Skip to main content

I think it's about time that gun control advocates reclaim the legal high ground in constitutional debates, because frankly the 2nd Amendment not only does not prohibit regulation of firearms, it explicitly states that keeping guns under the control of civil authority is the purpose of the right to bear arms.  What this means is that states which flood their communities with totally unregulated weaponry and refuse to impose any kind of accountability on owners and manufacturers for what follows are violating the Constitution in both letter and spirit, as is the federal government to the extent they allow states to do this.  The NRA and its fellow travelers cannot claim to support the 2nd Amendment when they completely ignore what it says and just make up their own fantasy language that says the exact opposite - from "well-regulated militia" to "totally unregulated proliferation of individual destructive power."

America at Gunpoint

A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
The irony is that conservatives who specialize in allegedly "strict constructionist" interpretations of the Constitution that demand absolute adherence to literal language and their speculation about original intent - at least when such standards have the effect of denying people's liberty - magically have all sorts of elaborate and tortuous rationalizations explaining how "well-regulated militia" was just put there as rhetorical garnishment and the Founders didn't really mean it.  In fact, as far as they're concerned not only did the Founders not mean it, they really meant the opposite: That there should be no government involvement whatsoever in determining the particulars of private armament, how they are manufactured, how they are sold and distributed, how they are stored, and how they are monitored.  

In other words, they claim that "well-regulated militia" really means totally unregulated, totally undisciplined, completely unmonitored, and utterly unaccountable distribution of weapons of mass destruction to everyone.  The fact that their claims are Orwellian should not be lost on anyone: According to the NRA, up is down, slavery is freedom, and the 2nd Amendment actually means the opposite of what it says - basically the same way conservatives interpret every other Amendment to the Bill of Rights.  

As far as these people are concerned, freedom of speech means their right to shut everyone else up and deny us any practical ability to seek redress of grievances from elected officials, because silencing people who disagree with them is somehow an act of legitimate expression on their part.  Separation of church and state means that conservative religious beliefs are to be taxpayer funded and shoved down the people's throat, because a state that does not acknowledge the absolute and unquestionable supremacy of their religion is violating their religious freedom.  Freedom from unreasonable search and seizure means that people who are the wrong color, religion, or nationality are automatically guilty; police can do whatever they find convenient without restriction unless the suspect is rich and white; and there is no right to privacy.  Equal rights means that you can deliberately create impediments to voting that specifically target racial minorities and communities that are politically hostile to their agenda.  On and on.

Basically, conservatives have a literally Anti-American worldview: Not just in the sense of being against the laws and principles of this country, but in insisting that those laws and principles are actually the opposite of their plain truth.  They live in Anti America - a mirror universe where the Constitution, the statutory laws, the regulations, the history, and the morals of American society (in fact, of all Western civilization) are interpreted as the exact opposite of their reality.  So it's no surprise that their solution to death is more death; their solution to chaos is more chaos; their solution to poverty is more poverty; and their solution to situations created by their own corrupt, immoral, and lawless attitude toward firearms is to continue promoting and doubling down on that corruption.

In NRA Land, the purpose of guns is guns - exactly like Orwell's description of the purpose of power, and pretty much the same thing.  If more guns, more powerful guns, and even less government control of guns produces the opposite of the freedom and security the 2nd Amendment was designed to guarantee, the NRA does not care: They may issue any number of claims about what they insist their policies will do, but they don't really care whether anything they say is true, because they don't see guns as means to Constitutional ends - they see them as being the end in itself.  They are power, and power trumps law; power trumps freedom; power trumps justice; power trumps truth; power trumps God.  Power is God.  So for them, the more firepower they concentrate in their own hands, the closer they are to becoming God.  Classic psychotic thinking.

Of course, for most of them what passes for "thinking" never even gets to that level. The vast majority seem to fall into a few simple categories of stupidity, ignorance, and irresponsibility:

1.  I am afraid.  Guns make me less afraid.  Ergo guns are inherently good, regulating guns in any way is inherently bad, and I don't care what the consequences are for society in general.

2.  Guns are fun.  Thinking about consequences and responsibilities is not fun.  So shut up.

3.  I have a small penis.  Guns make me a Real Man.  If you make me feel like the kind of man I really am by making me accountable to society, I keeeeeeell you!

