|
Post by rmc on May 25, 2020 9:49:27 GMT
I would have thought that rather that it merely stressing by repeating "disciplined" a second time, the phrase well-regulated had something to do with regulations and rules... Thereby, "a well-controlled and disciplined militia." Rather than something akin to "a well-disciplined and disciplined militia." Or do I not get where you're coming from here? yes, you get it. what it doesn't mean is "armed to the teeth and disciplined," I'll need to do a miracle of research at this point, but there was a draft or supporting document somewhere that ostensibly stated that they'd be armed, "with the weapon of the day". So, had that survived to the final draft, I think things might be a bit warmer these days. So to be clear "well-regulated" is akin to governed which means to be controlled by someone or something other than yourself, whereas "disciplined" is also being or acting in a controlled manner, but where such control comes from within.
|
|
|
Post by ironhold on May 25, 2020 13:29:02 GMT
on very loosely related note, I realized not long ago that while I knew my maternal grandfather joined the Navy and was in the Philippines during the war. I didn't know wht my father's side hd been up to. so tody I found out my grandfther's brother was in the Army Air Corps. my grandfther was considered essential industry. he spent the war driving a log truck between here and San Francisco. about a 1,000 mile round trip. Wood had a *lot* of uses during the war, everything from lumber for construction to cellulose for military purposes. There's actually a "Doc Savage" story from during the waning part of the war where Savage has all hands on deck to investigate why a Canadian lumber operation has all but shut down, and discovers that a group of Nazi sympathizers is going to some length to frighten the First Nations workers into fleeing the facility. It's "The Three Devils" if memory serves. (Unfortunately, it seems that the vintage Doc Savage tales had a habit of setting up an epic finale, only for the writer to realize they were too close to the end of their page count for that finale to occur and then having to pull a deus ex to compensate.)
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2020 13:43:56 GMT
yes, you get it. what it doesn't mean is "armed to the teeth and disciplined," I'll need to do a miracle of research at this point, but there was a draft or supporting document somewhere that ostensibly stated that they'd be armed, "with the weapon of the day". So, had that survived to the final draft, I think things might be a bit warmer these days. So to be clear "well-regulated" is akin to governed which means to be controlled by someone or something other than yourself, whereas "disciplined" is also being or acting in a controlled manner, but where such control comes from within. and it also makes it clear to sensible people that "a well regulated militia" as cited in the constitution wasn't intended to mean a bunch of bozos armed to the teeth and doing their own thing.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2020 14:04:46 GMT
on very loosely related note, I realized not long ago that while I knew my maternal grandfather joined the Navy and was in the Philippines during the war. I didn't know wht my father's side hd been up to. so tody I found out my grandfther's brother was in the Army Air Corps. my grandfther was considered essential industry. he spent the war driving a log truck between here and San Francisco. about a 1,000 mile round trip. Wood had a *lot* of uses during the war, everything from lumber for construction to cellulose for military purposes. There's actually a "Doc Savage" story from during the waning part of the war where Savage has all hands on deck to investigate why a Canadian lumber operation has all but shut down, and discovers that a group of Nazi sympathizers is going to some length to frighten the First Nations workers into fleeing the facility. It's "The Three Devils" if memory serves. (Unfortunately, it seems that the vintage Doc Savage tales had a habit of setting up an epic finale, only for the writer to realize they were too close to the end of their page count for that finale to occur and then having to pull a deus ex to compensate.) while there was consideration given to putting German POWs to work in the woods, I doubt my grandfather met Doc Savage.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on May 25, 2020 14:45:54 GMT
I'll need to do a miracle of research at this point, but there was a draft or supporting document somewhere that ostensibly stated that they'd be armed, "with the weapon of the day". So, had that survived to the final draft, I think things might be a bit warmer these days. So to be clear "well-regulated" is akin to governed which means to be controlled by someone or something other than yourself, whereas "disciplined" is also being or acting in a controlled manner, but where such control comes from within. and it also makes it clear to sensible people that "a well regulated militia" as cited in the constitution wasn't intended to mean a bunch of bozos armed to the teeth and doing their own thing. The main difference between now and then is that there wasn't a direct "membership" for the average person to be domiciled within the federal government back then. More on what that exactly means in a moment. Ths IS an import distinction too. Without citizens being tied directly to the feds, each state was on it's own with regard to certain things. Starting with creating a legal citizenship status. Today, we look at citizenship only so far as being a U.S. citizen, by way of documents and numbers lodged for us in Washington D.C. Back when militias were a force, there was no U.S. citizenship. Instead, each state created the status of being a citizen within their boundaries. Therefore, you became a Citizen of the United States of America by way of your state citizenship. So, if you were part of a militia, you'd state something to the effect of, "we, the Citizens of Virginia, stand together in the defense of ..." (etc). Today, people in Virginia refer to themselves as *residents* of Virginia. Because they are, instead, citizens of the United States. (That's the Washington D.C. part of our country, U.S. rather than U.S.A.) and they are merely residing in Virginia rather than being genuine Citizens, therein. The important part here is this: Those founding documents are discussing a state militia, one made of state citizens. Since state citizens no longer exist (after something like 1872 to 1913), then the whole thing is moot with regard to a true militia and the rights therein.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2020 15:17:04 GMT
