NationStates Jolt Archive

Did Bush actually say 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' in regards to the US Constitution? I just heard it this, and haven't heard much of the news lately. So I'd like to know whether the president actually said something so audacious considering his position.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

If this is a valid rumor and not the product of slander, isn't there heavy implications for this type of outburst? Like impeachment hearings?

Did Bush actually say 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' in regards to the US Constitution? I just heard it this, and haven't heard much of the news lately. So I'd like to know whether the president actually said something so audacious considering his position.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

If this is a valid rumor and not the product of slander, isn't there heavy implications for this type of outburst? Like impeachment hearings?


He was correct, it is just a piece of paper.

Are you on dope?

It's an unconfirmed report of a comment made during a meeting with top aides.

He was correct, it is just a piece of paper.

Are you on dope?

Its a parchment you idiot. Parchment is made from goatskin. Paper is made from wood.

If your going to be an ass, don't be a dumbass.

I'd be skeptical about that one..

I'd be skeptical about that one..
Alrighty, thanks.

Did Bush actually say 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' in regards to the US Constitution? I just heard it this, and haven't heard much of the news lately. So I'd like to know whether the president actually said something so audacious considering his position.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

If this is a valid rumor and not the product of slander, isn't there heavy implications for this type of outburst? Like impeachment hearings?

Although it's just a rumor, he holds many beliefs that the constitution is in contrast. He has passed laws and pushed his beliefs pass the constitution. Modern day Republicans and Modern day Democrats both practice this.

Also anyone that says the Constitution is open to interpretation is wrong. If the constitution is open to interpretation then it can be ammended purely by changing of interpretation, completely bypassing constitutional means of amending it. If it worked that way then defendents in a court of law can 'interpret' it for his own purposes. It was intended to be a strictly adhered to, that is why the majority of the first 15 presidents worked within its limits.

However it is a living document because the ability to alter it is built in.

Its a parchment you idiot. Parchment is made from goatskin. Paper is made from wood.

If your going to be an ass, don't be a dumbass.

Now calm down quiz kid. Goatskin is not what it was written on. Heavy, off white, fine quality paper was what the original was written on. So I am correct.

Try again


"Freedom's important, but if I'm gonna die for a word, my word is poon-tang!"-GW Bush-May 15th, Intercourse, PA

Did Bush actually say 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' in regards to the US Constitution? I just heard it this, and haven't heard much of the news lately. So I'd like to know whether the president actually said something so audacious considering his position.

http://www.capitolhillblue.com/artman/publish/article_7779.shtml

If this is a valid rumor and not the product of slander, isn't there heavy implications for this type of outburst? Like impeachment hearings?


If he did say that, he should be removed from..... church. How un-Christian of him to profane the name of GOD!

#1 - Parchment can be made from any animal skin (although usually sheep, cows and goats) through a process of drying or tanning after hair, fat, and animal removal from the skin. I'm not saying that the Constitution is on this as it was written on a type of paper parchment.

#2 - Saying that the Constitution is not open to interpretation shows that you really haven't studied what you are trying to express an opinion on.

It has been open to interpretation since the ink dried.
The Bill of Rights was added several years later by Madison who thought it was a BAD idea to enumerate the rights of citizens.

How do you think you have certain "Rights?” -- Due to an interpretation of the Constitution maybe? Privacy for instance - Bill of Rights Articles III, IV, and IX. Or maybe the right to bear arms? Read up on that one.... nowhere does it say that the common citizen may possess firearms.

The American Constitution might not have even been written except for people who were open to "loose" interpretation. Under the Articles of Confederation the delegates from the first states who met to revise it were not to dissolve it. Although that is exactly what they did and because of loose interpretation the document known today as the Constitution was written.

If he did say that, he should be removed from..... church. How un-Christian of him to profane the name of GOD!


Maybe it cut him between the fingers, and he was damning it. You know how that really smarts! ;)

#1 - Parchment can be made from any animal skin (although usually sheep, cows and goats) through a process of drying or tanning after hair, fat, animal removal from the skin.



The US Constitution was written on PAPER PARCHMENT, for the second freaking time.

Know what you are talking about.

However it is a living document because the ability to alter it is built in.

From someone further up the ladder on legal matters than yourself:

Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia says he cringes when someone calls the Constitution a “living document.”

“"Oh, how I hate the phrase we have—a 'living document,’” Scalia says. “We now have a Constitution that means whatever we want it to mean. The Constitution is not a living organism, for Pete's sake. I don't have to prove that the Constitution is perfect; I just have to prove that it's better than anything else.”

The Constitution was “penned” by Jacob Shallus, a Pennsylvania General Assembly clerk, for a fee of $30 ($280.72 today). It was stored in various cities until 1952, when it was placed in the National Archives Building in Washington, D.C. During the daytime, pages one and four of the document are displayed in a bullet-proof case. The case contains helium and water vapor to preserve the paper’s quality. At night, the pages are lowered into a vault, behind five-ton doors that are designed to withstand a nuclear explosion. The entire Constitution is displayed only one day a year—September 17, the anniversary of the day the framers signed the document.

