“Was the Las Vegas shooter a member of a well-regulated militia? No. Were any of the murderers who shot up schools or religious assemblies or workplaces members of a well-regulated militia? No. And regulated — that’s an interesting word, because no thoughtful person can really argue that guns in the United States are actually regulated in any meaningful way. In this country, you can buy dozens of assault weapons. You can store enough guns and ammunition in your garage to wage a small war. Why? Because the Second Amendment has been laundered through lobbyists, and some Supreme Court justices, to mean something it does not mean.” – Jeremy Scahill in A Sick Country Filled With Guns [via theintercept.com]
Song sung to Eiffel 65: “¡DEEP STATE! Deep State! Da-dee Da-dee Da…Deep State! Deep State! Da-dee Da-Da….”
Someone needs to explain the meaning of “well regulated” to him (and others). The meaning of that phrase was more along the lines of “working well”. Nothing to do with regulation as said today.
The phone “Well Regulated” in common usage in 1790 meant well trained and well equipped, not tight government control.
And the premise was you couldn’t have a useful militia *without* unrestricted civilian ownership. No surprise we cannot form a useful militia defense force today, considering all the restrictions we must operate under.
If you form a militia today, 50% will be undercover FBI agents, 30% will be undercover ATF agents, 10% will be local police, and the other 10% will be your drunken uncle that is passed out in the field you are using to train in.
Bundy Ranch was pretty effective. To my way of thinking it qualifies as a perfect example of how a militia comes together to resist tyranny. I think it qualifies as a modern day Concord Bridge.
regulated (reg-YOO-lay-ted) – past tense of regulate, of the Latin, rēgulātus
1. to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.:
2. to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation:
3. to put in good order
Jeremy Scahill needs to brush up on his etymology, and study some Socratic Method while he’s at it.
Also, he needs to look at annotated U.S. Law:
10 U.S.C.
United States Code, 2011 Edition
Title 10 – ARMED FORCES
Subtitle A – General Military Law
PART I – ORGANIZATION AND GENERAL MILITARY POWERS
CHAPTER 13 – THE MILITIA
Sec. 311 – Militia: composition and classes
From the U.S. Government Printing Office, http://www.gpo.gov
§311. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
Unfortunately, when you point that out to a liberal fascist, they don’t care. Facts don’t matter to them. They only care about what their masters want them to regurgitate.
In the Federalist 29 Alexander Hamilton had this to say;
‘To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss … Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the People at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.’
It would seem that the purpose of the ‘regulation’ of the militia was to ensure that the ‘people’ were properly armed.
Armed and drilled to proficiency.
Just armed. Hamilton wrote plainly that there was no hope of getting them drilled to proficiency, so they hoped that they could just get them to show up with their own weapons.
both of which are either illegal or greatly discouraged today
Muster at the Battle Green in Lexington, MA and see what happens these days.
That argument has indeed been completely, unambiguously debunked. But they simply cannot give up the “militia clause” argument without admitting they simple don’t care about the Bill for Rights, so they won’t. Though, there are more and more of them who will frankly admit they want to do away with the Bill of Rights.
Yep. In other words, SSDD.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/246 10 U.S.Code defines types of Militia. Being that the Federal Government is prohibited from discriminating against age, gender or handicap, Pretty much every American citizen is a member of the unorganized militia. I often find this shuts down the “guns are only for the militia” argument the leftys throw out. If they think the militia clause means what they say it does, it still protects citizens rights to private firearms ownership. In a nut shell, our founding fathers were smart dudes.😊
Beyond the meaning of “well regulated” (which does not mean what he thinks it means), the militia was meant to be well regulated…. not the firearms there in. “The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” doesnt have the “well regulated” stipulation placed upon it.
Let’s examine the regulations on guns and the militia under the 2nd Amendment put in place by those who were there when it was actually ratified:
-All free men of military age, with a few exceptions for disability and critical professions, were required to own the basic kit of an infantryman, including a serviceable firearm.
– There were no background checks.
– There was no upper limit on the amount of shot or powder you could own. There was, however, a minimum.
– Private citizens could own fully armed ships of war, you only needed a special license if you wanted to use it to attack merchant ships with the government’s blessing.
