[TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT

[Peter Hirst]

"  Now, if we assume for argument's sake that your definition of
"regulated" is in fact erroneous vis-a-vis mine in this context, what
does that do to your argument"

Nothing at all.  I am entirely aware of the military sense of therm and it 
is not as different as you suppose.  Training and discipline include 
organization and regimentation as much as being able to hit a target.  And 
training and displine include recognition of and obedience to the command 
structure up to and including  the civilian legal and political authority.

Anyway, even under your definition of "regulated: the milita must be endowed 
with , As you say, "abilities to function properly as a militia in the 
technical
> military sense. "  Who has those abilities?

Under the Militia act, again, there are two groups of militia:  the Nationa 
Guard and everybody else.  And everybody else, except for a minority of 
individuals, is completely untrained.  That group of men 17-34 as such, is 
completely unable to function as militia in the technical sense.  And no, 
sorry, but creating a sub-group out of that group and self training does not 
make them well-regulated.  No court, not even that wacko Thomas, is going to 
recognize the Scaliwag Milita or any other private milita as either well 
regulated or necessary to the security of a free state.

I know its hard to accept, but the Minutemen are gone:  fact remains, the 
only well regulated militia, under any definition, is the National Guard. 
Look, if it were any other way, we would not be having this discussion.  The 
only real issu in Heller was whether the RKBA is individual or collective, 
i.e,  whether it flows from the Militia clause or is independent of it. 
that's because everyone on the Court recognises that the Milita is gone, so 
it the RKBA depends on the existence of the Militia, it is dead.  that is 
what Heller was all about.  That's the whole reason the case turns on the 
meaning of the Militia clause, because everyone on the court realises that 
after 1903, there is no militia in the sense there was in 1789.  If the 
states still had militias, there would be no case, or at least it would be 
very different.  If its a collective right that only survives as long as the 
well regulated milita, DC wins because it has no militia.  If its an 
indivudual right that survives after the disappearance of the militia, DC 
loses.  If the there is still a militia, then the right has to be recognized 
whether its individual or collective.

Get over it.  There is no well regulated militia, other than the National 
Guard.

And yes, I know what "regular army" means:  it is the permanent standing 
army of a nation.

As distinct from "militia".


http://arms2armor.com/store/2ndamendment.html




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "A Vida" <osan at netlabs.net>
To: "Blacksmithing List Sponsored by ABANA" <theforge at mailman.qth.net>
Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2009 9:09 AM
Subject: Re: [TheForge] Criminal Background Check: way OT


>
>
> Peter Hirst wrote:
>
>> "Well regulated" has a pretty specific meaning in the law.  Public 
>> utilities
>> are regulated.  The postal service is regulated.  Railroads are 
>> regulated.
>> Trucking used to be regulated.
>
>    AHA!  Here is where you are missing a vital point.  "Regulated" in the
> sense of the 2nd does NOT mean the same thing as in other senses.  It
> very specifically means well TRAINED.  "Well regulated" and "well
> trained" are completely and absolutely equivalent statements.  What do
> you think terms such as "regular army", "regular troops", and "regular
> soldier" refer to?  It refers to *training* - they are trained army,
> troops, soldiers.
>
>    The Oxford English Dictionary, Second Edition, 1989 gives one
> definition of "regulated" as: (b) "Of troops: Properly disciplined" and
> then "discipline" has a definition (3b) applying to the military,
> "Training in the practice of arms and military evolutions; drill.
> Formerly, more widely: Training or skill in military affairs generally;
> military skill and experience; the art of war."
>
>    Here "discipline" refers to training as an equivalent to "scholarship"
> and "learning" and not in the erroneous contemporary usage implying
> "control" from without by some third party, but only that which results
> directly from such training (e.g. being able to hit what you're shooting
> at).
>
>    There has been an awful lot of discussion on this point and it has been
> made very clear that the meaning of "regulation" in this context has
> nothing to do with external political control of the militia, but rather
> its abilities to function properly as a militia in the technical
> military sense.
>
>> That's why Scalia had to say the the Militia clause neither restricts nor
>> expands the meaning of the operative clause.  If the operative clause
>> depended on the Milita clause for its present meaning, there is no right 
>> to
>> bear arms at all because there is no well regulated Militia any more, 
>> other
>> than a branch of the US Army.
>>
>> That's why it is a mistake to suppose that the federal limitation of the
>> arms that may be kept and how or when you can bear them that will surely 
>> be
>> defined -- and upheld -- in the not too dostant future cases  is  some 
>> wacko
>> perversion of Heller.  On the contrary, it flows directly, logically and
>> consistently from Heller.
>
>    Now, if we assume for argument's sake that your definition of
> "regulated" is in fact erroneous vis-a-vis mine in this context, what
> does that do to your argument?
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________
> TheForge mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/theforge
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmfaq.htm
> Post: mailto:TheForge at mailman.qth.net
>
> This list hosted by: http://www.qsl.net
> Please help support this email list: http://www.qsl.net/donate.html
>