since youre hanging around adrian
 

and red bull induced insomnia isn't sending me to sleep anytime soon i was just wondering your opinion on something someone pointed out on another board.

it was a response to a topic on gun control as a result of the dimebag shootings and one guy pointed out that people going on about the 2nd amendment convienintly forget the 1st sentence about a well organised and maintained militia.

nothing about having them incase a militia is needed, but actually being in a properly recognised militia.

not jumping on you or anything I'm just interested on your thoughts.

Jim calmly baited the hook, cast, and sat back against the bank… he knew it wouldn’t be long… not long at all. :twisted:

not at all. it was a genuine question.

I think if you're going to put so much faith in the literal meaning of documents like that then you need to take every single part of it literally.

Dang. I wrote a big long post last night, and it didn't show up. I'll continue to discuss this as long as people are civil about it. I know Jim will be, but people often ruin rational discussions about this topic by irrationally attributing evil human impulses and actions to inanimate chunks of metal and (sometimes) polymer.

When you're trying to interpret the Constitution, or anything, you need to look at the context in which it was written. For example, the Constitution contains a line, "but no Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood." A funny way of saying a traitor's family and/or his progeny (sp?) couldn't be punished. Now imagine "corruption of blood" had stayed with us for the last 2 centuries, and the meaning had become twisted to mean something like, oh, "the government can't infect you with AIDS." When reading the Constitution, which meaning would be the right one?

Well regulated is a point that anti-gunners like to get pro-gunners like me on... and I must say, I can kind of agree with them. I wish gun owners today were much better regulated. Regulated, in colonial terms, meant well trained, able to fire in volleys, skilled in marksmanship and blowing stuff up, etc and so forth...all skills that a man defending his country and home from invasion would be likely to use. Well regulated, as of the writing of the Bill Of Rights, simply meant well trained, oiled up, ready to go at a moments notice.

The term "militia" has also undergone a similar corruption over time. When recruiters went out to organize men for the militia during the Revolutionary War, they went to churches, taverns, homes, and asked the people (mostly men and boys above the age of 13) to bring their privately owned weapons to join the militia, usually under the informal command of another citizen, one who usually had military training. The term "militia" meant EVERYBODY. Everybody able to defend home, country, and freedom against an invading army. This is countered by the antis, who say that the National Guard is the militia, if you want to own guns, join the NG. This is false. The NG is a "special militia." That's a colonial term for a militia that's loyal to anybody other than the people, usually to the governer or state. Special militia was an almost derogatory term, because the colonists thought of them as one step away from standing armies or mercenaries. They weren't loyal to the people ONLY, so they weren't a TRUE militia. They could be used by the government for purposes other than defense.

An interesting historical sidenote is that the Second Amendment (which now reads "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") was originally phrased "A well regulated Militia, consisting of the body of the people, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." The "consisting of the body of the people" was unfortunately stripped off during the ratification, because they thought it was too verbose. Everybody knew the militia consisted of the people. And besides, when the constitution means "state" or "country" or "people" it says so. The same "people" mentioned in the Second Amendment are the same that can petition the government for a redress of grievances as stated in the First Amendment, or are protected from unnecessary searches and seizures by the Fourth.

Adrian