Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Gun Control & RKBA
In reply to the discussion: Hardcore gunners are a bunch of sick fucks. [View all]guillaumeb
(42,649 posts)11. And are the members of this unorganized militia ever ordered to join the organized militia?
And what does "well-regulated" mean?
I addition, one responder wrote:
The Magistrate (91,957 posts)
1. A Point To Bear In Mind, Sir
A militia does require weapons, and all the way back to feudal levies militiamen were expected to provide their own equipment. This might be by private possession, or by community ownership, served out to militia answering the call.
A point that always interests me is 'bear arms' rather than 'possess arms'. The usage 'bear arms' meant at the time, and for many years after, employment of arms in a military role. A man who had hunted all his life with a rifle but never served in the militia or in regular forces would not ever have 'borne arms' in the parlance of the day. The men writing that document were fairly careful in their choice of words, and if they meant simply the right of the people to possess arms one suspects that is what they would have written, rather than what they did write, the right of the people to bear arms, which places the matter inescapably in the context of military, not civil usage.
When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does
1. A Point To Bear In Mind, Sir
A militia does require weapons, and all the way back to feudal levies militiamen were expected to provide their own equipment. This might be by private possession, or by community ownership, served out to militia answering the call.
A point that always interests me is 'bear arms' rather than 'possess arms'. The usage 'bear arms' meant at the time, and for many years after, employment of arms in a military role. A man who had hunted all his life with a rifle but never served in the militia or in regular forces would not ever have 'borne arms' in the parlance of the day. The men writing that document were fairly careful in their choice of words, and if they meant simply the right of the people to possess arms one suspects that is what they would have written, rather than what they did write, the right of the people to bear arms, which places the matter inescapably in the context of military, not civil usage.
When things are not called by their right names, what is said cannot make sense. When what is said does
The point is that Scalia was determined to find what was never found prior to his claim that he someone knew the real intent.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
37 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
The SCOTUS defined what Antonin Scalia pretended to find in the 2nd Amendment.
guillaumeb
Dec 2021
#4
As I mentioned in the 3 points I listed per my in practice reference...
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Dec 2021
#8
I further consider that without an individual RKBA having a militia would be near impossible.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
Dec 2021
#9
Then what was the point of specifically referring to a "well-regulated militia",
guillaumeb
Dec 2021
#10
And are the members of this unorganized militia ever ordered to join the organized militia?
guillaumeb
Dec 2021
#11