PDA

View Full Version : "Well Regulated" Thought and Question


adampolo13
07-27-2012, 9:55 AM
Okay, so at the risk of being kicked off the website, I had a thought/question.

I agree that the 2A applies to the individual, not just to militia etc. The right to bear arms is a God given right, protected by the constitution.

Now, my thought was, all the anti's keep screaming about "common sense gun laws"

Wouldn't it be common sense to let every non-fellon, non-crazy (documented of course) own a weapon? Yes it would!

Now, what about the idea of well regulated. I'm thinking that if the Government wants to do something about gun laws, why don't they require that every gun owner attend training of some sort...

I would be okay with requiring training if they made CCW's shall issue in every state, allowed open carry in every state. Basically repealed every law that infringes on our right to bear arms, but they could require training for every gun owner.

My thoughts come from the argument that your average joe gun owner couldn't take down the CO gunman.... We could combat that with this kind of law. It would by no means punish gun owners...

Good or Bad, what are your thoughts?

taperxz
07-27-2012, 9:59 AM
Perhaps governmental training should be required prior to picking a religion to follow? "well regulated" back in the day (1780's) was referring to "well equipped"

mikestesting
07-27-2012, 10:02 AM
Perhaps governmental training should be required prior to picking a religion to follow? "well regulated" back in the day (1780's) was referring to "well equipped"

And "militia" back in the day referred to non-government, non-state body of men. In other words, the average joes of the community.

Kukuforguns
07-27-2012, 10:05 AM
Well, back when we had active militias, there was training. I've got no problem with reintroducing that. The states undoubtedly have the power. Politically, it's a lead balloon in any blue state.

Legasat
07-27-2012, 10:08 AM
Actually the definitions I have read about "well regulated" just meant "Operational" or "working as expected".

adampolo13
07-27-2012, 10:09 AM
I agree it wouldn't pass muster in a blue state, I was thinking about it on a national level... Not sure how to make it work though... As someone who hasn't served in the military or L.E. I would love the opportunity to be trained. I spent time at the range with instuctors and have attended private classes etc, but I also see idiots at the range who shouldn't be handeling guns. Perhaps we could fix a lot of things???...

IVC
07-27-2012, 10:09 AM
Many states do have training requirements. Few would argue they need to be repealed. Similarly, licensing and training would pass the constitutional muster if a state decided to do it.

The real problem with "common sense gun laws" is that they are used as a precursor for gun control. Look at CA. We have licensing, but it has "good moral character" and "good cause" tucked in. You can still say it's "common sense" *IF* "good moral character"="law abiding" and "good cause"="exercise constitutional right". However, you know how it worked in CA.

Another example is NY, where they have very high fees which are not used to offset the cost, but are used to eliminate "rif-raf". CA had the same thing and sheriff after sheriff had to be pushed by the CGF to bring fees in line with the actual cost.

So, in theory it's all nice, but in practice...

Kukuforguns
07-27-2012, 10:11 AM
I agree it wouldn't pass muster in a blue state, I was thinking about it on a national level... Not sure how to make it work though...
I tend to prefer the Federal government to keep its nose out of such issues.

njineermike
07-27-2012, 10:13 AM
I say we have a "well regulated" forum and ban everyone that asks this question.

1859sharps
07-27-2012, 10:20 AM
as others have said, "well regulated" had different meaning/implication then verse what people think today.

Today when we hear the word regulated we think law or rules.

It has been a while since I looked into this, but my memory is that Stephen Halbrook did a pretty good job explaining this in his books. he was also the first person I had read that discussed the connection between gun control and racism.

Flopper
07-27-2012, 10:24 AM
Regulated at the time meant "made regular, normalized, disciplined."

The reason this verbiage was included was (in a nutshell) because the Feds wanted to make sure the militia would be an effective organization to resist invasion and insurrection, NOT because it wanted to LIMIT what the militia could do or have.

"Regulate" eventually started to assume the modern connotation of "having regulations," but that definition is putting the cart before the horse.

I HIGHLY recommend The Founders' Second Amendment (http://www.amazon.com/The-Founders-Second-Amendment-Origins/dp/1566637929/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343409612&sr=8-1&keywords=the+founders+second+amendment) to answer all questions of this nature--it is an EXCELLENT read.

Wiz-of-Awd
07-27-2012, 10:30 AM
I say we have a "well regulated" forum and ban everyone that asks this question.

Questions and "what ifs" are what help get people thinking - thinking to resolve issues in the best possible way.

A.W.D.

adampolo13
07-27-2012, 10:33 AM
Questions and "what ifs" are what help get people thinking - thinking to resolve issues in the best possible way.

A.W.D.

Thank You!

jrock
07-27-2012, 10:40 AM
its not uncommon for the left to redefine terms to fit their agenda.

the liberal party was the right side of aisle, before the left stole the term, as it is across the pond.

