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

originally posted by: GoOfYFoOt
a reply to: Indigo5

I believe that we are all charged with the task of expanding our understanding, and whether or not we agree, we should still strive to leave a discussion with more than we had, when we engaged it in the first place.

Star for that. Absent learning anything from the debate, it is nothing more than mental masturbation...Or the pursuit of affirmation of your worldview through meaningless "stars"

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: waltwillis

originally posted by: Indigo5

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

You going to answer the question or just cherry-pick?

originally posted by: macman
a reply to: Indigo5

So, then a landowner can own any Arm, so long as it remains on their land?

Don't know what Jefferson's concept was of arms at the time, but more to the point was that he believed the 2nd Amendment to have limitations and conditions.

That is what my post spoke to...do you plan on addressing that demonstrated fact...or just cherry pick?

Once again I'll need to explain the meaning of the phrase "Well Regulated".

The "regulars" as they were called in the day of the founders, were the paid enlisted soldiers of the military.

They were called regulars because they were required to deliver a regulated rate of fire upon the enemy.

So the "Well Regulated" did not mean the same thing back in the days of the founders drafting of the US constitution.

Only today the liberal mind set is focused on controlling guns that we see this new word view.

Hope that helps...

Hmmm...Well forgive me for not taking your word for it...

From 1828...

regulated
REG'ULATED, pp. Adjusted by rule, method or forms; put in good order; subjected to rules or restrictions.

1828.mshaffer.com...

Also Websters 1828
machaut.uchicago.edu...

Or we can go further back...1792

REGULATE Latin
1 To adjust by rule or method
2 To direct IV seman

REGULATION from regulate I The act of regulating

books.google.com...

1768?

To REGULATE Lat
1 To adjust by rule or method
To direct

REGULATION The act of regulating

books.google.com...=onepage&q&f=false

So....Reality...and actual dictionaries of the time dispute your creative definition which you got from...where again did you come up with it?

But that last bit is not true. You conveniently ignored your own citation that also described "well regulated" as "put in good order."

Here's a good explanation that used the Oxford Dictionary that was in use at the time, not after.

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.

In addition, considering the militia acts of 1791 and 1792, written by those same gentlemen defined the militia as every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 65 and dictated that they "supply themselves" (IE buy their own) arms and equipment of the average infantry soldier indicates that they intended that every citizen be just as well armed.

Also in addition, considering there were not federal gun control laws at all until 1934, and up until then private citizens could own cannon and order submachine guns through the mail through the SEARS catalogue, it's obvious that they never intended the federal government to regulate or outlaw firearms of any type at all. If they did, why did they not put such laws in place from the beginning when they were in charge?

a reply to: NavyDoc

I provided actual links directly to dictionaries of the time.

You are citing 3rd party opinion pieces...well actually you are not citing at all...links please? Preferably to the dictionary your source claims to be quoting?

From there we can discuss what the dictionary actually says?

ANd another good commentary on the concept:

Well Regulated

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). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.
2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]
b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.
We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

The Founder's intent was quite clear: every citizen is part of the militia, every citizen's duty was to have arms equivalent to the average soldier, no weapons were outlawed by federal law until 1934 so obviously they were not for gun control, and every citizen should practice and drill and become proficient with his weapon in order to be a well regulated part of a well regulated militia that would be, if necessary, part of a well regulated army or force.

originally posted by: neo96
I love it when red herrings get brought in to a GUN FIGHT.

It is only a red herring if the OP did not claim that the founders want the citizens to have parity with the military. If the military has the large weaponry at their disposal, then true parity would be for the citizen militia to have them as well. Everything posted in the OP is individual interpretation to show that individual citizen militia's should have parity with the military; which by it's very nature should include tanks, bombers, fighters, etc...

Let's take it down one notch, how about hand grenades, RPGs or Flame throwers... should citizens be allowed to own those? I guess what I am trying to get at is where do you draw the line? If you truly want parity then all of these things should be on the table...

I am not a gun grabber, I believe people should be able to own and possess their own weapons; I do however, support smart gun laws which increase background checks, close loopholes and include mental health qualifications for ownership.

Take care,
DD

a reply to: NavyDoc

Sorry...Seeing as you refuse to provide links or citations, it's impossible to take you seriously..Apart from the fact it's against T&C to post others material without citation? Also unoriginal. I suspect you found some website dedicated to arguing against gun-control? conveniently cherry picked material? I cited several actual dictionaries of the time, hardly bias. You appear to have Cut and Pasted others work toward purposeful bias in place of thought or research?

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: NavyDoc

I provided actual links directly to dictionaries of the time.

You are citing 3rd party opinion pieces...well actually you are not citing at all...links please? Preferably to the dictionary your source claims to be quoting?

