|
|
|
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 |
| No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave. He, who has nothing, and who himself belongs to another, must be defended by him, whose property he is, and needs no arms. But he, who thinks he is his own master, and has what he can call his own, ought to have arms to defend himself, and what he possesses; else he lives precariously, and at discretion. — James Burgh, Political Disquisitions: Or, an Enquiry into Public Errors, Defects, and Abuses [London, 1774-1775]. |
|
|
