3 ms·

> The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". I'm sorry, but this is just laughable on the face of it. You

> The term "well regulated" in the second amendment means something like "in good working order". I'm sorry, but this is just laughable on the face of it. You see, I'm French (as hinted by the mis-autocorrect of "too"), and "regulated" (well, "régulé") means the same in contemporary French as in contemporary English. And the meaning comes straight from Latin (regula: rule, law), probably by way of 1066 like most legal terms. The notion that "regulate" means anything but regulate IN A LEGAL DOCUMENT of all places is thus ridiculous. Or at the very least utterly implausible. But maybe you're right; I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim. > Another thing you'll learn immediately by reading that discussion is that one of the primary purposes of the second amendment was to prevent the United States from having a standing army... Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. In any case nothing in that wording even hints at that.

thaumasiotes 5y ago
What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago. > I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim. > Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. I'm not responsible for the failures of your knowledge. These claims are both quite obvious, if -- as I specified above -- you take the time to read the things that this set of people said and wrote at the time. Here's a letter from George Washington in which he contrasts an "irregular and disjointed militia" with a "well regulated militia": https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-0153 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-... > The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this province, makes it necessary for me to inform you, that unless a Law is passed by your Legislature to reduce them to some order, and oblige them to turn out in a different Manner from what they have hitherto done, we shall bring very few into the Feild, and even those few, will render little or no Service. > your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law. The people, put under good Officers, would behave in quite another manner, and not only render real Service as Soldiers, but would protect, instead of distressing the Inhabitants. Here's a speech by George Clinton from 1798, in which, instead of referring to a "well regulated militia", he refers to a "well organized militia": https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=d... > The means of national defence should rest in the body of the people. A well organized militia is the only safe bulwark of a free people, competent on all occasions to repel invasion and suppress insurrection. Standing armies are not only expensive but dangerous to the liberties of the state. In republics every citizen should be a soldier. Note that this is not at all an unexpected meaning for the word "regulated" to have. "Regulation" as in command is related to "rule" as in rulership. "Regulation" as in correct operation is related to "rule" as in the straight line drawn by a... "ruler".
- himinlomax 5y ago
  > What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago. It had that meaning a thousand years ago. Nah, 2000 years ago ("regula"). You're saying that it meant something for a millennium, started meaning something else, and then went back to the original meaning -- all in good time to support your opinion. How convenient. And without any evidence. The rest of what you quote supports my interpretation, not yours, which is just weird.
  - thaumasiotes 5y ago
    > You're saying that it meant something for a millennium, started meaning something else, and then went back to the original meaning -- all in good time to support your opinion. How convenient. No, you're the one making claims about the meaning in 1066. What I'm saying is that the meaning of the word that originated in the 17th century ( https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate ) had not, by the 18th century, fully displaced the earlier meaning. That the displacement is complete today is meaningless.
    - himinlomax 5y ago
      You link says the word entered the English language in 1620, with that very meaning. Do you understand how citing references work? You're supposed to link to resources supporting your interpretation. Hope this helped.
      - thaumasiotes 5y ago
        That link traces the word to the early 15th century. It says that the meaning "to govern by restriction" dates back to the 1620s, which is the early 17th century. But I wouldn't conclude that there was a 200-odd year period during which the word was in use, but had no meaning.

thaumasiotes 5y ago

What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago. > I can't fail to notice you don't provide any proof for this improbable claim. > Another unsubstantiated claim, and just as improbable on the face of it. I'm not responsible for the failures of your knowledge. These claims are both quite obvious, if -- as I specified above -- you take the time to read the things that this set of people said and wrote at the time. Here's a letter from George Washington in which he contrasts an "irregular and disjointed militia" with a "well regulated militia": https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-0153 https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-... > The irregular and disjointed State of the Militia of this province, makes it necessary for me to inform you, that unless a Law is passed by your Legislature to reduce them to some order, and oblige them to turn out in a different Manner from what they have hitherto done, we shall bring very few into the Feild, and even those few, will render little or no Service. > your first object should be a well regulated Militia Law. The people, put under good Officers, would behave in quite another manner, and not only render real Service as Soldiers, but would protect, instead of distressing the Inhabitants. Here's a speech by George Clinton from 1798, in which, instead of referring to a "well regulated militia", he refers to a "well organized militia": https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=div1;view=fulltext https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N25292.0001.001/1:2?rgn=d... > The means of national defence should rest in the body of the people. A well organized militia is the only safe bulwark of a free people, competent on all occasions to repel invasion and suppress insurrection. Standing armies are not only expensive but dangerous to the liberties of the state. In republics every citizen should be a soldier. Note that this is not at all an unexpected meaning for the word "regulated" to have. "Regulation" as in command is related to "rule" as in rulership. "Regulation" as in correct operation is related to "rule" as in the straight line drawn by a... "ruler".

himinlomax 5y ago
> What do you think you're saying? The fact that a word has the same meaning in contemporary French that it does in contemporary English is not relevant to whether it had another meaning in the English of three hundred years ago. It had that meaning a thousand years ago. Nah, 2000 years ago ("regula"). You're saying that it meant something for a millennium, started meaning something else, and then went back to the original meaning -- all in good time to support your opinion. How convenient. And without any evidence. The rest of what you quote supports my interpretation, not yours, which is just weird.
- thaumasiotes 5y ago
  > You're saying that it meant something for a millennium, started meaning something else, and then went back to the original meaning -- all in good time to support your opinion. How convenient. No, you're the one making claims about the meaning in 1066. What I'm saying is that the meaning of the word that originated in the 17th century ( https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate https://www.etymonline.com/word/regulate ) had not, by the 18th century, fully displaced the earlier meaning. That the displacement is complete today is meaningless.
  - himinlomax 5y ago
    You link says the word entered the English language in 1620, with that very meaning. Do you understand how citing references work? You're supposed to link to resources supporting your interpretation. Hope this helped.
    - thaumasiotes 5y ago
      That link traces the word to the early 15th century. It says that the meaning "to govern by restriction" dates back to the 1620s, which is the early 17th century. But I wouldn't conclude that there was a 200-odd year period during which the word was in use, but had no meaning.