Linguistic analysis of the second amendment. Again.

[natman]

Originally Posted by peacefulgary

The first 10 Constitutional Amendments are known as "The Bill of Rights".
And they pertain to individual rights.

Why would the Founding Fathers have made the 1st, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, and 10th all be individual rights, but not the 2nd?

Logical consistency is not anti-gunner's strong suit.

[ballardw]

I have been in a few discussion of this over the years. You can get some odd looks when other meanings of "regulated" are introduced. One use common at the time the constitution was written when discussing militia was "drilled".

And don't forget that when you have a double rifle the barrels are often "regulated" to have a theoretical same point of impact at some specified range.

I believe that entirely too many people have been brainwashed by years of bureaucratic decrees to believe that "regulated" equals something like "imposed by law".

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by ballardw

I have been in a few discussion of this over the years. You can get some odd looks when other meanings of "regulated" are introduced. One use common at the time the constitution was written when discussing militia was "drilled".

And don't forget that when you have a double rifle the barrels are often "regulated" to have a theoretical same point of impact at some specified range.

I believe that entirely too many people have been brainwashed by years of bureaucratic decrees to believe that "regulated" equals something like "imposed by law".

Hence my search for a dictionary more or less contemporaneous with the drafting of the Bill of Rights. (See post #13) And, even back then, we find there were two general meanings for the word "regulate."

That said, both meanings had a general sense of "to make regular." That's very different from "to restrict, to ban, to prohibit, to eliminate."

[44 AMP]

One of the good and bad things about our language is the fact that many words have multiple meanings, and which one is proper is determined by context.

Often the different meanings have a common root, but the connection may be tenuous, or be so buried in the past that most people today simply don't recognize it, or care about it.

The real root meaning of "regulate" is to make something work "properly). We regulate social interaction with rules and regulations, so society "works properly" (or at least we try...)

We regulate a clock to keep proper time.

We regulate firearms to hit the point of aim we desire.

We regulate the militia by having it practice what it is supposed to do. (we call this "drill")

Most people will only grasp the version of the word that is most frequent in their personal lives. The trick is to get them to THINK a bit beyond that.

Context matters. Common frequency of use of one definition does not invalidate others. Use the word "storm" and most people think of the weather. Say "storm" to an infantry squad and it has a different meaning.

Amazing what a paradox our language can be, intricately precise and sloppy as hell at the same time!

[natman]

Originally Posted by ballardw

I have been in a few discussion of this over the years. You can get some odd looks when other meanings of "regulated" are introduced. One use common at the time the constitution was written when discussing militia was "drilled".

And don't forget that when you have a double rifle the barrels are often "regulated" to have a theoretical same point of impact at some specified range.

I believe that entirely too many people have been brainwashed by years of bureaucratic decrees to believe that "regulated" equals something like "imposed by law".

Here's a quote from an anti-gunner:
Huffman asked if anyone knew the first words of the Second Amendment. The response from several students was a simultaneous recitation of the phrase, “A well-regulated militia.”

“‘Regulated,’” repeated Huffman. “The Founding Fathers were in favor of some sensible regulation. That’s all we want. Just what the Second Amendment already calls for.”
https://pacificsun.com/upfront-enough/

This would be laughable, except that Jared Huffman is a member of the US House of Representatives from California.

[44 AMP]

“The Founding Fathers were in favor of some sensible regulation. That’s all we want. Just what the Second Amendment already calls for.”

If the gentleman is to be taken at face value, and if he actually believes in what he said, then he should go home the "tend to his knitting", as the what he says he wants was done, In 1789.

I agree, the Founding Fathers were in favor of sensible regulations. THAT'S WHAT THEY WROTE. And, that's ALL that they wrote.

Note what they wrote, and especially what they didn't write.

They didn't write a single gun control law. Not one.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by 44 AMP

They didn't write a single gun control law. Not one.

Not in the Constitution or in the Bill of Rights, but rather soon after the Bill of Rights they wrote a gun control law -- the Militia Acts of 1792.

That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack. That the commissioned Officers shall severally be armed with a sword or hanger, and espontoon; and that from and after five years from the passing of this Act, all muskets from arming the militia as is herein required, shall be of bores sufficient for balls of the eighteenth part of a pound; and every citizen so enrolled, and providing himself with the arms, ammunition and accoutrements, required as aforesaid, shall hold the same exempted from all suits, distresses, executions or sales, for debt or for the payment of taxes.

Now THAT's what I call sensible gun regulation, and it fits the way the word "regulate" was used in the 2nd Amendment. They wanted all members of the militia to be armed with muskets that could fire the same size ammunition, presumably in order to simplify supply and resupply in the event of an armed conflict. In other words, they "regulated" the militia by standardizing the bore of their muskets.

And this is why every American today should own an AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45, with a barrel twist suitable for whatever ammunition is current issue. (Is it still M855, 62-grain?)

[sundog]

"And this is why every American today should own an AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45, with a barrel twist suitable for whatever ammunition is current issue. (Is it still M855, 62-grain?)"

THAT is SENSIBLE gun control.

[44 AMP]

And this is why every American today should own an AR-15 chambered in 5.56x45, with a barrel twist suitable for whatever ammunition is current issue.

I disagree. (I no longer have an AR and am not getting another one...I'll stick with my M1A, thank you..)

I disagree with the "every American" part, I think you should amend the statement to match the Founders intent with the Militia act.

Every American covered by the Militia Act (essentially those 18-45 years old, absent a few public officials...) they should have an AR-15, I'm fine with that. Me, I'm well past the age of militia service (defined in the act), so there is no requirement I own an AR.

