View Single Post
Old December 29, 2009, 01:32 AM   #52
Don Randall
Member
 
Join Date: January 30, 2000
Posts: 43
Originally Posted by Don Randall
The framers chose the term "well regulated militia" because, to them, that term applied specifically to armed men, not under the control of government.

I disagree. That is not what well-regulated means.

Okay. Disagree all you want. Did you bother to read the document to which I posted a link?

If you read that document, you would have discovered that the term "well regulated militia" was shown to be a reference -- Not to the King's professional standing army, not to the King's part time "militia", not to any form of militia under the authority of any prince or any other lesser royal or other government authority -- The term "well regulated militia" is ONLY used in reference to armed individuals who are not sponsored by, or commanded by government. The "well regulated militia" is people who come together in time of emergency to protect their country from invasion or from tyranny at home.

Why do I say that? Is it only my opinion? NO - It is not. I say that because that is precisely what is stated in that historical document authored by Parliamentarian Andrew Fletcher.

Now you can say that I am all wrong if you like. That's okay. But, if you tell me I am wrong, it would be helpful to your effort to convince me that I am wrong and you are right, if you provide me with some evidence that my understanding of that article and my conclusions have no reasonable or rational basis.

I am simply offering information found in an historical document which indicates the term "well regulated militia" had a known and accepted meaning and the term was known to the Framers of our constitution and used by them to communicate that particular long established and accepted meaning.

I stated in my note that the Framers of our constitution were Englishmen before the became the first Americans. I say they understood the English language and it's terminology of that day as men of that day would have understood it. I say they appear to have chosen that term intending to communicate one particular thought: That the individual people do have a right to keep and bear arms, meaning to own and carry weapons.
Don Randall is offline  
 
Page generated in 0.03280 seconds with 8 queries