On the highest, most abstract level, the dichotomy between the real 2nd Amendment and the one pushed by the NRA boils down to a question of sovereignty: Who holds ultimate sovereignty in America - the People as a whole, acting through democratic elections to appoint representatives, or just any individual who has the desire and money to accumulate power over others and terrorize them into submission?  It's a conflict we see in the so-called "sovereign citizens" movement, which is basically an ideological rationalization of criminality and parasitism on state services that they refuse to contribute anything towards, then "defend" this responsibility-free existence with threats and violence.  It's a futile, nihilistic attitude with no future that comes down to a choice between democracy and medieval feudalism, but the sort of people who promote the latter don't really care about how their behavior affects other people, unfortunately.  It needs to be said that chaos is tyranny too, and a free people cannot accept any policy that allows random individuals to dictate to society as a whole.

Now, not all of this is intractable or one-dimensional, and the first step to really making progress is being assertive about the immorality, irrationality, and unconstitutionality of the anarchic policies the NRA supports and has bought themselves through corruption of government.  There will always be criminal personalities who even then just cannot reconcile themselves to being accountable to society, but for the rest, maybe they could just learn how to read so we can stop burying children for their ignorance.

9:49 PM PT: A good summation that I just realized from responding to comments: The 2nd Amendment is as much about guaranteeing the right of the People as a whole to be free from the tyranny of violent individuals through ensuring that guns are regulated and their owners accountable as it is about ensuring that every individual has a right to the means of self-defense.

9:52 PM PT: I want to be clear here: We don't need to amend or repeal the 2nd Amendment.  It already guarantees the right of the People to not be terrorized by random individuals - that's why it says "well-regulated militia."  They most assuredly did not mean having handguns as cereal box prizes and ammunition vending machines like the NRA wants.

10:13 PM PT: I should also mention the 2nd Amendment explicitly says the purpose of both the individual and group rights it guarantees is for the security of the free state.  Clearly the way the NRA has dictated gun laws to this country (i.e., by throwing them away completely) has not worked to provide security.  Whatever comparisons you want to make between the states with differing gun laws, the fact remains that the most pro-gun state in the country has a murder rate FAR higher than any developed country with strict gun control.  In other words, unregulated gun proliferation does not achieve the goals set out in the 2nd Amendment, but rather does the opposite.  By Constitutional law, governments are thus obligated to seek proven solutions.  

Originally posted to Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 08:47 PM PST.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA).

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Well written, thank you (8+ / 0-)

    I have also wondered many times how the courts got from the language of the 2nd amendment, to pretty much a free-for-all, not on all arms, but only guns below the fully automatic class.  I'd like to see all that re-argued, if Obama is able to replace some of the right-wing supreme court justices in his second term (this might actually be a better strategy than trying to write new laws, and get them past the Republican House, and also past any challenge to the current Supreme Court).  I don't see how the language in the Constitution supports the D.C. v. Heller decision given us by the current court.

    •  There was no process of reason involved. (9+ / 0-)

      Conservative justices in the past 20 years or so by and large are not actual practitioners of law - they just say whatever they find convenient for their political agenda and make up whatever excuses are needed, even if they're completely ridiculous.  Their decisions are routinely lawless acts of partisan and/or ideological judicial dictatorship.  So you're probably right about replacing them, although so many of them are outright criminals that it might yield dividends to just launch impeachment investigations of the ones known to be on the take.

      In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

      by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:18:36 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  By replacing, I meant if they retire, (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Troubadour, ExStr8, CroneWit

        die, or for some reason leave the bench.  I think it's expected that Obama will probably be replacing at least one justice in his 2nd term, as he did two in the first. Let's just hope it's the conservatives that get replaced.  I wasn't presuming any of them would get impeached, or anything like that (though a couple of them have done things that I think are rather unprofessional).

        I can't help but notice the constitution merely says "arms", but the courts decided gun owners can have plenty of guns, so long as they're less powerful than the military versions (no fully-automatic, no missiles, etc.). So the military will always be able to beat them back, and they have no hope of overthrowing the government as some of the anti-government types seem to think, just of being a danger to other law-abiding citizens.

