NFrameFred
Member
PLEASE resist the urge to make this political and get yourself dinged and/or the thread closed . . . . . given current events in the news this, as always, is being trotted out by the faithful advocating further restrictions and bans . . . .
I read an opinion years ago and was persuaded of the validity of the point of view concerning the language used in the Second Amendment that the opposition loves to try to twist into something I'm convinced is in error.
The opening phrase, " A well regulated militia . . . "
Those who believe government is the savior and should control everyone for their own good naturally would love to believe that speaks to central government control (which WAS NOT the prevailing attitude of the populace at the time, having just thrown off the boot on the neck by the English). They fearfully deny any interpretation that doesn't say that this wording means that strict and complete government promulgated regulations are to be first and foremost in governing any such militia (again, NOT the prevailing attitude of the populace at the time).
Being a student of Jefferson, Adams and the writings of their contemporaries, reading their correspondence and writing sheds light on the manner of speech of that day, particularly in written form. Today many of the phrases they used for sake of clarity in that time are, by right, deemed archaic compared to our manner of speaking in this day and time. It is sometimes necessary to read their phrasing and chosen words several times to glean just exactly the point they are articulating.
The opinion I refer to originally was that "a well regulated militia" meant something totally different than what today's nanny-state dependents want it to mean.
A somewhat dated phrase, even in use today, is the regulation of firearms (shot guns and muzzle-loaders especially) meaning to adjust to the point of aim. Barrels are bent or pushed into an accurate point of impact to regulate/adjust them in gunsmithing terms, a phrase which would have been very familiar in the days of the Founders.
Thus a 'well regulated' militia would imply all eligible citizens who were loosely organized for the common defense were familiar with the use of their privately owned weapons and that they be accurately sighted in. The Founders were saying, " it's not just enough for free men to own guns to defend the country, but that they should be familiar, practiced, and accurate with such weapons to be prepared to stand in that defense."
In debating the point with several eggheads whom I consider to be educated beyond their intelligence, I have been met with open scorn, derision and insult for even considering the above proposition.
I do not make apology for the personal position that words mean things, and it drives me to distraction that in today's world words are being co-opted to mean what some want them to mean for political or ideological reasons without any regard to the historical and academic history of their definitions and context.
It MUST be considered that at the time the words were written that the concept of central government control was hotly contested by those seeking to retain the power of each of the individual states verses the federalists who advocated more control on the whole in certain matters such as taxation. It MUST be considered that having just overthrown despotic English rule and their fear of standing government controlled armies that the Founders most certainly were not advocating turning 180 degrees and forcing that on their newly free countrymen. They understood exactly the difference between the Continental Army, necessary during the war with England, and the Militia which was comprised of all eligible free men. In that day it in no way equated to what we now know as a 'national guard' which, at the time, was an as yet unknown concept and only came much later in our evolution of government.
Convince me I'm wrong, if you can . . .
I read an opinion years ago and was persuaded of the validity of the point of view concerning the language used in the Second Amendment that the opposition loves to try to twist into something I'm convinced is in error.
The opening phrase, " A well regulated militia . . . "
Those who believe government is the savior and should control everyone for their own good naturally would love to believe that speaks to central government control (which WAS NOT the prevailing attitude of the populace at the time, having just thrown off the boot on the neck by the English). They fearfully deny any interpretation that doesn't say that this wording means that strict and complete government promulgated regulations are to be first and foremost in governing any such militia (again, NOT the prevailing attitude of the populace at the time).
Being a student of Jefferson, Adams and the writings of their contemporaries, reading their correspondence and writing sheds light on the manner of speech of that day, particularly in written form. Today many of the phrases they used for sake of clarity in that time are, by right, deemed archaic compared to our manner of speaking in this day and time. It is sometimes necessary to read their phrasing and chosen words several times to glean just exactly the point they are articulating.
The opinion I refer to originally was that "a well regulated militia" meant something totally different than what today's nanny-state dependents want it to mean.
A somewhat dated phrase, even in use today, is the regulation of firearms (shot guns and muzzle-loaders especially) meaning to adjust to the point of aim. Barrels are bent or pushed into an accurate point of impact to regulate/adjust them in gunsmithing terms, a phrase which would have been very familiar in the days of the Founders.
Thus a 'well regulated' militia would imply all eligible citizens who were loosely organized for the common defense were familiar with the use of their privately owned weapons and that they be accurately sighted in. The Founders were saying, " it's not just enough for free men to own guns to defend the country, but that they should be familiar, practiced, and accurate with such weapons to be prepared to stand in that defense."
In debating the point with several eggheads whom I consider to be educated beyond their intelligence, I have been met with open scorn, derision and insult for even considering the above proposition.
I do not make apology for the personal position that words mean things, and it drives me to distraction that in today's world words are being co-opted to mean what some want them to mean for political or ideological reasons without any regard to the historical and academic history of their definitions and context.
It MUST be considered that at the time the words were written that the concept of central government control was hotly contested by those seeking to retain the power of each of the individual states verses the federalists who advocated more control on the whole in certain matters such as taxation. It MUST be considered that having just overthrown despotic English rule and their fear of standing government controlled armies that the Founders most certainly were not advocating turning 180 degrees and forcing that on their newly free countrymen. They understood exactly the difference between the Continental Army, necessary during the war with England, and the Militia which was comprised of all eligible free men. In that day it in no way equated to what we now know as a 'national guard' which, at the time, was an as yet unknown concept and only came much later in our evolution of government.
Convince me I'm wrong, if you can . . .