YubaRiver
07-27-2012, 10:48 AM
Data I have seen, (but don't have links for, so take it for what it is) show
training has little or no effect on gun safety in the various states that do
or not require it. Hunters safety classes for one.

If anyone has better info please post.

Squid
07-27-2012, 10:52 AM
foreign mercs (militia being 'the populace') and/or getting involved in Proxy Wars (foreign military aid)....as those were major causes of toxic wars in Europe at the time.

The idea was to prevent Congress from using taxes to hire troops loyal only to Congress and their paychecks, and to force Congress to "sell" any war to The People who were going to do the actual fighting.

Thus, things like inducting non-citizens into military or "military aid" or "lend lease" are unconstitutional.


It is The People's right to bear any arms acquired by the Govt, as an important check on their misuse and to be able to provide moral oversight and feedback.

Following my interpretation of the 2nd would've kept USA out of all wars since Mex American War, which was last beneficial war for USA.


The SCOTUS interpretation is just SCOTUS doing what they do best, legislating from the bench, contradicting themselves, and complying with current dogma.

Snubbie handguns really aren't part of any "militia", and if short barrel shotguns are legal because they were used in WW1 trenches, doesn't that mean other more common infantry(at a minimum) weapons need to be legal, like machine guns and mortars?

njineermike
07-27-2012, 10:56 AM
foreign mercs (militia being 'the populace') and/or getting involved in Proxy Wars (foreign military aid)....as those were major causes of toxic wars in Europe at the time.

The idea was to prevent Congress from using taxes to hire troops loyal only to Congress and their paychecks, and to force Congress to "sell" any war to The People who were going to do the actual fighting.

Thus, things like inducting non-citizens into military or "military aid" or "lend lease" are unconstitutional.


It is The People's right to bear any arms acquired by the Govt, as an important check on their misuse and to be able to provide moral oversight and feedback.

Following my interpretation of the 2nd would've kept USA out of all wars since Mex American War, which was last beneficial war for USA.


The SCOTUS interpretation is just SCOTUS doing what they do best, legislating from the bench, contradicting themselves, and complying with current dogma.

Snubbie handguns really aren't part of any "militia", and if short barrel shotguns are legal because they were used in WW1 trenches, doesn't that mean other more common infantry(at a minimum) weapons need to be legal, like machine guns and mortars?

The argument could be made that since the common weapon of the hunter and farmer was BETTER than the common weapon of the British infantry, that any military weapon is inclusive of this right.

MindBuilder
07-27-2012, 11:02 AM
Do you really think the gun banners care how accurately gun owners can shoot? People who think training is a good idea are basically on our side already. Gun banners just hate guns because they are afraid of scary devices. Making everyone with a gun a more deadly marksman won't make them feel any better. Gun deaths are by gangs, spouses, and robbers, not defenders missing their targets. Training won't help those problems. Increased constitutional carry might.

Training and licenses don't help anything, they are just an excuse to increase costs. You and the gun dealer have to do a bunch of paperwork where if a mistake is made, the dealer could loose his buisiness or worse. Instead of wathcing a video, you have to pay for a lecturer and classroom rental and show up at an inconvenient location at an inconvenient time. I think the training for a gun license in Germany takes two months. That's how they drain political support. Licensing and registration just increase their temptation for confiscation.

littlejake
07-27-2012, 11:21 AM
Scalia, in writing for the majority in Heller essentially discarded the first clause about a well regulated militia. The antis used that clause to limit the 2nd clause for decades. The first clause is dead, it's gone, kaput! For all purposes the 2A now reads, "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

To my fellow Calgunner's forget the first clause -- It neither adds nor detracts from the operative clause: "The Right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Let sleeping dogs lie.

Dreaded Claymore
07-27-2012, 3:08 PM
Well, back when we had active militias, there was training. I've got no problem with reintroducing that. The states undoubtedly have the power. Politically, it's a lead balloon in any blue state.

Seconded.

Josh3239
07-27-2012, 3:20 PM
My thoughts come from the argument that your average joe gun owner couldn't take down the CO gunman.... We could combat that with this kind of law. It would by no means punish gun owners...

As it has been said, well regulated meant equipped. Additionally, I don't know what makes you think that but +/- 1 million people use guns to defend themselves every year. A CCW certainly could have stopped him.

71yr old vs 2 thugs: http://youtu.be/4XSJv8nwVBk
15yr old with AR15 vs burglurs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-q2zHIovOE&feature=related
Armed Clerk vs armed robber: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AA_dgRdDhk&list=PL165CFFCEC5382B2A&index=37&feature=plpp_video

Legasat
07-27-2012, 4:08 PM
its not uncommon for the left to redefine terms to fit their agenda.

You got that right...look at what they did to the definition of "Assault Rifle". That whole "fully-auto" thing seems to be missing from the current discussions and replaced by "black and evil-looking."