Musicmystery
Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
quote:
ORIGINAL: Musicmystery
Again, though, not the question the thread raises.
True enough.
So what do YOU see as the meaning of the words "well regulated"?
A very fair question. Thank you.
The language is problematic, as the sentence doesn't make conventional sense. The independent clause is clear--"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." Yet the modifying clause, "a well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State," throws in quite a wrench. Why include this? The clauses connect poorly at best, as the point of the modifier is vague or even irrelevant. We are all, of course, guessing at the intention of the authors [excepting for the moment the spin of partisan positions], despite claims of scholarship that see inside the framers' minds.
We could delve even deeper into semantics---what is "well" regulated for a militia? Is it strict order? Is it the "right" views?
My best guess is that the framers both didn't want the government to universally restrict arms, and didn't want people with arms to run roughshod. This is part of where I was headed when mentioning the Whiskey Rebellion. George Washington established that indeed, the Federal government was the rule of the land. Had he not, England would have conquered us again during the War of 1812, as we'd have been every man for himself.
But the language specifically speaks of militias, not independent owners--although yes, certainly such militias would consist of independent citizens.
So as you ask, what is "well regulated?"
Is it a militia ready to serve the country? George Washington appears to think so, since he called on the militia to resolve the Whiskey Rebellion, without which we problem would have no (War of 1812) or a weak country today.
Or does this mean the militia should be in line with the government?
Certainly a few prominent militias have tried to buck the government, and failed. Should we argue they were exercising their Constitutional rights? I don't think so. At least, such a fight should have, flawed though it is, gone to our Supreme Court. And certainly militia groups choosing to confront the government have been squashed.
So weak though this point is, the framers likely compromised on something like "a sane, ordered, responsible group of guys with guns should be legal." I'm not being sarcastic here. I'm not a hunter, for example, but I'm not anti-hunting. Where I live, hunting lasts in some form from September through May. I'm not willing to concede the woods for 75% of the year, so I have to learn to live with hunters. Sure, I see them in their campers and shake my head at these "woodsmen," but they are generally polite, responsible people, and I strive to be the same.
What troubles me about the OP, though, is the twisting of anything coming down the pike to serve partisan interests. On whichever side, I find that dangerous, even as it's widespread. And I think special interests are playing people like puppets on both sides.
The tangents really bother me, and so my hints at new threads were not casual. Some of "this" seems still about the Civil War---or the War of Northern Aggression. I'm beginning more than ever to appreciate Lincoln's dilemma, and sometimes, even today, I wonder "What if we just let them go? We wouldn't be having this debate!" But Lincoln stuck to an United States which became powerful---and perhaps two weaker countries would have been better, given the consequences.
But again, what does this language mean?
I can't buy your stance that our government includes the seeds to overthrow it. That's simply silly and counterproductive--in fact, that's admitting that we have no true viable government, and never have. I'm also troubled by the assertions that our government is tyrannical, as the charge seems gratuitous. Sure, governments lay forth laws and requirements, as determined by the legislature and approved by the executive branch. That's not tyranny---that just means the accuser disagrees with the result, and clearly, in a republic, some people will always be on the losing side.
I have watched more than one administration while shaking my head. But never did I say, even in my angriest moment, "OK, I'm so out of here," or "It's time to overthrow the government." And people worry about Islam? Christians will ultimately do the job, all while waving the flag, as the American democracy experiment dies. I don't want to see that.
So....
I hope we can agree that we want to be a nation.
I hope we can agree that we want to exercise freedoms.
I hope we can agree that we will need laws to govern, lest we simply embrace anarchy.
Regulation?
Perhaps the framers meant to regulate groups of people with arms. But mostly, I think this smacks of compromise language, not clearly saying what either "side" intended to articulate.
But if we embrace the rule of law, here we are.
I do wish you well.
Tim
< Message edited by Musicmystery -- 11/14/2008 4:02:20 PM >
|
RE: Well regulated? - 
Profile
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread