General Discussion

citood

(550 posts)

69. Without getting into the issue of gun control, a side note:

Sun Jul 17, 2016, 09:21 PM

Jul 2016

In the 18th and 19th Century, the term 'regulated' had a slightly different meaning.

It meant well functioning, or calibrated correctly. From The Oxford English Dictionary:

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."

1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."

1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."

That meaning still has some relevance today - for example a fuel pressure regulator.

So, a 'well regulated militia' would be the synonym to 'high speed, low drag militia' today.

This is why legal arguments over the 2nd amendment tend to center around what a militia is, and whether or not we still have a militia...its been determined that any civil right can be 'reasonably regulated' in other cases (fire in crowded theater, etc), but its not like the 2nd amendment has its own unique regulation clause (by the modern meaning) built in.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

146 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

To my way of thinking, there are VERY few examples of "responsible" gun owners. [View all] Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 OP

I have notice that their being armed to the teeth didn't actually prevent Cheney/Bush from stealing villager Jul 2016 #1

Should we also start thinking about restricting the first amendment too? Bernielover357743 Jul 2016 #2

The Swizz modle is what safeinOhio Jul 2016 #6

Without getting into the issue of gun control, a side note: citood Jul 2016 #69

Have to deal with that nasty fifth sarisataka Jul 2016 #10

That's the dream... TipTok Jul 2016 #99

Read your spew. Thank you for making my point Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #13

Wow. You really fit the kook mold. TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #18

The last thing we need is a bunch of wingnuts running around "participating in law enforcement". ronnie624 Jul 2016 #42

So, since many black men feel threatened and targeted by government tyranny then they are justified blm Jul 2016 #60

Well for one... philosslayer Jul 2016 #68

It is restricted treestar Jul 2016 #71

No rights are absolute. There are many restrictions/ limitations on the first amendment etherealtruth Jul 2016 #121

That's because they never make the news B2G Jul 2016 #3

Kinda what I was thinking... StraightRazor Jul 2016 #83

Your way of thinking is very black and white... Joe the Revelator Jul 2016 #4

Fuck grey Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #14

That is just silly. Joe the Revelator Jul 2016 #27

I'd like to see the papers Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #35

Here ya go Joe the Revelator Jul 2016 #38

That's just a blank Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #40

Sorry about that Joe the Revelator Jul 2016 #45

Hahaha And you call me silly. :) Come on Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #48

Oh... this is about saving lives? TipTok Jul 2016 #100

Nanny-staters are only lancer78 Jul 2016 #139

The first step to improvement GulfCoast66 Jul 2016 #5

99.5% of gun owners are 'responsible gun owners'. X_Digger Jul 2016 #7

That makes too many that aren't. TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #11

Criminologists will tell you that it's a small percentage of folks who commit most crime. X_Digger Jul 2016 #21

Yeah, yeah, yeah. TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #25

Math not your strong suit? X_Digger Jul 2016 #30

Take your paranoia back to the Gungeon. TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #50

I'm not the one freaking out and blaming 0.05% of gun owners. If there's someone paranoid.. X_Digger Jul 2016 #54

Why then, do you want to make it about the ones that are... beevul Jul 2016 #119

Which ones are "reponsible"? How do we recognize them? TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #122

The difference between responsible and irresponsivble, is behavior. beevul Jul 2016 #123

Uh-huh. I see. After it is too late, TheCowsCameHome Jul 2016 #124

Thats what laws are for, application against those who commit a crime. beevul Jul 2016 #125

Actually seems quite doable to identify potential gun violent perpetrators. Chicago, jmg257 Jul 2016 #126

Interesting comparison treestar Jul 2016 #75

Not 5%, 0.5%. Half a percent. (I'm not commenting on the other subject, I haven't read that thread.) X_Digger Jul 2016 #94

I support the individual right to keep and bear arms TeddyR Jul 2016 #8

I do not Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #16

Understood TeddyR Jul 2016 #26

Do you have any proposals sarisataka Jul 2016 #9

Just a little over the top there bud Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #19

It seems to be sarisataka Jul 2016 #24

Initially? Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #29

You still have a fifth amendment issue sarisataka Jul 2016 #36

Read the remarks in the OP Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #37

it is a bit to restrictive for my taste sarisataka Jul 2016 #46

That amendment, per both parties, has no real standing. Exilednight Jul 2016 #104

**cough**BS**cough** Lurker Deluxe Jul 2016 #105

it's not utter bullshit, and as per your example, yes they can. Exilednight Jul 2016 #112

Doesn't say what you stated Lurker Deluxe Jul 2016 #117

The trouble with trampling rights sarisataka Jul 2016 #106

And they don't surrender, then ... Igel Jul 2016 #49

Yanno, Australia did it. Not long ago. Peacefully. Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #56

Australia did what, exactly? beevul Jul 2016 #120

Since about 0.003% of the firearms in this Country are used to murder someone, I'd say the other Waldorf Jul 2016 #12

Until they're not Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #20

I guess you better raid my liquor cabinet. I'm responsible drinker, until I'm not. Waldorf Jul 2016 #23

There ya go. Deflection and obfuscation Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #31

OMI GOD.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #32

I agree with you. Notice how panicked the gop is now about open carry in front of their convention MariaThinks Jul 2016 #80

Go dig up a pre-cog... TipTok Jul 2016 #101

Most, the great majority, never become "not". beevul Jul 2016 #108

that's all it takes to kill a lot of people these days. MariaThinks Jul 2016 #81

Believe me, if gun owners where the "problem" you pretend them to be.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #15

