Here's a funny thought. It was posed by one of the political commentators that I watch.
Does the word "regulated" in the phrase "well regulated" refer to "the act of arming" or to "control"?
I know which meaning was intended when it was first written. But, as that political commentator suggested, maybe that intended meaning needs to be updated. No changes are needed to the actual words used. 
2
Enjoy being online again!
Welcome to the community of good people who base their values on evidence and appreciate civil discourse - the social network you will enjoy.Create your free account
4 comments
Feel free to reply to any comment by clicking the "Reply" button.I think the reason why people don't want the 2nd amendment to be changed is because if you can change the 2nd, you can change the 1st. And once they change the 1st, there is no going back. The government will gradually take more and more control over the people, taxes will rise, corruption will get worse, etc.
And the people will be defenseless when the amount of crime increases just like in Australia.
Lancer
Level 7
Mar 12, 2018
0
Ahhh! Is that what's rubbing people the wrong way about my post? I'm not convinced.
This wasn't suppose to be a serious thing. It's suppose to be this funny anecdote on what the word "regulated" could mean in the context of being pro-gun and in the context of gun control.
I had to explain it to the others - which is the post immediately below yours.
It's clear to me now that there was something about my post that is causing so much reaction. But I still don't get what. I'm not convinced that it was my suggestion that "we didn't need to change the words used in any of the amendments" - as I stated in the original post.
EDIT: And I'm not gonna debate you on stats in AUS. You got your stats. We've got ours.
@gipsyofnewspain @sacatwalker @mikeflora Has my post made me look like to be pro-gun?
A week before the Florida mass shooting, I posted stats on how ridiculous the number of gun-related deaths there are in the U.S. ( [agnostic.com] ) I stayed silent immediately after that post, in regards to gun-related deaths, because I realised from comments on that post, that because I'm not in the U.S., I have no stake in the argument. However, since the Florida massacre, I've argued heavily against the ownership of guns.
So, if you guys think that I'm pro-gun. I'm not.
My intentions for the original post are:
1: To show that those who argue against gun control consider the term "well regulated" as a license to OWN guns. Because to them a well regulated militia is a well run, well maintained, well trained militia. And you need guns for that.
And 2: While we, who argue FOR gun control, should state the point that "well regulated" ACTUALLY means "strict control" of WHO can own guns.
SamKerry
Level 7
Mar 12, 2018
0
I am against 2nd amendment in all Shape and Form. I am way passed figuring out how can work in 21st Century. So pardon me if I don't read your disertation. Nothing personal.
@GipsyOfNewSpain so after telling me that it's not funny because I'm wrong, you're not gonna read my explanation and intention for the post?
It's clear to me now that it was totally misunderstood.
You are wrong because it is not a funny thought but your well regulated brain will not allow the reality we live today to sink in.
GipsyOfNewSpain
Level 9
Mar 12, 2018
0
Well regulated has to mean control. That is what the word means to control. The last part defines it. The right of the people to bear arms shall not be in fringed. A controlled militia has to be able to bear arms. That's all it says, to be fair it actually doesn't say one way or the other whether or not civilians should be allowed to bear arms. People in a militia need to be able to bear arms, that's all it says, nothing else.
MikeFlora
Level 7
Mar 11, 2018
1
I'll just copy my reply above: "...Well not literally 'the act of arming', of course. But it was the most succinct way I could express the idea of "regulating the militia" in regards to regulating the militia so that it is armed, staffed, fed, trained, etc..."
@SACatWalker Did I miss something here?
@SACatWalker what? Hahaha.
well, I'm sorry to hear that. I totally don't understand how my post was the "straw that broke the camel's back". It's not even anything, It's just a funny anecdote. I'm surprise it's generated this much anguish. I would take it back if I could.
Recent Visitors 32
Photos 507 More
Posted by ButtercupI doubt she said it buts it's cute.
Posted by Smurfing101
Posted by DruviusAh yes, modern America.
Posted by Tejas
Posted by SwitchcraftSandy Hook 13th sad anniversary - 12/14/12
Posted by SwitchcraftSandy Hook 13th sad anniversary - 12/14/12
Posted by MoravianSad but true.
Posted by DruviusAlways loved this one.
Posted by TejasAnti trump pistol. Do you have mixed feelings about it?
Posted by TejasLook at this scary gun!
Posted by Tejas
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.
Posted by SeaGreenEyezThe most unaware "Awareness Day" in America was yesterday.