Regulated militia

Well maintained. I.E. do your part as a citizen and get Jow Forums and stay Jow Forums while also maintaining proficiency with your weapons. Has nothing to do with regulating the militia in how we use the word today. As in, to control, and to restrict. If they were to right it today using today’s words and meanings, they would probably write it as “well maintained”, “well disciplined”, “well git gud”, etc.

Attached: 68004D94-4FE1-480B-A6E1-1E10C7D0AA5E.png (305x275, 57K)

>supported shay
>hated the Washington elite that formed
>ant fed
I would say pretty based

Working properly. The amendment makes no sense if you use today's usage of the word regulate. If you do it simultaneously gives the government permission to infringe on our rights and forbids it at the exact same time. I don't know how antis can genuinely argue this and not see how retarded they sound.

>Working properly
And how does one decide whether it's "working properly"?

Could it be effective in a war?

Very based. Believed intuitions should be valued at their rationality and not their age. Wrote abolitionist legislation for the state of VA and inspired the NW Ordnance to be composed of free states.

At that time “well regulated” meant “working properly or as intended.” It was a different time and words were used differently back then.

>among the writers of the constitution
He was in France during the drafting of the constitution, yo

Call me an uneducated leaf, but I always took “well-regulated militia” to be a reference to the official military of a nation.
So. In modern phrasing, the 2A would read, “Since a national military is required to protect the nation from foreign threat (BUT by existing creates the risk of being used against its own people), the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

You're an uneducated leaf, but your heart is in the right place. Looking at contemporary use of the word militia (ex. in the Militia Act of 1792) we see that "militia" refers to every able-bodied, franchised citizen, not merely those that are in the armed forces.

the right being enshrined is given to the people rather then the militia, the first half of the statement just pre-supposes that regulated militias will exist. So, no matter how you interpret that, it has no impact on the right of the people to bear arms.

>US citizens aren't allowed anti-air missiles.

I'd say, no.

People were supposed to form their own militias using guidelines to be introduced through legislation.

They were then supposed to drill as a unit every once in a while. Maybe they would've done shooting practice requirements ala the english longbows.

No matter what "interpretation" you apply to it, the U.S. as it was intended is forever dead. The federal government owns more of the country than it should, conglomerate companies own more of the country than they should, what was meant to be democracy by the landed & successful (READ - WHITE AND INTELLIGENT) individuals has been stripped and given to the same oligarchs that led to the destruction of Rome, and low-IQ, impoverished savages were given the same social standing as people with the capacity to think and reason.

Don't try and convince me that America is anything but a bloodbag for the Owners and a stomping ground for the poor, terribly sad savages that they imported. America is gone.

The second amendment is all that's left to protect people who want to keep to themselves and live simply. All else is lost. Call me blackpilled but there is no road forward that holds redemption for this country.

>The entire meaning of "well regulated" has been changed for statist political purposes. When the second amendment was written, well regulated meant "to make regular", or "to ensure proper functioning". The clocks of the time are a good example. The pendulum was called the regulator. It's actually written on the clock, almost as a form of marketing. The regulator ensured that the clock performed as designed and kept accurate time. Only later did the meaning of the word "regulate" change to become synonymous with government meddling, restrictions, prohibition and taxation. The original idea was that the militias would be ubiquitous, well armed and well trained. They were never intended to be regulated by government in the modern sense of the word. Quite the opposite, in fact. There's a reason that the US Constitution provides for a navy but no standing army. The navy was to protect our shores, but armies had historically been used by governments to subjugate their own people. Our nation's founders wrote the second amendment to ensure that We the People would always be in charge."

-Stolen from a YouTube comment

FPBP

>he thought a republic could actually stay true to its values

If you all made Washington a King, none of this corrupt shit would have happened.

Nothing, really. Militia had proven useless in the revolutionary war and utterly incapable of resisting regulars. Even then the fact that a standing army would be required was pretty obvious to everyone that knew what the fuck they were talking about.

T. Serf

Washington realized that he and his fellows were just as degenerate and forsaken as the nobility they left behind in Europe. That's why he refused.

I know. That's why I get so bummed out. Rule by the masses has always been rife with failure. If they had at least imagined that poor, uneducated folks would so painfully outnumber the white farmers, they would have forced kingship on someone.

>shay

>start war to throw of British "tyranny"
>win war with the help of the French Monarchy
>immediately introduce federal taxation greater than anything the British ever did

Is America the only nation on Earth founded on hypocrisy?

Attached: James Bowdoin.png (345x419, 208K)

can we just form a Jefferson inspired political party yet
any idea for the name

>poor, uneducated folks
>farmers

This is redundant. You are romanticizing fiction

The war wasn't over taxes

dumb white farmers > dumb black welfare snakes

>political party

You're already doing the wrong thing

That figure is misleading because Americans in 1775 had very little income compared to today. Most Americans lived on family farms, which were largely self-sufficient. You didn't drive to Walmart to buy things: you made them yourself. For those things you couldn't make yourself, you bought them from cottage industries like the village blacksmith or cobbler.

Here’s a quick tip.
Ever heard the anti gun rhetoric “The 2nd amendment only applies to the national guard, as they are the militia in question”?
I had a big think on it.
The national guard is government ran. This means it is not a milita, but a official part of the United States military.
No matter how you look at it, the 2nd only applies to civilians.