Indeed, there were armed men-of war until the end of the Civil War, and they didn’t go away because they were banned, but because after the advent of armored ships (Monitor and Merrimack), they had simply become obsolete; and the cost of competing with the dreadnoughts that soon appeared was beyond the means of all but governments.
There are some people that can afford it. Ole’ Bill Gates could drop a few billion on a fully equipped missile cruiser. Maintenance and manpower and restocking ordinance would get really expensive quickly, but make no mistake, there are people that have the means.
Preaching to the choir here, but the guy managed to fit a substantial number of errors into a single paragraph.
It’s so cute when an anti thinks he’s “figured it all out” by reading the second amendment.
It makes me a little reluctant to encourage them to read the whole Constitution, in all honesty.
So many things wrong in his statement.
But a sick country full of guns is still way better than a country full of liberals.
Personally, I think a country full of liberals is a great idea. I wouldn’t want to be in it though.
You probably meant a country run by liberals. Venezuela is a current example of such a country.
What a moron.
I am, however, impressed with how much wrong he got into one short essay.
“Well regulated militia.”
Why do we call graduates of army boot camp “army regulars?”
hmmm…
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.
” It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.”
Yup.
A translation today would be “A gang who can shoot straight, being necessary to the security of a free State,…”
It doesn’t matter one whit how hard you try to explain that to them, they see what they want to see in “well-regulated”.
What would be helpful is if there was a comprehensive list of all words from the 1700s that mean nothing as they do today…
Regulated refers to the militia not the arms, and it certainly didn’t mean regulations imposed by any federal or state authority. Of course leftists can’t see anything that shouldn’t be covered by a law!
Don’t worry, Obama couldn’t get anything done but the GOP will soon enact gun control. And we voted for them.
Old boy knows better than “some Supreme Court justices”. Good for him.
Off topic, but is anyone going to go watch their local Columbus statue get vandalized by Antifa sometime after 11:59pm tonight.
Around here, the cops are posting guards on the statues.
Perhaps vandalizing a historical marker should be deemed a felony with *mandatory* prison sentences…
In Mpls the police have been providing their Columbus body guards for a few days now, but I wouldn’t put it past the mayor there and in St. Paul to have actually given them orders to arrest anyone that interferes with Antifa’s 1st amendment right to vandalize.
He needs to read this (but won’t): http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/bruce-w-krafft/the-second-amendment-what-it-says-what-it-means/
Well, I emailed that link to him – as well as the one below about Fletcher’s analysis of militias – so at least he’ll have the chance. Not that he’ll take it. Intellectual integrity doesn’t exist for most people.
Well I actually watched Saturday Night Live. It had a country tribute to LV and Gal Gadot. Quite funny with no Trump BS UNTIL weekend update. NRA BS galore. Oh and if you have more than 2 or 3 guns and 1000rounds of ammo you’re a terrorist…Molan Labe. Sorry I don’t give a rat’s azz about Columbus. Lincoln,Washington and Jefferson yes.
No mention of Harvey Weinstein though. http://www.theblaze.com/news/2017/10/08/after-winning-awards-for-mocking-trump-heres-what-snl-said-about-weinstein-sex-scandal
Didn’t stick around to see Gov….he’s not Bill O’Reilly😡😡😡😡😡
Yea, I think O’Reilly only settled 5 cases out of court!
“…that’s an interesting word, because no thoughtful person can really argue that guns in the United States are actually regulated in any meaningful way.”
Good job attempting to frame the discussion. A strong tool for the weak debater.
Yeah, I’ll remember that statement. Next time I go to buy a gun and someone wants me to fill out a 4473, I’ll just tell them, “No, I don’t need to fill that out. You see, guns in the United States are not actually regulated in any meaningful way, so you can just put that away. No really, it’s true! I know because some guy on the internet said it!”
Sure, that’ll fly. But this moron thinks he knows something we don’t… he’s obviously never tried to buy one.
Using young Jeremy’s logic I could make substantial arguments regarding the 13th, 14th & 15th Amendments…
You nailed the heart of the issue. One could as easily claim that the First Amendment only protects freedom of the “press” so the government can prohibit free speech on all other media except that which is physically printed by a press.
Another uneducated person with a college degree talking and showing how stupid he really is.
The second amendment recognizes an American civilians right to own the same arms the the military has. You just have to buy your own armored tanks. You buy your own bomber or fighter aircraft, jets or props. These aircraft come with hard points for mounting guns, bombs.
