Conquer Club

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Brian T. Halonen wrote:The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.

(If so, can we call it the Troll Forest Brigade?)

BigBallinStalin wrote:(1) What exactly is the criteria for "well-regulated"?

Federalist 29 - http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa29.htm
"To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year."

BigBallinStalin wrote:(3) Would you join the Troll Forest Bridge?

Phatscotty wrote:well regulated means armed to the teet

saxitoxin wrote:No, but I will lay, scantily clad across the bar top of a local tavern, singing my favorite jazz ballad, in an effort to entertain the troops and keep their morale, and other things, up.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The real irony here is that we have essentially passed the point when an armed malitia, with guns, could really mount any kind of serious defense. Even terrorists tend to use other means.

The real protection we need today is protection of information, and the integrity to know that the information we see is real and verified. But.. sadly, too many people wanting to espouse freedom also want to proclaim that most facts are just not facts... because they would rather further their agendas than actually seek truth. Freedom is not freedom unless it is for ALL, and unless there is a real ability to verify facts and distinguish them from mere ideas, hopes or agendas.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The real irony here is that we have essentially passed the point when an armed malitia, with guns, could really mount any kind of serious defense.

Lootifer wrote:And thats not even beginning with the nastier side of survival instincts *cough* ammonium nitrate *cough*

ooge wrote: any American who gets his information from only a few sources is asking to be lead astray.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The real irony here is that we have essentially passed the point when an armed malitia, with guns, could really mount any kind of serious defense. Even terrorists tend to use other means.

The real protection we need today is protection of information, and the integrity to know that the information we see is real and verified. But.. sadly, too many people wanting to espouse freedom also want to proclaim that most facts are just not facts... because they would rather further their agendas than actually seek truth. Freedom is not freedom unless it is for ALL, and unless there is a real ability to verify facts and distinguish them from mere ideas, hopes or agendas.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The real irony here is that we have essentially passed the point when an armed militia, with guns, could really mount any kind of serious defense.

BigBallinStalin wrote:what would the federal government's reaction be if a group of people took seriously the 2nd Amendment by forming their own well-regulated militia?

BigBallinStalin wrote:So moving past the irrelevant ooge and PLAYER comments,

what would the federal government's reaction be if a group of people took seriously the 2nd Amendment by forming their own well-regulated militia?

ooge wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So moving past the irrelevant ooge and PLAYER comments,

what would the federal government's reaction be if a group of people took seriously the 2nd Amendment by forming their own well-regulated militia?

Irrelevant? if we had well regulated and accurate information there would not be a discussion.You would only reach one logical solution.

BigBallinStalin wrote:

ooge wrote:

BigBallinStalin wrote:So moving past the irrelevant ooge and PLAYER comments,

what would the federal government's reaction be if a group of people took seriously the 2nd Amendment by forming their own well-regulated militia?

Irrelevant? if we had well regulated and accurate information there would not be a discussion.You would only reach one logical solution.

Join the Troll Forest Brigade?

Phatscotty wrote:well regulated means armed to the teet, and ready to match whatever attack may be coming.

If they are attacking us with tanks, then yes, we have the right to own tanks. It means we stay on top of it, and constantly upgrade as the technology advances, in anyway that can make defense stronger.

REGULATORS!!!!!!!! MOUNT UP!

ooge wrote:want to own a gun? join the national guard.

PLAYER57832 wrote:The real irony here is that we have essentially passed the point when an armed malitia, with guns, could really mount any kind of serious defense. Even terrorists tend to use other means.

The real protection we need today is protection of information, and the integrity to know that the information we see is real and verified. But.. sadly, too many people wanting to espouse freedom also want to proclaim that most facts are just not facts... because they would rather further their agendas than actually seek truth. Freedom is not freedom unless it is for ALL, and unless there is a real ability to verify facts and distinguish them from mere ideas, hopes or agendas.

tzor wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:The real irony here is that we have essentially passed the point when an armed militia, with guns, could really mount any kind of serious defense.

Actually we passed that point in ... er ... 1812. Never the less, it can make things annoying. Neither Germany nor Japan planned a land invasion of the United States. Yes they could have but the cost would not have been worth it. The mindset back in 1776 was a lot like the mindset of modern gorilla warfare; especially when traditional armies were used to open field warfare. Actually it wasn't all that effective then either.

Never the less, it does complicate warfare, as traditional armies work on the notion of lines where the general population exists in an area. You can't really push back a general population as you can an army. You have to protect the entire area in order to ensure supply lines where with an army vs army scenario you just have to maintain a solid front line. We see this effect in places like Afghanistan.

BigBallinStalin wrote:So moving past the irrelevant ooge and PLAYER comments,

what would the federal government's reaction be if a group of people took seriously the 2nd Amendment by forming their own well-regulated militia?