|
|
|
NOTE!
This is a real-time comments system. As such, it's also a
free speech zone within guidelines set forth on the Post
Comments page. Opinions expressed here may or may not
reflect those of KeepAndBearArms staff, members, or
any other living person besides the one who posted them.
Please keep that in mind. We ask that all who post
comments assure that they adhere to our Inclusion
Policy, but there's a bad apple in every
bunch, and we have no control over bigots and
other small-minded people. Thank you. --KeepAndBearArms.com
|
The
Below Comments Relate to this Newslink:
| Comment by:
PHORTO
(4/22/2021)
|
As Rich Coon points out, the contemporaneous meaning of the term "well regulated" was "maintained and in proper working order."
But the real issue is the grammatical structure of the sentence. The term "well regulated" modifies the noun "militia," not the noun "right" nor the noun "people." "Well regulated," isn't even in the same clause. It is the militia that is to be "well regulated," not the "right" nor the "people." Whichever definition of "well regulated" one chooses is irrelevant; it isn't applied to the people or to the right to bear arms.
I hope that the explanations offered by Mr. Coon and myself are helpful to Mr. Selby. |
|
|
| QUOTES
TO REMEMBER |
| Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in possession and under our direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands? — Patrick Henry, 3 J. Elliot, Debates in the Several State Conventions 45, 2d ed. Philadelphia, 1836 |
|
|
