Mass Shooting at Colo. Movie Theater, 14 People Dead

  • Thread starter Thread starter MugenOne
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
scipio337 said:
In the parlance of the time, “regulated” meant “trained”. We can begin to deduce what “well-regulated” meant from Alexander Hamilton’s words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
Click to expand...
Found here:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

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.”

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.
 
MikeDunphy said:
Found here:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

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.”

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.
Click to expand...
Nice find!
 
MikeDunphy said:
Found here:

The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:

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.”

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.
Click to expand...
The main sentence of the second amendment, stripped of its clauses, reads as such:

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

“A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,” is an absolute phrase that gives explanatory meaning to the main article of the sentence, while not modifying it or restricting it in any way.
 
Stricter gun control at a time when violent crime is increasing, the economy is in decline, and the Bill of Rights and Constitution are being gutted is like asking the passengers on an ocean liner that’s just hit an iceberg, if it’s a good time to throw away the lifeboats and lifejackets.
 
HisIsTheCrown said:
Of course yes. Laws that would take the guns out of society would have stopped him. Your position makes me feel that you would take the House of Representatives out of business for you would need no laws at all for anything at all. Why? Because, if people break all laws, you should have no more laws. That is a false argument.
Click to expand...
There was already a law prohibiting him from carrying his weapon into the theater. He broke that law. So your solution seems to be to take away the weapons of law abiding citizens, so this man who was already breaking the law couldn’t break more laws? :confused:
What are the guns locked in the car for ?
Click to expand...
The theater had a sign that said it was a gun free zone. :rolleyes: They are more commonly called Victim Zones, because only criminals carry weapons and it ends up being like shooting fish in a barrel. If I, a law abiding citizen go somewhere with my weapon and it is a victim zone, I have to decide if I want to lock my weapon in my car or leave.
Thanks for the information. I did not that existed. So, if there are places where the 2nd amendment does not apply, then, the whole USA could be a gun free zone. Sure, all this messy murder would not have happened.
Click to expand...
Private business can request that you do not take a weapon into their business. But the Second Amendment cannot deny our citizens their basic rights.
Again the argument of scraping the H of Representatives.
Click to expand...
:confused: No, simply stating that if someone is already breaking the law, a new law will not stop them.
HisIsTheCrown said:
Yes, the Army. It is enough to defend the State as stated by the 2nd amendment.
Click to expand...
No, not the Army. That is not what the Second Amendment is about.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
The " battle of Fort McHenry" was, in fact, no battle at all. British guns had range on American cannon, and stood off out of U.S. range, bombarding the fort, which returned no fire.

Interestingly, when the British reached Washington, their generals sat down to the meal which Madison had just abandoned in his haste to run from the capital.

Many Americans are unaware that Vietnam was the second, not the first war America lost.
Click to expand...
I wasn’t sure what else to call it and still get my point across. I knew that. If we lost the war of 1812, why didn’t Britain assume control. That’s what victors usually do. Isn’t it? Why are you so obsessed with America losing wars?
 
The War of 1812 was pretty much a draw, though we did put our opponent down for the count after the final bell. Sure there were some embarassing moments, but let’s not forget the total defeat of the British navy on Lake Erie, Harrison’s invasion of Ontario, and the Plattsburgh-Lake Champlain campaign, when 10.000 British veterans were decisively stopped, by an army almost a third there size, and more than half of whom were militia.
 
The net effect of the war of 1812 actually improved relations between the US and the UK, so in that regard, it was a victory on both sides of the pond.
 
pete_29 said:
I wasn’t sure what else to call it and still get my point across. I knew that. If we lost the war of 1812, why didn’t Britain assume control. That’s what victors usually do. Isn’t it?
Click to expand...
No. The Americans tried to invade Canada to seize it. The British defeated them and sent them running back home. Britain’s main concern was fighting Napoleon. The had no intention of reconquering America.
[Why are you so obsessed with America losing wars?
Click to expand...
How many wars did America lose? So, so many that even studying all our defeats might be considered an obssession???
[/quote]
 
Okay, now maybe we can move off the “my great, great, great grandad beat up your great, great, great grandad” argument?

I would hate for anyone to think we are trying to reaffirm our masculinity or otherwise impotence by arguing about 200 year old history.
 
Seamus_L said:
The War of 1812 was pretty much a draw, though we did put our opponent down for the count after the final bell.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. America tried to invade Canada to seize territory. They were soundly defeated and sent running. Fighting a battle after a war is over counts for nothing.
 
Rich_Olszewski said:
Is that how the Americans and the British at the time saw it?
Click to expand...
Probably not at the time post bellum, but if you look at the time since, its hard to make the case against it. What two countries have been closer allies in the 19th and 20th century than the US and the UK?
 
Scott_Lafrance said:
Probably not at the time post bellum, but if you look at the time since, its hard to make the case against it. What two countries have been closer allies in the 19th and 20th century than the US and the UK?
Click to expand...
Agree about the 20th century, but the U.S. and the U.K. were not allies in the 19th century. The U.S. didn’t even have allies as such back then - who would they be allied against?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top