        •  IOW, there is no right to disproportional power. (6+ / 0-)

          The 2nd Amendment guarantees the right of the individual to defend themselves against other individuals, and the right of The People as a whole to defend themselves against governments by having the general right to armament and training within a disciplined context, but there is no unregulated right of individuals to possess the power to wage war.  Allowing individuals the power to wage war gives them tyrannical power over society that was never intended by the Founders, and undermines the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

          In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

          by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:41:10 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

    •  Scalia, for once, had some history on his side. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Troubadour, radarlady, Gary in NY

      Notice I said "some" history, and didn't claim that history justifies the current situation.

      A criminal lawyer I knew said the 2d Amendment was one of the worst written laws he'd ever seen.

      •  Well, the 2nd says well-regulated militia (5+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rhauenstein, Loge, ExStr8, CroneWit, Gary in NY

        and that it's for "security" of the "state," so that's three things the NRA hasn't provided to this country.  They give us fucking anarchy, murderous chaos, and a bunch of psychotic petty tyrants dictating terms to everyone else because they have the desire and money to build up private arsenals.  That ain't Jefferson's vision, folks.  That's fucking Genghis Khan shit.

        In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

        by Troubadour on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 01:51:26 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

  •  Time to put that "well-regulated" part back in. (10+ / 0-)

    The country's for it, but we need to move fast.

    •  It's always been in. We just need to assert (7+ / 0-)

      the fact that conservative activists judges can't just arbitrarily throw out the Bill of Rights.  The 2nd Amendment is as much about the rights of the people as a whole to regulate firearms as it is the right of individuals to possess them, and that's why there's two parts to it.  The NRA and its tools have denied people's constitutional right to ensure that firearms are part of a well-regulated system that protects them from the tyranny of heavily armed individuals.  We must now reassert our rights in this respect.

      In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

      by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:30:24 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  jck - the only people who can put the (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ssgbryan, radarlady, johnny wurster

      "well-regulated" part back in are on the SCOTUS and the majority in Heller are still on the bench, so that's not going to change soon.

      "let's talk about that"

      by VClib on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:13:57 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Then make them earn their pay. (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        David PA, ssgbryan, ExStr8

        Keep throwing laws at them that obey the 2nd Amendment as actually written.  If they want to keep swatting them down with lawless dictates from the NRA, they can do that all they want, and the people's outrage will gain momentum every time.

        In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

        by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:18:13 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Cases that don't conform to Heller will be (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          johnny wurster

          rejected by the lower courts and the SCOTUS will not choose to hear them. They don't have to take any case they choose not to hear and therefore do not need to record new votes or write new opinions. In Heller the Court gave governments, at all levels, broad power to implement reasonable gun control as long as it did not impair access. Let's focus on what we can do right now.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:26:04 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  SCOTUS cannot rule that 2 + 2 = 5. (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            David PA, ssgbryan, bob152

            There is no requirement that lower courts obey such a lawless and utterly unsubstantiated ruling.  We have a written Constitution accessible to all the people for a reason - so that the law is the law, not the arbitrary dictates of whoever happens to be enforcing it.  We have a right to regulate firearms, period, and no corrupt conservative dictator in a robe is going to tell us that our children have to die for the NRA.

            In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

            by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 10:29:33 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Plenty of wiggle room for lower courts to use (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Troubadour, Loge

              Heller acknowledged that regulations short of a ban were Constitutional and left open what was permissible.

            •  it SCOTUS held that 2+2=5, (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ExStr8, VClib, nextstep

              lower courts would be bound and required to agree.

              in this case, though, you're just wrong, and SCOTUS was correct that well regulated means well functioning rather than subject to rules.

              •  You say. (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:

                I disagree.

                What is more the end result is very good evidence that I am right and they were wrong.

                Not for the first time either .... Citizens United, anyone?

                And while we are on the subject ... What part of the current gun laws is "well-functioning"?

                It was a shallow and obvious parsing of words to fit an ideological position.

                I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
                but I fear we will remain Democrats.

                by twigg on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:13:46 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

              •  I'd love to see a military unit try to be (0+ / 0-)

                "well functioning" without regulations.

                Without upholding some basic minimum standards of training and maintenance, spelled out in regulations and kept track of by people in positions of authority, your unit is probably going to be functioning pretty poorly.  I certainly wouldn't want to go downrange with those guys.