From there we can discuss what the dictionary actually says?

See below your post. The dictionary and the edition is cited for you.

In addition, your very own citation had a similar definition as well, so you got that going for you.

originally posted by: Indigo5
a reply to: NavyDoc

Sorry...Seeing as you refuse to provide links or citations, it's impossible to take you seriously..Apart from the fact it's against T&C to post others material without citation? Also unoriginal. I suspect you found some website dedicated to arguing against gun-control? conveniently cherry picked material? I cited several actual dictionaries of the time, hardly bias. You appear to have Cut and Pasted others work toward purposeful bias in place of thought or research?

For Christ's sake, before internet, there were these things known as "books" and people wrote these things known as "papers" and the below is a proper citation from one of those "books."

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)

If you are going to play the "intellectually dishonest game" at least try to be a little intellectually honest yourself.
Edited to add. Okay, I'll play. I did a quick google for "dictionary definition, well regulated" and this was the second hit:

reg·u·late/ˈrɛgyəˌleɪt/ Show Spelled [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4. to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Origin:
1620–30; < Late Latin rēgulātus (past participle of rēgulāre ). See regula, -ate1

Related forms
reg·u·la·tive /ˈrɛgyəˌleɪtɪv, -yələtɪv/ Show Spelled [reg-yuh-ley-tiv, -yuh-luh-tiv] Show IPA , reg·u·la·to·ry /ˈrɛgyələˌtɔri, -ˌtoʊri/ Show Spelled [reg-yuh-luh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA , adjective
reg·u·la·tive·ly, adverb
an·ti·reg·u·la·to·ry, adjective
mis·reg·u·late, verb (used with object), mis·reg·u·lat·ed, mis·reg·u·lat·ing.
non·reg·u·lat·ed, adjective
non·reg·u·la·tive, adjective
non·reg·u·la·to·ry, adjective
o·ver·reg·u·late, verb, o·ver·reg·u·lat·ed, o·ver·reg·u·lat·ing.
pre·reg·u·late, verb (used with object), pre·reg·u·lat·ed, pre·reg·u·lat·ing.
qua·si-reg·u·lat·ed, adjective
re·reg·u·late, verb (used with object), re·reg·u·lat·ed, re·reg·u·lat·ing.
un·reg·u·lat·ed, adjective
un·reg·u·la·tive, adjective
un·reg·u·la·to·ry, adjective
well-reg·u·lat·ed, adjective


Synonyms
1. rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct. 2. set. 4. systematize.

dictionary.reference.com...

4th hit:

reg·u·late verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā- : to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

reg·u·lat·edreg·u·lat·ing
Full Definition of REGULATE
transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

a reply to: DoubleDNH

I am not a gun grabber, I believe people should be able to own and possess their own weapons; I do however, support smart gun laws which increase background checks, close loopholes and include mental health qualifications for ownership

Could have fooled me.

True or False.

Do we or Do we not have a law that says a person can't murder another?


So the point in BANNING things is WHAT ?

The LAW already covers the ACT.

Not THINGS.

a reply to: NavyDoc

In addition, considering the militia acts of 1791 and 1792, written by those same gentlemen defined the militia as every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 65 and dictated that they "supply themselves" (IE buy their own) arms and equipment of the average infantry soldier indicates that they intended that every citizen be just as well armed.

Why is it that the other 90% of the Militia Act of 1792 (and amended in 1792 and 1795) is consistently being ignored? The context is hugely important. There's sections for detailing discipline, chain of command, pay and even fines and court martial for failure to obey the orders of the President.

Doggone program cut off my reply. Let me finish:

4th hit:

reg·u·late verb ˈre-gyə-ˌlāt also ˈrā- : to set or adjust the amount, degree, or rate of (something)

: to bring (something) under the control of authority

: to make rules or laws that control (something)

reg·u·lat·edreg·u·lat·ing
Full Definition of REGULATE
transitive verb
1a : to govern or direct according to rule b (1) : to bring under the control of law or constituted authority (2) : to make regulations for or concerning
2: to bring order, method, or uniformity to

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: NavyDoc

In addition, considering the militia acts of 1791 and 1792, written by those same gentlemen defined the militia as every able bodied male between the ages of 16 and 65 and dictated that they "supply themselves" (IE buy their own) arms and equipment of the average infantry soldier indicates that they intended that every citizen be just as well armed.

Why is it that the other 90% of the Militia Act of 1792 (and amended in 1792 and 1795) is consistently being ignored? The context is hugely important. There's sections for detailing discipline, chain of command, pay and even fines and court martial for failure to obey the orders of the President.

