In response to:

Obama's Little Red Phrase

kmackellerann Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 2:21 PM
"A well-regulated Militia" in 1790 was a Militia regulated or trained to: Stand in a line shoulder to shoulder; to raise, aim, and fire as one person, and then to reload and be ready to fire again as a group. A well regulated Militia would be trained to the standards of an Army of the time, only not be an expense item for the government. That is what the term Regulated meant. If Madison hadn't been a nerd, he would have used the more common word "Trained" or even "Practiced" and we wouldn't have this problem today. On the other side, we might not have a Second Amendment, either. "Nobody is safe when the Congress is in session" - Sam Clemens.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 5:46 PM
If you try to read the 2nd Amendment with the term "well-regulated" meaning (as in modern discourse) "subject to many rules and restrictions," then what you get is sheer gibberish. Especially since "infringe" means PRECISELY "to violate or trespass."

To paraphrase: "A militia subject to lots of restrictions, being necessary to the security of a Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be restricted." Huh? Sheer gibberish!

To paraphrase correctly: "A well-outfitted, well-practiced militia being necessary to the security of Free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be restricted." Now, it makes perfect sense.
Paulus Textor Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 5:49 PM
Thus, it is obvious that "well-regulated" can ONLY mean "well-practiced, well-outfitted."

The meaning of "regulation" remains, in common British English. Ask an AMERICAN gunsmith to "regulate" your rifle, and he'll look puzzled, and ask, "Whaddya want me to do, Buddy--pass a law against it?"

Ask the same question of the British gunsmith, and he'll answer: "Yes, sir! I'll have it cleaned up and oiled tomorrow morning. By the way, did you want the sights regulated for 100 yards, or some other distance?"
John642 Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 10:11 PM
That shoulder-to-shoulder stuff worked pretty well at the time for an army like the British. It put terror into the hearts of some other armies. The war started to turn, though, when we started fighting with our heads. The colonists were the first gorilla fighters. That's when we put terror into THEIR hearts.
John642 Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 10:11 PM
That shoulder-to-shoulder stuff worked pretty well at the time for an army like the British. It put terror into the hearts of some other armies. The war started to turn, though, when we started fighting with our heads. The colonists were the first gorilla fighters. That's when we put terror into THEIR hearts.
Blusportie Wrote: Jul 29, 2012 5:23 PM
A nice theory, but incorrect. As with the 2nd Amendment itself, the words of the Founders were brief, crystal clear, and meant EXACTLY what they said. Examples include:
“I ask sir, what is the militia? It is the whole body of the people except for a few public officials. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.”
George Mason
“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms ...To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms.”
Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on “militia” in the 2nd Amendment
Space prohibits listing dozens more, but there is absolutely no doubt as to what they meant by militia.

Steve of CA wrote: Personally I do not own a gun and would not feel safer if I had one, but I do not have a problem with law abiding people buying guns. That being the case, I have to ask of Mr. Ransom and others here, what controls, if any, do you favor over the purchase and use of weapons, including semi-automatic weapons such as the one used by the killer in Aurora? Or do you think we have too much gun control with the laws we have now? - The American Solution: Reach for the Guns

Dear Steve,...