                "If Mitt takes office, sooner or later, the Zomnies will come for all of us." -Joss Whedon

                by quillsinister on Wed Dec 19, 2012 at 07:41:33 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  fools are foolish (0+ / 0-)

                  well functioning, well regulated, properly trained.... all 3 of those comments have exactly the same meaning. the founding fathers wanted little or nothing to do with placing "rules" and "restrictions" on anyone or anything.
                  the more rules and restrictions added to anything the less efficient it functions.

          •  Heller only protects arms in current common use (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            ... so big clips and assault weapons could be banned.  Heller does not prohibit regulation of those weapons in commons use either.

  •  for well-regulated militias (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Americantrueandblue, Cedwyn

    yksitoista ulotteinen presidentin shakki. / tappaa kaikki natsit "Nous sommes un groupuscule" (-9.50; -7.03) 政治委员, 政委‽ Warning - some snark above ‽

    by annieli on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 09:30:10 PM PST

  •  If enough big pols sold "well regulated", a fix (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Onomastic, ExStr8

    would soon be found.

    Great diary troubador!!

  •  Well-regulated means trained and organized (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    johnny wurster, Loge, Cedwyn, Puha ekapi

    The word has nothing whatsoever to do with laws, or as you assume, the current synonym usage we call regulations.

    The meaning of the word in 1781 referred to the requirement that a group of militia members had to be well-trained and ready to be called up for state or national military-style service under the command of a governor or the king, later the president of the US. Remember that the militias were loyal British subjects during the first 150 years after settlement when America was under British colonial rule.

    There's a reason that soldiers were called Regulars. They were trained soldiers. The soldiers were well-regulated.

    The local town militias were required as a condition of the town grant by the king of England and enforced by the British governors. Just like the towns were granted only if they had five settled families, cleared land, built a church and a meetinghouse, and provided schools for all children. The militia served as police, firemen, protection from Indian attacks, finders of lost children, grave diggers, and everything else that a town or city needed done.

    The militias traditionally assembled on alternate Saturdays or monthly for training and parades at the New England town commons. The local preachers attended and offered prayers and blessings and usually some singing. Afterward, everyone in town drank rum and gossiped. Really. That was their compensation.

    The militia members were appointed and removed by the town leaders (selectmen) and so were the officers. That's why you see Revolutionary War records that show that so-and-so served in the Continental Army as a private and so-and-so's town records and his cemetery monument list him as Captain so-and-so, perhaps. He was a Captain in the local town militia, but a private in the Continental Army while the town militias were called to active service.

    Again, regulated means trained, laws were called laws. The term regulations was not in use in those times.

    "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

    by GrumpyOldGeek on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:24:31 PM PST

    •  Umm...I'm pretty sure soldiers (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      OregonOak, ExStr8

      have to deal with all kinds of regulations as to how they handle their weapons, what kind of weapons they are provided with, how they are distributed and when they can be used, and how they are held accountable.  In fact, there was a big diary about it on the FP yesterday, where Markos talked about how when he was in the Armed Forces they didn't even trust non-front line troops deployed overseas with live ammo most of the time.  And like he said, the NRA is basically saying that private citizens with weapons shouldn't be subject to any kind of authority, regulation, or monitoring whatsoever - i.e., that they should have more power to kill than trained and sworn soldiers.  That's insane.

      We know the difference between well-regulated and FUCKING ANARCHY.  The latter is what we see in our streets with this psychotic NRA approach to guns in this country.

      In Roviet Union, money spends YOU.

      by Troubadour on Mon Dec 17, 2012 at 11:33:23 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  it's just another red herring... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        OregonOak, semiot

        ...the argument that "regulated" or "well-regulated" have single, one-dimensional definitions that were current during the period. Then as now, words often had more than one use or implication in context.

        For instance, I kinda doubt that the framers would've chosen the self-described Regulators to regulate the well-regulated militias they were considering...

        Regulators of North Carolina, (1764–71), in American colonial history, vigilance society dedicated to fighting exorbitant legal fees and the corruption of appointed officials in the frontier counties of North Carolina. Deep-seated economic and social differences had produced a distinct east-west sectionalism in North Carolina. The colonial government was dominated by the eastern areas, and even county governments were controlled by the royal governor through his power to appoint local officers. Back-country (western) people who suffered from excessive taxes, dishonest officials, and exorbitant fees also became bitter about multiple office holdings. They formed an association called the Regulators, which sought vainly to obtain reforms. They then refused to pay taxes or fees, punished public officials, and interfered with the courts. Finally, the Regulator insurrection was crushed by Governor William Tryon at the Battle of Alamance (May 16, 1771). Many frontiersmen fled to Tennessee, but the legacy of bitterness induced many Regulators to side with the loyalists during the American Revolution, in addition to continuing their own futile agitation for five more years.
        •  Soldiers were called Regulars, not Regulators (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Loge, Cedwyn, Puha ekapi, annieli

          Regulators is used in an entirely different context.