It's not ignored and the context is accurate. When called up, all of those things applied. Until being called up, every man was not under command nor paid nor forced to obey the orders of the president. Until called up, everyone was expected to supply themselves with arms and practice with them, but until called up, were still private citizens.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Okay so we have:

"To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc."
"1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method"
"to bring (something) under the control of authority"
"to make rules or laws that control (something)"

Synonyms
1. rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct. 2. set. 4. systematize.

Even the usage by Alexander Hamilton:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

I mean wtf. Here again, Alexander Hamilton is bluntly saying that it's futile (and in fact, potentionally INJURIOUS) to train the militias to an extent which would "entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia."

Where exactly is the refutation of what Indigo5 is stating?

Serial communication as well as translations as well as time has a way of causing the connotation and denotations of words and meanings of word to evolve.

Gay meant something other then queer or fagot or homosexual.

If we take the word regulate within the context of any sentence statement there may be a totally different meaning.

It appears that the anti-gun mind just see what they want to see or hear and missed the last court ruling on the matter.

Don't be sore losers!

Don't try to reinvent the wheel!

We won and you lost that argument in the supreme court!

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: NavyDoc

Okay so we have:

"To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc."
"1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method"
"to bring (something) under the control of authority"
"to make rules or laws that control (something)"

Synonyms
1. rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct. 2. set. 4. systematize.

Even the usage by Alexander Hamilton:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

I mean wtf. Here again, Alexander Hamilton is bluntly saying that it's futile (and in fact, potentionally INJURIOUS) to train the militias to an extent which would "entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia."

Where exactly is the refutation of what Indigo5 is stating?

HIs premise is that "well regulated" meant controlled by laws and regulation and that this thus established that the FF supported gun laws (even though they enacted exactly zero gun laws) whereas what Hamilton and every one else meant that "well regulated" meant "well equipped and practiced." That we see Hamilton opine that it is too hard to have the large body of people just as practiced as regular soldiers without neglecting other things like business and earning a livelihood actually refutes Indigo's assertion that the FF did not use "well regulated" to mean "well trained and equipped" but rather "controlled by the government." Hamilton in that citation is actually using the phrase in the context I've been pointing out.

originally posted by: theantediluvian
a reply to: NavyDoc

Okay so we have:

"To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc."
"1. to control or direct by a rule, principle, method"
"to bring (something) under the control of authority"
"to make rules or laws that control (something)"

Synonyms
1. rule, govern, manage, order, adjust, arrange, dispose, conduct. 2. set. 4. systematize.

Even the usage by Alexander Hamilton:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.

I mean wtf. Here again, Alexander Hamilton is bluntly saying that it's futile (and in fact, potentionally INJURIOUS) to train the militias to an extent which would "entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia."

Where exactly is the refutation of what Indigo5 is stating?

Alexander's argument fail back then just as yours is failing today!

The supreme court was sharply divided in it's decision about the second article being an states right vs. an individual's right, so why would it not be any different on this forum!

Remember that WE WON! Live with it or MOVE!

a reply to: Indigo5

So, because he didn't state "any' arms, it therefore means only certain arms. Yet, there is no definition of arms. SOoooooo. Arms means just that, Arms.

Your attempting to use the same logic I applied to your stated quote, only now in reverse.

Backpedaling sure is fun to watch.

a reply to: Indigo5

A "well regulated Militia".

Not " a well regulated Bearing of Arms".

The Militia was to be regulated, or drilled, trained and supplied.

a reply to: NavyDoc

Until called up, everyone was expected to supply themselves with arms and practice with them, but until called up, were still private citizens.

Every white male between 18 and 45 who was not exempt from conscription was expected to own a weapon for use in militia training and service.

This is not the same as a requirement for every citizen to own a gun in case he felt the need to go to war with the government, is it? Using militias under the authority of the states firstly and the President ultimately, was in of itself a way of mitigating the threat posed by a large standing army.

Let's get back to the 2nd Amendment for a second. Did you happen to see my earlier post about quoting James Madison from The Federalist No. 46?

Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.

and that's from the guy who wrote the amendment.

As I said earlier, I've seen no evidence that the Founders/Framers even so much as entertained the idea of the American public being disarmed — they clearly saw it as an advantage. That is not the same thing as saying some jackasses walking into Chipotle, rifles in hand, to take asinine photos for Facebook has anything to do with the purpose of the militia.

a reply to: Indigo5

With that, if the FF truly intended on allowing the control of people, in regards to firearms, why oh why did nothing happen for gun laws until the early 1900's?


I guess that they just forgot to get around to this?

Maybe they thought that the withholding of "any" in a phrase was all that was needed to display the want and then implementation of Gun Laws?