and it also makes it clear to sensible people that "a well regulated militia" as cited in the constitution wasn't intended to mean a bunch of bozos armed to the teeth and doing their own thing. The main difference between now and then is that there wasn't a direct "membership" for the average person to be domiciled within the federal government back then. More on what that exactly means in a moment. Ths IS an import distinction too. Without citizens being tied directly to the feds, each state was on it's own with regard to certain things. Starting with creating a legal citizenship status. Today, we look at citizenship only so far as being a U.S. citizen, by way of documents and numbers lodged for us in Washington D.C. Back when militias were a force, there was no U.S. citizenship. Instead, each state created the status of being a citizen within their boundaries. Therefore, you became a Citizen of the United States of America by way of your state citizenship. So, if you were part of a militia, you'd state something to the effect of, "we, the Citizens of Virginia, stand together in the defense of ..." (etc). Today, people in Virginia refer to themselves as *residents* of Virginia. Because they are, instead, citizens of the United States. (That's the Washington D.C. part of our country, U.S. rather than U.S.A.) and they are merely residing in Virginia rather than being genuine Citizens, therein. The important part here is this: Those founding documents are discussing a state militia, one made of state citizens. Since state citizens no longer exist (after something like 1872 to 1913), then the whole thing is moot with regard to a true militia and the rights therein. at the time a state militia was a body of citizens under command (by way of chain of command) of the state governor. it was expected that the state could not afford to maintain an arsenal for everyone, so they were expected to provide their own arms, as a general rule. it was also common for militia membership to be a condition of citizenship. today's closest corollary is the national guard. which is all analysis over and above the fact that the phrasing in the articles of confederation clearly shows the claim that "regulated" used to be synonymous with "armed" is invalid.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2020 15:19:08 GMT
addendum: note that the people who claim regulated meant armed are often the same people who claim that regulations is now synonymous with killing jobs.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on May 25, 2020 15:47:26 GMT
addendum: note that the people who claim regulated meant armed are often the same people who claim that regulations is now synonymous with killing jobs. which is all analysis over and above the fact that the phrasing in the articles of confederation clearly shows the claim that "regulated" used to be synonymous with "armed" is invalid. It's invalid because we cannot even have a militia as defined in that document (national guard keeps and maintains it's own weaponry). So, moot point they make trying to parse out the meaning of regulated, armed, or hat size for that matter. Being armed to the teeth should be about interest in weapons or concern over safety (though that's rather overkill, I think) and not tied to the founding documents. An argument is often made that an armed populace keeps the government honest or nervous, or what have you. And, that's why they seek to find documentation that supports their ownership of an entire armory. And, specifically on regulated = armed, of course those don't match at all.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2020 18:20:46 GMT
addendum: note that the people who claim regulated meant armed are often the same people who claim that regulations is now synonymous with killing jobs. which is all analysis over and above the fact that the phrasing in the articles of confederation clearly shows the claim that "regulated" used to be synonymous with "armed" is invalid. It's invalid because we cannot even have a militia as defined in that document (national guard keeps and maintains it's own weaponry). So, moot point they make trying to parse out the meaning of regulated, armed, or hat size for that matter. Being armed to the teeth should be about interest in weapons or concern over safety (though that's rather overkill, I think) and not tied to the founding documents. An argument is often made that an armed populace keeps the government honest or nervous, or what have you. And, that's why they seek to find documentation that supports their ownership of an entire armory. And, specifically on regulated = armed, of course those don't match at all. no, they want to have lots of guns, which is why they seek to find something to justify them owning guns.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 25, 2020 19:35:06 GMT
And the Second Amendment gives them all the justification they need.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 25, 2020 20:32:26 GMT
And the Second Amendment gives them all the justification they need. because of the need for a well regulated militia. and for the record, because of the phrasing of the relevant par of the articles of confederation, referring to well regulated and disciplined militia, armed and acoutered; we know "well regulated" wasn't used to refer to weapons.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on May 25, 2020 23:09:47 GMT
And the Second Amendment gives them all the justification they need. because of the need for a well regulated militia. and for the record, because of the phrasing of the relevant par of the articles of confederation, referring to well regulated and disciplined militia, armed and acoutered; we know "well regulated" wasn't used to refer to weapons. Somebody said regulated equates to armed? Who said that anyway? No. Really. I've not heard that one yet. I believe you, of course. It's just that I'd like to see it too, though.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 26, 2020 0:18:54 GMT
because of the need for a well regulated militia. and for the record, because of the phrasing of the relevant par of the articles of confederation, referring to well regulated and disciplined militia, armed and acoutered; we know "well regulated" wasn't used to refer to weapons. Somebody said regulated equates to armed? Who said that anyway? No. Really. I've not heard that one yet. I believe you, of course. It's just that I'd like to see it too, though. it's common on gun control vs no gun control arguments.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on May 26, 2020 11:11:26 GMT
Somebody said regulated equates to armed? Who said that anyway? No. Really. I've not heard that one yet. I believe you, of course. It's just that I'd like to see it too, though. it's common on gun control vs no gun control arguments. I'll dig around for it. I am a person who occasionally has owned a firearm or two (rifle and or shotgun for target practice and or hunting). I once owned an AR-15 just before joining the service so I could better acquaint myself with something similar to the M-16. I kept it for a long time, but as prices of ammo went up for the .223, buying cheap ammo turned into very long, not-fun cleaning sessions. So, I rid myself of that AR-15 mainly because I ended up hating cleaning it!!! Anyway, I've been in and out of some of the pro firearms crowd as a result of being a firearm owner, but I hadn't yet heard that one. Must be sort of new. Back when I was in "6th grade" 1975? our school had us take an NRA firearm safety course, using 22 caliber rifles. Can't imagine that happening today for numerous reasons.