          My entire lengthy explanation of real actual historical context seems to keep degenerating into a parsing of words and language which misses the whole point.

          Congress has the power to make laws that affect everything about guns.

          The 2nd Amendment is not referring to laws by the words 'well-regulated'. The diarist's assertion would make you think that the 2nd permits Congress to make laws, or regulations, that could go as far as eliminating the right to bear arms. The words don't even apply to arms, but to the militias. Context is everything here. Not the parsing of words in other contexts. And basic sentence diagramming seems to be a lost skill.

          We actually do have laws that remove the right to bear arms. Prisoners don't have a right to bear arms, for example. Sensible gun control, indeed.

          Regulators are devices that keep spinning wheels rotating at a relatively steady rate.

          Regulators provide appropriate air pressure for scuba equipment.

          Regulators deetermine economic tax rates and currency exchange rates and enforce such matters. The regulators are not soldiers nor are they serving as soldiers in the militia. Nor are they scuba divers or cotton spinners.

          Regulations are rules, laws, codes, procedures, etc.

          A well-regulated regulator regulation has no regular meaning.


          "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

          by GrumpyOldGeek on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:58:24 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  The militia members owned their own guns (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Miniaussiefan, twigg

        Each gun was unique and hand made. The technology of the day didn't even implement interchangeable parts for guns.

        The timeframe is 1750-1790, not when Kos served in the military.

        The US Constitution enumerates rights. It does not enumerate laws.
        Laws, or regulations if you prefer, are enforcable as in the rule of law. The judicial system resolves the disputes.

        I sense you're imagining a well-regulated fucking anarchy.

        We agree that we need stronger laws about guns and the risks that they present to our person and property. But the phrase well-regulated isn't saying that laws are permitted. We already have the ability to pass laws that enumerate new regulations about gun possession and gun safety. It's just that our funcking right wing Supreme Court is stupid about protecting citizens from the American Taliban gun-wielding crazies that get all ginned up by hate radio and Faux Noise fear-mongering nonsense.

        In my opinion, the 1st Amendment is overrated. A few adjustments that would punish broadcasters of fear-mongering for generating personal and emotional distress among groups of innocent citizens might be a good idea. The FCC already prohibits broadcasting false news reports that terrify people. That law was put in place because of the infamous War of The Worlds panic.

        But our idiot Supreme Court screams "Free Speech!" and ALWAYS takes the easy way out. Even though they wiped out 100 year old precedents in the Citizens decision. they aren't likely to reverse 50 years of free sppech precedent. It just doesn't let Faux Noise spew its propaganda. And that's the Supreme Court agenda, apparently.

        And we need to ban automatic and semi-automatic everything.

        I think that we ought to allow unrestricted sales at gun shows and even suspend all laws inside those facilities, but only if the show lasts at least 7 days and the customers are locked inside for the entire duration of the gun show.

        It's a self-managing approach.

        "Never wrestle with a pig: you get dirty and the pig enjoys it"

        by GrumpyOldGeek on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 12:12:58 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I agree much of that (0+ / 0-)

          The 1st Amendment is one of the biggest problems this country has.

          The right to speak freely, along with the equating of corporations as people and money equaling speech is a trifecta which has conspired to squash free speech and make it completely unavailable to anyone lacking money.

          You are entirely free to blather on all day to no one, while a corporation can drop millions of dollars and have their free speech heard by everyone.

          Corporate ownership of print and broadcast media finished it off nicely, because the one check the Founders recognised, a free press, was muzzled.

          One result of this is that politicians are completely beholden to the sources of the money. The do not do the people's business, they do the business of their paymasters, and that is not us.