You are welcome to do whatever the fuck you wanna do Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #22

Ok, you can do that..No problem with it. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #28

What's next? Blood on the tree of liberty? Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #33

Will you defend the right of others with bad intention to do the same? Doodley Jul 2016 #43

If they make their intentions known.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #55

The mass shooters never are. Doodley Jul 2016 #58

Your "way of thinking" needs improvement then. FLPanhandle Jul 2016 #17

Then, as the OP states, you support the right of crazy guys and would-be mass shooters to own guns. Doodley Jul 2016 #41

Semi automatic weapons Abq_Sarah Jul 2016 #96

I don't own a gun, but if police can have guns then ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #34

So you're okay with killing cops? Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #39

If a human is trying to kill you, ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #44

I hear what you are saying, but how does that work in practice? Doodley Jul 2016 #53

In my opinion, in that situation, the driver would be starting the violence. ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #59

Follow that thought out a little more Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #70

How about a country where some demographics are ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #88

So then we go back to the original thought. Killing cops is okay in your book. Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #89

My old answer still applies. lol nt ZombieHorde Jul 2016 #93

I've owned guns responsibly my whole adult life AgingAmerican Jul 2016 #47

For the sake of argument, I will stipulate that you're a model gun owner Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #51

You'll never hear about a responsible gun owner. egduj Jul 2016 #52

I will never hear of one because they don't exist. Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #57

I grew up with responsible gun owners left-of-center2012 Jul 2016 #61

I smiled when I read your OP for two reasons. aikoaiko Jul 2016 #62

The vast majority of gun owners are responsible, guillaumeb Jul 2016 #63

The issues not so cut and dry UnFettered Jul 2016 #64

So which is it really? Oneka Jul 2016 #65

Oh, they're ALL responsible, right up to the moment they aren't. VOX Jul 2016 #66

I like to think we are snpsmom Jul 2016 #67

That is a good point about treestar Jul 2016 #72

If there are no other guns then they don't need them off duty either. Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #73

I'm surprised they are not treestar Jul 2016 #74

Well the Democratic party disagrees with you. Statistical Jul 2016 #76

Couple of things: Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #82

Hate to break it to you but it isn't capitalized in the original. Statistical Jul 2016 #86

I stand by my interpretation. Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #87

It is very creative. Nt jmg257 Jul 2016 #91

Parse all you want to, but you just lost your own argument by acknowledging this.... Ghost in the Machine Jul 2016 #102

Most rural gun owners are responsible Warpy Jul 2016 #77

silly, not well thought out rambling post AntiBank Jul 2016 #78

No need to repeal the 2A Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #84

it will never happen, these threads are such a waste of time AntiBank Jul 2016 #90

But they sure do draw clicks! Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #92

People slow down at car crashes, too. nt Lonusca Jul 2016 #107

You are allowed to think anyway you want. Lance Bass esquire Jul 2016 #79

Don't equate some yahoos with a gun fetish to real patriots who would spill their blood if needed. Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #85

Thank goodness for the disclaimer. Dumbest thing I've read all day. n/t flvegan Jul 2016 #95

Guns suck!!! StrictlyRockers Jul 2016 #97

Speak for yourself.. virginia mountainman Jul 2016 #98

lol... that reminds me of this teeshirt: EX500rider Jul 2016 #127

Now that's progressive... ileus Jul 2016 #103

Blame math... beevul Jul 2016 #109

Or Guns Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #110

No. beevul Jul 2016 #111

See, here's the thing. I think your view is ABHORRENT Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #113

No, not silly and misguided. Abhorrent and offensive. beevul Jul 2016 #118

And I think *your* views on gun owners are on a par with Pam Geller's views on Muslims friendly_iconoclast Jul 2016 #129

That's just slightly off base Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #131

We might as well start with the known <1% responsible for 70-80% of gun crimes. jmg257 Jul 2016 #114

Melt 'em Stinky The Clown Jul 2016 #115

That's the ticket! Gotta start somewhere. jmg257 Jul 2016 #116

Well, heck, Stinky.............. raven mad Jul 2016 #128

I guess Obama is part of the "gun problem" in your words. former9thward Jul 2016 #130

Gunners consider George Zimmerman a responsible gun owner, his Killing T Martin is counted Hoyt Jul 2016 #132

Isn't being a "responsible gun owner" like being a "responsible flame thrower owner"? BlueStater Jul 2016 #133

Flame throwers are actually classified as agricultural equipment... beevul Jul 2016 #134

They're weapons. They were first used during World War I. BlueStater Jul 2016 #136

Thats your opinion. beevul Jul 2016 #137

Yeah, it's my opinion and I'm expressing it. BlueStater Jul 2016 #138

Are those goalposts heavy? beevul Jul 2016 #140

Your arms must be straining from all the reaching you're doing. BlueStater Jul 2016 #141

ROFL. Its YOUR criteria. beevul Jul 2016 #142

If you own bows and arrows just for the sake of owning bows and arrows, it's irresponsible. BlueStater Jul 2016 #143

And how do you feel about crossbows? oneshooter Jul 2016 #144

Yup - no purpose, unless of course you want to burn something, or shoot something. jmg257 Jul 2016 #135

8 year old Port Orange Florida boy onethatcares Jul 2016 #145

Funny story REP Jul 2016 #146