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 26, 2020 11:50:19 GMT
I own fire arms and they are not long guns and they are not for hunting. I do occasionally target shoot but that’s mainly just to stay proficient.
And speaking of guns, 48 people were shot in Chicago this weekend. 10 died. It wouldn’t surprise me if those numbers were just added to the corona statics.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on May 26, 2020 12:27:27 GMT
I own fire arms and they are not long guns and they are not for hunting. I do occasionally target shoot but that’s mainly just to stay proficient. And speaking of guns, 48 people were shot in Chicago this weekend. 10 died. It wouldn’t surprise me if those numbers were just added to the corona statics. You live next door to those guys?
|
|
|
Post by GTCGreg on May 26, 2020 12:59:41 GMT
I own fire arms and they are not long guns and they are not for hunting. I do occasionally target shoot but that’s mainly just to stay proficient. And speaking of guns, 48 people were shot in Chicago this weekend. 10 died. It wouldn’t surprise me if those numbers were just added to the corona statics. You live next door to those guys? I currently live about 20 miles west of the city, but I grew up living on the southside of Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by the light works on May 26, 2020 14:05:04 GMT
it's common on gun control vs no gun control arguments. I'll dig around for it. I am a person who occasionally has owned a firearm or two (rifle and or shotgun for target practice and or hunting). I once owned an AR-15 just before joining the service so I could better acquaint myself with something similar to the M-16. I kept it for a long time, but as prices of ammo went up for the .223, buying cheap ammo turned into very long, not-fun cleaning sessions. So, I rid myself of that AR-15 mainly because I ended up hating cleaning it!!! Anyway, I've been in and out of some of the pro firearms crowd as a result of being a firearm owner, but I hadn't yet heard that one. Must be sort of new. Back when I was in "6th grade" 1975? our school had us take an NRA firearm safety course, using 22 caliber rifles. Can't imagine that happening today for numerous reasons. I think it should happen. defuse both the "forbidden fruit" fascination, and the "evil death machine" fascination in the respective individuals, and maybe people could talk more rationally about them and their place in society. I don't think I've made any secret of the fact I own a few, and feel that I'm a suitable responsible person to be qualified to own and use them. part of that being that I DON'T harbor delusions of being the great cowboy/Rambo hero and shooting down bad guys. which is a good thing because I haven't been able to afford to do a lot of practicing since ammunition prices went through the roof in the mid 2000s.
|
|
|
Post by wvengineer on May 26, 2020 22:19:38 GMT
Back when I was in "6th grade" 1975? our school had us take an NRA firearm safety course, using 22 caliber rifles. Can't imagine that happening today for numerous reasons. My wife had to take hunter safety when she was in 9th grade. This was mid 90's. They used pellet guns for that class. My understanding is that they still have the option to take it, but I don't know if it is required like it was for my wife. My son (12 y-o) is starting to be interested in them. I think it's time to take him shooting sometime. Better to let him experience it in a controlled setting. Get a lecture on safety. Take the mystique out of them.
|
|
|
Post by rmc on May 26, 2020 23:48:44 GMT
Back when I was in "6th grade" 1975? our school had us take an NRA firearm safety course, using 22 caliber rifles. Can't imagine that happening today for numerous reasons. My wife had to take hunter safety when she was in 9th grade. This was mid 90's. They used pellet guns for that class. My understanding is that they still have the option to take it, but I don't know if it is required like it was for my wife. My son (12 y-o) is starting to be interested in them. I think it's time to take him shooting sometime. Better to let him experience it in a controlled setting. Get a lecture on safety. Take the mystique out of them. For me, the trap range really provided an interesting challenge and was staffed by knowledgeable, careful and caring people. Once I had to lead a clay pigeon, my focus on everything really kicked in. Of course, that was after a lot of basics first. But, during those opening classes, I felt an awful lot like Bart Simpson taking Ned Flander's pocket knife course.
|
|