Last edited:
Regulated just means subject to rules and regulations. It has nothing to do with skill.
There are much less nuts over there.
Sorry, but you're wrong. While we today use regulated to mean that, at the time of writing the Constitution 'well regulated' (as a clause or phrase) meant practiced, or competent. Look it up, it's a well researched point that isn't in dispute among experts on either side of the debate.
Regulated just means subject to rules and regulations. It has nothing to do with skill.
I know. A gun-free society is a crazy dream.
Europe has not had as much violence and crime in the past as we have had to endure
Sorry, but you're wrong. While we today use regulated to mean that, at the time of writing the Constitution 'well regulated' (as a clause or phrase) meant practiced, or competent. Look it up, it's a well researched point that isn't in dispute among experts on either side of the debate.
Are we being serious again?
WelshBloke lives in England so his English isn't all that great.
I talk all proper like. Not all eighteenth century innit.
Sorry forgot we were talking ancient documents.
How the fuck does spell check know what you are saying? Innit?
Sorry, but you're wrong. While we today use regulated to mean that, at the time of writing the Constitution 'well regulated' (as a clause or phrase) meant practiced, or competent. Look it up, it's a well researched point that isn't in dispute among experts on either side of the debate.
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
Back in the day it was easier to get a gun here in Finland. Pretty much any 15-year old or older law-abiding citizen could get a small pistol or a hunting rifle legally. Then a couple of idiots decided to massacre fellow pupils in a couple of school shootings and there was moral panic. Now you need to be 18 to get any gun or 20 for pistols/revolvers, also you need to have been practising shooting as a hobby for two years to get a permit for a pistol. To prove that you've been shooting as a hobby for two years you basically need to be a member of a shooting club which goes against the constitution imho, but what do I know. Because of school shootings useless laws were made. These new laws were critisised a lot when they were being introduced but the politicians had to change the laws so it appears that they've actually done something useful in response to the school shootings. All this to get re-elected. It's just stupid. I don't know how hard it is to get a permit for an assault rifle but that too is probably thougher nowadays.
Legally owned guns are very rarely used in crimes. There's no need to try to ban guns.
Considering that our greatest potential enemy right now (in my and many other's opinion) is the US government itself, you couldn't be more wrong. In fact it makes the 2nd Amendment that much more important.
Well, read up on my argument, that a state does not exist without a government, and therefore the wording of the second amendment never was made to be a defense against internal threats to freedom. For that the political means which the constitution grants are sufficient. A constitution that encourages civil war is a bit pointless.
If you're worried about the government, get into politics, and not into a gun shop.
The conscripted army were called regulars back in those days. They were highly trained as compared to the local farmer with a hunting rifle.
This is exactly what I was talking about a few pages back.
Thank you for bringing this great example to the fore.
Well-regulated does mean practiced.
Switzerland for example has a large militia, because every able bodied man is drafted for shooting exercises every so often. They're not part of the standing army, in that being a soldier isn't their job, but they receive regular military training, even if at intervals that are spaced quite wide apart, they have known-good equipment and while not trained to the high standard of a professional solider have a certain level of aptitude which is guaranteed, and know to follow orders, and are organized and registered and draft-able.
and rudeguy: are you familiar with the American constitution and current American government? Hint: It's not a foreign-monarchy-appointed executive government. Instead it's a domestically appointed, voted for government. It has large public support. If you want to change it, run for office. Not for the hills.
The rebellion that started the Revolution did not start because there was a king. It started because the people were being taxed unfairly. It started because the government stopped considering the rights of the people. It started because the government no longer cared what its laws did to the people.
The rebellion started because a few rich individuals objected to being taxed.
It had nothing to do with actions carried out against 'the people'.
I'll keep my guns. You hug your liberal rags that tell you that everything is going to be OK. We'll see who ends up fairing better.