could be counted on to resist a tyrannical and illegal federal intrusion?



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:49 AM
link   
a reply to: Indigo5

This is very simple in nature.

Regulated is applied to the Militia, not to the Bearing Arms.

The statement within the 2nd is very clear with this.

"A well regulated Militia"

Not

"A well regulated Bearing of Arms"

If the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal Govt to have control over firearms, and the precedent has been set that they knew what they were doing, then this control would have been crafted at that time.



posted on Jun, 27 2014 @ 11:54 AM
link   

originally posted by: macman
If the Founding Fathers intended for the Federal Govt to have control over firearms, and the precedent has been set that they knew what they were doing, then this control would have been crafted at that time.


It is obvious that the last thing they wanted was a standing army controlled by a strong central government.



new topics

top topics



 
60
<< 7  8  9    11  12  13 >>

log in

join