You can buy navy vessels with torpedo and machine gun mounts.
You can own rocket launchers and the rockets that go with them. You can own anti tank artillery. And other artillery pieces as well.
Historically civilians had better weapons than the government or weapons of equal abilities.
The Indians had Winchester rifles before the US military did. General Custer found out the hard way.
The military was buying krag rifles ,while civilians were buying the Winchester rifle.
When first offered to the military, the original Winchesters fired rim fire cartridges that were significantly less powerful than the Springfield .45-70s. Winchester did not produce a rifle capable of firing a high powered rifle round until 1888 (thanks to JMB). By then, even the .45-70s were being obsoleted by the smokeless, magazine fed, high velocity Krags.
The Indians did pretty good with “obsolete” Winchester rifles, didn’t they???
Also the krag rifle did so poorly in the Spanish American war that Teddy Roosevelt called for it to be replaced.
The definition of the word ‘regulate’ went off the rails in the early XX Century as Presidents Roosevelt and Wilson softened up the American public for expansive Federal control of the economy.
My county Sheriff hands out county Militia cards to anyone who wants one…no personal info required except the name you want on your card…free of charge. So, I AM a member of a militia….county sanctioned at that.
Does he keep a list of those people he’s handed them out to?
If so, you’ve been targeted.
Which is why most militias will be rounded up an hour BEFORE any “Second American Revolution”…
The problem for all insurgencies is how to recruit without being infiltrated or otherwise identified. It takes REALLY GOOD OPSEC and vetting.
I work in an industry that has been using the word “regulate” in its traditional meaning for the last 150 or more years. Regulated means working properly. That’s about it 🙂
It’s funny to me that all the anti 2A stories, articles, vignettes, opinion pieces all have the comments turned off. What are they afraid of? The market place of ideas and facts flatly contradicts their point of view is what they are afraid of. Here on TTAG the comments are open to anyone, you rarely see the libs come here to put us in our places with their collective righteous indignation. Folks we are on the right side and there are more people in support of the 2A than against it. Please everyone contact your elected officials and tell them not one inch more on infringing what is already the most regulated natural given right in America. You don’t have to tell them you own a gun to make your voice heard.
I don’t think that means what he thinks it means.
The guy that wrote that is an A.– Clown.
We should demand that his right to free speech be restricted.
The Tree of Liberty died from the lack of water.
Suppose we had a constitutional amendment which read:
“A well informed electorate, being necessary to the well-being of a free state, the right of the people to read and possess books, shall not be infringed.”
Would only registered voters be allowed to read and possess books?
Would only only books directly dealing with political issues be allowed?
Could periodicals and plays be banned?
Or would all forms of communication and information be permitted, with but a few specific exceptions such as child pornography, fraudulent solicitations and threats of physical violence?
The first Amendment still means what it did when written. It does not allow for a blur in the lines between freedom of spoech and freedom of the press. It does not tolerate POS (D)heads spouting off their opinion in a way that both shouts down and shouts over the freedom of spoech of others, while also attacking both the rights of Citizens, AND THE CONSTITUTION, whose protections are the SOLE REASON, for the Bill of Rights protections.
F scaherp and the intercept and all readers.
He’s right. It doesn’t mean what it used to mean. Gun-grabbers turned it into something else.
Why is this the “IMI Systems quote of the day?” Is this author somehow connected to IMI?
Uh, that would be NO. IMI is a site sponsor for the daily column. Doh.
When someone asks a question, just answer it. Or shut up. Don’t be a smart ass.
Once again, we see the failings of modern education in America, that it produces such stunted intellects, absolved of any responsibility for deep thought, research and intellectual curiosity.
The origin of the phrase “well regulated militia” goes back to Andrew Fletcher, aka “Fletcher of Saltoun,” a Scottish politician and writer, about 75 years before the American Revolution started.
Here, for people’s edification, is Fletcher’s “A Discourse of Government With Relation to Militias:”
http://www.constitution.org/fletchr/fletchr.htm
The Founders were deeply influenced by the writers of the Scottish Enlightenment, and it was no different in this matter (militias and arms) than in matters of economics, property rights, etc.
Thanks for that link. Excellent material if long and slow-reading due to the vagaries of the language of the day.
I stopped reading after he got the first question wrong.