          I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
          but I fear we will remain Democrats.

          by twigg on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:22:45 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  not so much (0+ / 0-)

        the military has too many RULES, but is currently well regulated (trained) the more rules that are put in place the less effective that which is "ruled" functions. currently our military, just like in viet nam is poorly administrated, and is overburdened with rules which cause confusion and result in death or inaction that causes death.
        the fastest way to end a person of the disease of liberalism is to have them read the federalist letters, it quickly explains that "regulated" means trained in reference to militia, and "regulation" as in rules had no meaning back then.

  •  Bravo Troubadour. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, David PA, Troubadour

    You outdid yourself with this one.

    I hope that the quality of debate will improve,
    but I fear we will remain Democrats.

    by twigg on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 05:23:14 AM PST

  •  Well Done, Troubador! nt (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ExStr8, David PA, Troubadour
  •  Please change the title back! Please! (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Troubadour, Gary in NY

    Troubador, please don't make this about redneck-hating!  Your diary is so much more important than that!

    Maybe you don't realize what you have done here.  You have very effectively, and very cogently, rebutted and re-defined the Right Wing's distorted definition of 'second amendment rights'.

    Your diary could, and should, be distributed widely -- because it turns the old definition upside down, and could become a new basis for understanding and interpreting the 2nd Amendment.  

    America needs your new definition!  This diary needs to be part of the large and long conversation beginning in this country.  Please please please don't make it about hating a sub-group!

    Please rethink your title.  Just put a question mark after 'Understand' would be one way.  Or find a new title entirely.  Just please don't make it about hating!  (I'm begging you here!)

  •  It is Long Overdue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    The "Definition" of the Second Amendment is definitely
    in the Eyes of the Beholder.

    We have Allowed a Small Minority of People to Make Up
    a "Definition" that Only supports a Limited View of what
    the Second Amendment states.

    The Old "Definition" is definitely going to Change.

    The time to Change that Old "Definition" is NOW.

    On Giving Advice: Smart People Don't Need It and Stupid People Don't Listen

    by Brian76239 on Tue Dec 18, 2012 at 08:42:57 AM PST

  •  The key word is PEOPLE (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Gary in NY

    It does not say PERSON, it says PEOPLE.

    peo·ple  [pee-puh l]  Show IPA noun, plural peo·ples for 4, verb, peo·pled, peo·pling.
    1.persons indefinitely or collectively; persons in general: to find it easy to talk to people; What will people think?
    2.persons, whether men, women, or children, considered as numerable individuals forming a group: Twenty people volunteered to help.
    3.human beings, as distinguished from animals or other beings.
    4.the entire body of persons who constitute a community, tribe, nation, or other group by virtue of a common culture, history, religion, or the like: the people of Australia; the Jewish people.
    5.the persons of any particular group, company, or number (sometimes used in combination): the people of a parish; educated people; salespeople.

    The Amendment is talking about the  right of the people to bear arms. Not the right of the person. It is talking about the States' right to keep a well regulated military. DUH.

  •  here at the daily kommunist everyone is dumb (0+ / 0-)

    what part of well TRAINED do you dummies not understand. 3 things libtards HATE, truth, being correct, and history.
    with zero exception at all everything liberalism stands for is foul, filthy, and always wrong all the time. no exceptions at all. to add to that, anyone who isnt dumb knows the founding fathers had no restrictions on guns of any sort at any time. 100% of the cannons and mortars used in the revolutionary war were personally owned by private citizens not the govt. the founding fathers wanted little or no "regulations" over people, business, or industry. they made that abundantly clear. minimalist govt was what was intended, which is NOT what we have now. obummer was disappointed as to how hard the founding fathers made it to "make the changes he wanted". there is a reason for that, what he wants is wrong, and against what was intended.
    now here is the important part. the 3 things liberals hate the most come into play in this vital section of the comment here. if you here at the daily always wrong all the time werent so dumb, you would know that "regulated" means TRAINED!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! only traitors that are stupid want the second amendment repealed or amended. without the second amendment exactly as it is, all the other amendments will go away in a super fast hurry.
    only the dumbest of the dumb cant figure out the second amendment was specifically put in place to ensure the citizens are a legitimate threat to the government and or the military. without M4's AR-15's and the such with large capacity magazines we will not be a threat.
    i always suggest the "federalist papers" to liberals. its like kriptonite to superman.

     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.

    Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

     This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

        Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
                --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

    In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

        That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
                --- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

        I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
                --- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

    The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

        But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
                --- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

    And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

        One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
                --- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

    The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.
    What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site