MumboJumbo wrote on Jul 1
st, 2015 at 7:15pm:
Panther wrote on Jul 1
st, 2015 at 5:01pm:
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.
Even adopting
your definition (well-regulated = calibrated correctly) doesn't avail you.
I'd like to take credit for that statement, & the text that followed, but it's not to be, for those words are & were not mine. In future I will better use the quote tag when appropriate. I'm usually pretty good at that, but lately I've been missing the usual tags.
MumboJumbo wrote on Jul 1
st, 2015 at 7:15pm:
PS -- please don't link to to pictures of long, tortuous arguments. If you want to write words, do so with your keyboard. That's the last time I type out lengthy parts of a picture to explain something
I wish I could have entered that argument as text, but unfortunately there is a character count limitation on this BB, & unlike some I refuse to split the passage.
Availing yourself of using a google search as a tool, finding the relevant text should present itself easy.
I will only present long text in image format if need be, but in the future I will attempt to provide links & verbiage to easily point out the textual source for those not familiar with the power of Internet search engines.
Your personal arguments along with your personal opinions are fine, & encourages further discussion based specifically on the grammatical composition of the authors text & the Second Amendment's text relevant to today's English language.
Focusing on the text of the Second Amendment itself, your personal opinions are noted, but like most
'readers' of the Amendment, you fall prey to the age old fault of using today's terminology & definitions when attempting to define the Original Framer's Intent. You need to not only use the terms in that Amendment as they were used in the late 18
th Century, but to further enlighten yourself as to their
'Intent' by reading
The Federalist & other archived arguments of the day by the Framers of the Constitution.....the Founding Fathers.....where they argued for the Amendment(s) on various occasions. It is they that best define their intent.
You should also take into account the various precedents established by the Supreme Court regarding the Second Amendment right for
individual citizens to keep & bear arms especially
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), as well as various other lower court decisions related to the Amendment (which, for clarification purposes, doesn't grant any right, but merely expresses that the right exists, & predates the Constitution itself).
Here are some Supreme Court Cases to look at, & please note that they are very few. The Supreme Court does not often take up issues on the Second Amendment primarily because it isn't necessary in light of well established precedent.
United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542 (1876) The Second Amendment has no purpose other than to restrict the powers of the federal government. It does not specifically grant private citizens the right to keep and bear arms because that right exists independent of the Constitution.
Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) An Illinois law that prohibits common citizens from forming personal military organizations, performing drills, and parading is constitutional because such a law does not limit the personal right to keep and bear arms.
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939) The federal government and the states can limit access to all weapons that do not have "some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia."
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia and to use it for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home.
McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) The individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense is fully applicable to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In summary, I wish to acknowledge that it means little (next to nothing) what we say here regarding the American Second Amendment, or the Constitution of the United States of America for that matter.
The
'Law of the Land' lies securely in the hands of the American People & the Supreme Court. It is they that define, not us.
I hope you find these little tidbits, especially Federalist 29 & 46 enlightening, & you enjoy the echos of Freedom & Liberty from within.