3 ms·

There you go talking about that well-regulated militia again...

• olliej 4y ago
  So you agree that there’s the well regulated militia that the 2nd amendment talks about?
  • jleyank 4y ago
    Only if you call the National Guard a militia. There is little or no organization or record-keeping related to gun ownership in the US as I recall. If you want to be a strict constitutionist (sp?), creating a registry of what-you-have, where-you-are and how-you-re-trained would be in consonance with a well-regulated militia. Folks would scream bloody murder if anybody tried that.
    • 0daystock 4y ago
      In this context, “well-regulated” meant “in good working order” - not literally regulated by a governing body.
      • jleyank 4y ago
        Unless either of one has a tardis, we don’t know the intent of that phrase. Inferences can be made, but it’s hardly “good working order” without knowing who is available and where. There were no significant weapons differences then but they certainly are now. “Who’sgot the horse” comes to mind as the additional info needed to run a militia.
        • 0daystock 4y ago
          > Unless either of one has a tardis, we don’t know the intent of that phrase. We don't need a time machine, we can read other letters and correspondence from the time to make such inferences. > Inferences can be made, but it’s hardly “good working order” without knowing who is available and where. According to whom? You? Are you a constitutional scholar, or something? > There were no significant weapons differences then but they certainly are now. “Who’sgot the horse” comes to mind as the additional info needed to run a militia. Same meaningless argument could be made about free speech and the 1st Amendment. Certainly we didn't have social media and Twitter back then, so we should heavily regulate them, maybe even outright ban them, right?