In response to:

Liberals Panic As They Lose the Gun Narrative

Kenneth L. Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 3:39 PM
mmeinicoff, again: It's not an unrestricted God-given right. Blah, blah, blah. Again, mmeinicoff, "unrestricted"? Where is that in the constitution with respect to any right? And your follow-up nonsense is wrong. The militia language, however you punctuate it, is not a qualifier. It only provides a rationale for the right to bear arms. Even if it is the sole rationale, "being" is not an active verb. "infringed" is an unambiguous active verb. "Bear arms" is the right described, whether it is "God-given," or "unrestricted." As we have a right to practice our religion, to speak, to assemble, etc. we have a right to carry weapons. If you want that changed, fine. Argue for a new amendment. You have not made a cogent argument.
mmelnicoff Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 4:58 PM
Yes it is the rationale for the right to bear arms. It was described as a "well-regulated" militia. Hmmm... I wonder why it was described that way? Sounds to me like the framers understood that there would likely need to be regulations. The framers clearly had a certain perspective about firearms and could hardly be expected to envision their evolution to the killing machines that they have become. But, they had the good sense to recognize that there could be regulations concerning firearms. And they did not put a bound on the scope or shape of such regulations. In the 21st century, esp in highly populated areas, certain regulations make obvious common sense.
kfox33 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 6:42 PM
"Well Regulated" meant well functioning... as in a "well-regulated" clock.

I know it's an unpopular idea, but reading what the actual founders had to say about what they put in the document might be in order. If one does, and then reads the 2nd Amendment in modern parlance, the words look like this:

*Since a group of able-bodied men well trained to act in an orderly military fashion is required for the security of a country free from despotism, the inviolate and natural freedom of every individual to own, possess, and employ the weapons of warfare shall not be abridged by the federal government.*
james1672 Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 7:56 PM
For you and Novus both, the term you are overlooking is "militia," not "well regulated." You need to understand that for the framers, the militia is every male citizen from the ages of 16 to 60. Remember that the Constitution was written over 13 years after the Declaration of Independence and 6 years after the Treaty of Paris ended the Revolution. So, there had been an American Army established for well over a decade prior to the adoption of the Constitution.

The militia is not the army. The militia is every adult citizen. The reason that it exists is to ward off domestic tyranny not to fight foreign invaders. Citizens must be able to own arms sufficient to chastise the tyrannical impulses government, hence the 2nd Amendment.
jlayer Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 1:02 AM
Again, another misinterpretation of contemporaneous language. The term "well-regulated" referred to proficiency with or practice: marksmanship, reloads, malfunction drills, moving and shooting, balancing speed and precision, etc. All things which must be learned when facing any combat situation, armed or not. Quite literally the framers were acknowledging that the right to keep and bear had intrinsically within it the right to train in the use of arms. It had nothing to do with regulation in the sense which we apply to "government regulation" today. In fact, the framers would have found the notion deplorable.
NovusOrdoSeclorum Wrote: Dec 27, 2012 4:15 PM
It is a qualifier. Why would the Framers put that clause first in the Amendment were it not meant to qualify those following? The Amendment could have simply read like the first: "Congress shall make no law infringing the right of the people to bear arms." Yet it doesn't. How can you say there is no significance there? This was not a hastily-drafted document.
jlayer Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 12:55 AM
Contemporaneous to the framers, the term "militia" referred to "all of the people." So it was less a qualifier and more a clarifier affirming "the right of the people" statement which follows. The framers could not have predicted that we would change the meaning of the word militia.
curmudgeon10 Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 1:58 AM
the framers of our constitution were very clever, but they could not imagine a government whose first duty is to take from the productive, and give to the loafers. a government that prosecutes the law abiding for every nit picking detail in a legal code that you couldnt haul away in a connestoga, yet ignores our laws and imports anti-american foreigners to replace its legal citizens could a government that starts ill-considered wars of choice, then is more concerned for the safety of the enemy than for our our own, while it intentionally loses the war? they did, however, predict that the people need protection from the government. they expected that we would have deposed our current government long before it became this tyrannical.
Frank391 Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 7:33 AM
Because they were smarter than you are. The lead-in sets the stage for why they are acknowledging this right. That's all. But to gun grabbing liberals such as yourself you just can't get over the fact that us gun owners don't need the government.
Wooster Wrote: Dec 28, 2012 2:40 PM

If what you are saying was anywhere near the truth, the amendment would read "the right of the states", not "the right of the people". The framers weren't that muddle-minded that they didn't know what "the right of the people" means.

Give it up already. Nobody's buying it.
curmudgeon10 Wrote: Jan 08, 2013 2:38 AM
the framers of the constitution and bill of rights could not have imagined the incredible stupidity of today's liberals, nor could they have imagined a media that is 98% in favor of that astonishing stupidity.
When you argue for a living, you can tell how an argument is going for you. The evidence and my gut both tell me that the liberals have lost control of the gun control narrative.

Not for lack of trying – it was almost as if they were poised to leap into action across the political, media and cultural spectrum the second the next semi-human creep shot up another “gun free zone.” This was their big opening to shift the debate and now it’s closing. They’ve lost, and they are going nuts.

The evidence is all around that...