[Aguila Blanca]

I didn't say it's a requirement, but I regard it as what might be termed a "moral imperative." The word "should" in legal and code language is regarded as suggestive, not mandatory. "Shall" is mandatory.

I, too, am well past the statutory age for being a member of the unorganized militia. But ... I was in the Army. When I enlisted, I swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. When I was released from the Army, nobody said my oath was cancelled. So, while I am not required to be in the militia, if Red Dawn ever became a reality and I showed up on the town green with my AR-15, I doubt the PTB (Powers That Be) would send me home.

Of course, at the moment I think the threat of Russian paratroopers landing in East Overshoe, USA, is much less than the possibility of antifa invading the suburbs. Once they're done trashing the larger cities, they'll move on to smaller cities, and then to the small towns. I don't think they'll rest until they have wrecked the full spectrum of American life.

[44 AMP]

I don't think they'll rest until they have wrecked the full spectrum of American life.

Possibly not.

However, I think that when they become successful enough with brigandage, there will be a significant change in people's attitudes about them, and their civil rights.

What I mean is, I think it possible that at some point, when they are felt to be enough of a threat, people will take matters into their own hands and not work real hard to arrest them and give them due process.

It's the responsibility of our elected government to see that things don't reach that point, but if they fail in that, there are people, good people, who will consider due process to be proper sight alignment and trigger control.

And, I think that IF we get to the point where Antifa (or whoever) faces people willing and determined to oppose them with deadly force, a lot of the steam will go out of their movement.

One friend of mine says "Looting is a lot of fun! Until someone starts shooting at you...."

I don't see that he's wrong in that assessment....

[zukiphile]

And, I think that IF we get to the point where Antifa (or whoever) faces people willing and determined to oppose them with deadly force, a lot of the steam will go out of their movement.

One friend of mine says "Looting is a lot of fun! Until someone starts shooting at you...."

I don't see that he's wrong in that assessment....

For simple looting, I agree. There is a sort of mind that sees only opportunity in a state of nature, but can do the math when he sees that looting might cost him his life.

The recent events don't appear to be simply picking up a free TV. The shops in my area are still boarded up because they weren't simply looted, but were attacked by mobs while the owners were in the businesses. There is a cupcake shop around the corner from me owned and run by a bunch of young irish girls. During the "almost completely peaceful protests", the "protestors" broke through their windows and came for the girls. They hid in a backroom until help came to get them out.

I suspect that the sort who thought that this commercial version of an occupied home invasion would be a good idea will also see a lot of utility in making a martyr of anyone shot by a business owner.

[44 AMP]

I suspect that the sort who thought that this commercial version of an occupied home invasion would be a good idea will also see a lot of utility in making a martyr of anyone shot by a business owner.

They will certainly try, and some people will fall for it, but a lot of people won't see any martyrdom in someone who was killed in the commission of a violent crime.

I don't. Do you?

[zukiphile]

Originally Posted by 44AMP

They will certainly try, and some people will fall for it, but a lot of people won't see any martyrdom in someone who was killed in the commission of a violent crime.

I don't. Do you?

I don't and you don't, but we may not be an insurmountable electoral block.

These events can shape public conversation in odd ways. There is a sizable portion of the population who see virtue in prejudging these individual conflicts based on the identities of those involved. In the immediate wake of the Martin and Brown events, I spoke with people who were certain those men were murdered, and the "Hands up, don't shoot!" chants survived the disclosure of contrary evidence and that PO's acquittal.

Because shooting stops looting like anti-biotics stop bacterial pneumonia, I agree on the basic anti-looting mechanism you observe. I'm noting a weird animus that drives people to mob vandalism and violence from which the mob gets nothing material. That indicates an agenda beyond free sneakers, and it's a worse, harder to unwind problem.

[44 AMP]

I'm noting a weird animus that drives people to mob vandalism and violence from which the mob gets nothing material. That indicates an agenda beyond free sneakers, and it's a worse, harder to unwind problem

Perhaps you're overthinking things, or just looking at them from an angle different than a mob.

Consider that mob violence, other than looting, isn't about material gain. It's about emotional release. People are angry, about something, frustrated, might not even have anything to do with the "reason" for the protest.

Being anonymous in a mob, being able to smash and burn other people's things, without fear of personal repercussions, gives them a way to vent their anger.

yes, there are true believers in the cause (what ever it is, today), but there are also people who join in just to be able to get away with something.

Perhaps the answer is as simple as that? The do it because they can, and they want to. They know they aren't going to be caught, or punished, and it feels good to be able to "stick it to the man" or what ever sound byte is in vogue these days...

To make a mark, to get back at your "oppressors", to hurt someone else who you are told deserves it, and all the while being protected from the criminal penalties of your actions because you're "just another face in the crowd"

That appeals to some people, and for some of them, that's enough.

And, yeah, some of them are going to trash the cupcake shop, and have "fun" with the girls in it, not because they are part of, or any symbol of what the protest is "officially" about, but because it's there, and an easy victim.

Mobs may begin with "rational" target selection, but once they get going, virtually everything that is there, or attracts their attention is a target. Unless, tis something supporting the mob, or recognized as a fellow victim by the mob, and mobs aren't known for making subtle distinctions when rage and fury are in the driver's seat.

And, in a nutshell, one of the main reasons the Founders gave us a REPUBLIC (IF you can keep it) was to prevent/minimize mob rule mentality at government level.

Based on the technology of the day, when information, both bad and good, traveled at the speed of the fastest horse or ship, it gave us TIME, for passions to cool, and (hopefully) rational thought to prevail.

Instant world wide communication via Internet & social media has gone a long way towards nullifying that built in advantage. And, we're still going in that direction...