This
In his his inaugural address he appealed for us all to be Americans first and for an end of political party conflict

A king is inherently contradictory to the ideals of the Revolution

>the ideals of the Revolution
>ideals

Ideals tend to not survive contact with the real world user

youtu.be/rhBwHiLcTG8?t=1127

This is unironically one of the best videos I ever found on the subject. Yall need to watch this and be able to repeat this by heart to normies.

Attached: 1541114889541.jpg (537x720, 43K)

"Regulated" is an archaic term meaning "in good order," "functioning," or "well-maintained." Anti-gunners try to use the term in its modern connotation meaning "legislated" to enforce gun laws but that is completely unconstitutional. You have to view a document using the language of the time and what was meant when it was written, not what it literally says today.

Maybe you can live with being a hypocrite

admitting you're wrong makes on a hypocrite?

Here’s a quick tip.
>The national guard is government ran. This means it is not a milita, but a official part of the United States military.

brainlet tries logic

Admitting not to hold ideals when met with resistance, makes one a hypocrite

but I don't have any republican "ideals".

I think it's a terrible system that has led to violent dictatorship/oligarchy 100% of the time.

I think the US is the best try the world has ever seen but I think we're already starting to see cracks appearing in the system

Attached: hard.png (497x373, 98K)

but he did it
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic-Republican_Party

Attached: 1512122586428.png (400x400, 10K)

doesn't mean good order or legislated means government regulated militia. the men needed to form state militias had to have arms when they were called to duty

>I think it's a terrible system that has led to violent dictatorship/oligarchy 100% of the time.

Under the right conditions all systems do

Attached: 1459097956623.jpg (960x720, 147K)

I think we need to revive the Anti-Masonic Party

Jefferson had the right of it, any time a political class emerges they should all be systematically executed.

Attached: rap.png (500x500, 159K)

>but I think we're already starting to see cracks appearing in the system

I believe you have a misunderstanding over the ideas of the Revolution. No founder believed that the republic was perfect. In fact they were very aware of its fallibility. They believed that all governments were inherently evil, but necessary. This is why one of the foundations of the Republic is limited government. As had stated, the current system of government has a long history to it. However, we were already "seeing the cracks" at the very beginning with the most notable being Shay's Rebellion.

TL;DR
Like men, the government is fallible.
Believing in enlightened despots is naïvety.

Regulated means organized and standardized to make them have some sort of command structure and chain of command while standardized to make logistics easier.

Also how come people always confuse "no taxes without representation" with "no taxes"?

>Like men, the government is fallible. Believing in enlightened despots is naïvety.

Exactly.

I see republicanism as a roundabout, highly convoluted way to get the same thing monarchy was doing just fine for thousands of years.

The whole, "one tyrant 100 miles away or 100 tyrants one mile away" argument

Where’s the mistake?
The national guard tries to claim it’s a milita, but that shot is pure military.

>Also how come people always confuse "no taxes without representation" with "no taxes"

The "founding fathers" would never have been happy with their own parliament under the crown.

It was never about taxes, it was about a small group of wealthy intellectuals wanting power, like every revolution.

>I see republicanism as a roundabout, highly convoluted way to get the same thing monarchy was doing just fine for thousands of years.

I agree, potentially it can be. Which is why it's important to be an active citizen to maintain these ideals.

To quote Jefferson one last time:
>The price of Liberty is Eternal Vigilance

It is cowardly and hypocritical to forsake these ideals when one is insecure over the future of the nation.

No, it doesn't. Look up archaic definitions of "regular" sometime. At the time it meant "in good working order" or "well equipped." Hence why "regulars" were the members of a military that were provided with uniforms and standardized arms, whereas "irregulars" were military units that didn't necessarily have standardized uniforms, training, or arms, and were usually militia forces, like the Russian streltsy or Confederate militiamen.

I don't totally agree with you but I do totally respect your position.

Shame voices like ours get drowned out by the millions of people shouting "not my president" or whatever the latest anti-republican thing is.

en.wiktionary.org/wiki/regulate#English
errt

thats not the Const my dude

I never voted anyone into office to tax me more. I don't see why politicians from other states have any right to impose federal taxes on me when I had no say in electing them, that's the entire basis for what the Revolution was fought for. People seem to forget that the "United States" is supposed to be exactly that: independent states united together for common causes of defense and foreign relations. The federal government was never supposed to have any power beyond that.

If my elected representatives in my state choose to levy or raise taxes, that's fine. My fellow Hoosiers elected these people, and if I don't like it I can contact my local representative and tell him. But a bunch of cunts from New York and California have no right levying taxes that I never asked for or had a say in because they happen to control legislative powers in Washington at that time.

Attached: 1404476853315.jpg (1103x674, 166K)

I said to look up the archaic definition of it, not the modern one.

>to put in good order:
>e.g. to regulate the digestion.

>People seem to forget that the "united states"

ftfy

Needs must when the devil drives.

"Desperation will drive those in need to disregard legal or moral codes to obtain what they require. Things got so bad at one point that she held up a convenience store at gunpoint to sustain her addiction. Needs must when the devil drives."

Gotta love olde tyme talk!

"He must nedys go that the deuell dryues."

Attached: 0HxCLJm.png.jpg (1146x1000, 309K)