Dont believe everything the liberal media tells you...

The original was parchment, the ones sent out were paper....

Yes the original was high quality paper, ie PARCHMENT, not the skin kind.

FYI-there is a "secret" treasure map on the back, next Sept 17 we'll take the original, then start a zany search for the treasure, only to find that true happiness is inside us, not in a sack of gold.

Yes the original was high quality paper, ie PARCHMENT, not the skin kind.

FYI-there is a "secret" treasure map on the back, next Sept 17 we'll take the original, then start a zany search for the treasure, only to find that true happiness is inside us, not in a sack of gold.


Damn you Brady Bunch.... now you've gone and ruined a good <- sarcastic) Nic Cage movie that I was never going to watch.

Dont believe everything the liberal media tells you...


Nor Fox News, either. But seriously, even Dubya wouldn't say something that stupid. I hope. This story is almost certainly false. Someone else would have picked up on it.

It's from Captiol Hill Blue, which means it has roughly the credibility of Newsmax.

Did Bush actually say 'It's just a goddamned piece of paper' in regards to the US Constitution?

I wouldn't be surprised.

The Bill of Rights was added several years later by Madison who thought it was a BAD idea to enumerate the rights of citizens.

How do you think you have certain "Rights?” -- Due to an interpretation of the Constitution maybe? Privacy for instance - Bill of Rights Articles III, IV, and IX. Or maybe the right to bear arms? Read up on that one.... nowhere does it say that the common citizen may possess firearms.
Certain words come to mind, specifically a sentence that contains the following words and symbols: are stupid ? how you fucking : assemble them how you will.

Madison thought it was a bad idea to eunumerate the rights because he felt the were innumerable. Thus the ninth amendment. As for your nonsensical spiel on the 2nd amendment, I refer to my earlier question.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

I don't know about you, maybe english isn't your first language, but it seems pretty damned clear to me. Unless, of course, the word people in the 2nd somehow means state, even though that is not true for every single other fucking instance in the BoR where the word 'people' is mentioned.

Or maybe the right to bear arms? Read up on that one.... nowhere does it say that the common citizen may possess firearms.

A milita (speficially during that time of conscripts and voleenteer army) is any young able bodied male who is well enough to engage in conflict.

Iraqi milita for instance are not sponsored by the Iraqi state nor are they organized or payed by it. They are just armed citizens engaging in conflict. The national guard isn't really milita either most are considered military reserves.

Now a couple of "good ole boys" with shot guns pissed enough to get their guns and shoot at an invasion force is milita. Thus, I as an American citizen am granted the Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms. I'm an able bodied male who simply doesn't want to be ordered around by such an incompitent commander in chief.

Yes the original was high quality paper, ie PARCHMENT, not the skin kind.

FYI-there is a "secret" treasure map on the back, next Sept 17 we'll take the original, then start a zany search for the treasure, only to find that true happiness is inside us, not in a sack of gold.

Treasure map? What are you talking about?

Dont believe everything the liberal media tells you...

Hmmm I guess you never looked into who owns the major news outlets.....

Yeah, this is likely bunk. I only see this on rabid anti-Bush type places. There are so many other well-documented and corroborated reasons top dislike Bush, I see no reason to need to reach for this one.

Yeah, this is likely bunk. I only see this on rabid anti-Bush type places. There are so many other well-documented and corroborated reasons top dislike Bush, I see no reason to need to reach for this one.

With all the other comments the shrub has made, I would not be surprised.

However, even the dumbest american has heard of the Constitution and believes it to have some importance.

For the shrub to spout of like that? I want to hear it myself or at least have it collaborated by a few people.

I don't dismiss it outright but I am not fully accepting it either.

A milita (speficially during that time of conscripts and voleenteer army) is any young able bodied male who is well enough to engage in conflict.

Iraqi milita for instance are not sponsored by the Iraqi state nor are they organized or payed by it. They are just armed citizens engaging in conflict. The national guard isn't really milita either most are considered military reserves.

Now a couple of "good ole boys" with shot guns pissed enough to get their guns and shoot at an invasion force is milita. Thus, I as an American citizen am granted the Constitutional RIGHT to bear arms. I'm an able bodied male who simply doesn't want to be ordered around by such an incompitent commander in chief.
The first three words-------A WELL REGULATED--------Obviously not NO regulation. In fact the state has the power to give LOTS of regulations. Militia by definition is ORGANIZED, not a bunch of civilians with NO training, just $200 to spend on a weapon. If you believe the constitution should not be interpreted then you have to accept the first three words.

With all the other comments the shrub has made, I would not be surprised.

However, even the dumbest american has heard of the Constitution and believes it to have some importance.

For the shrub to spout of like that? I want to hear it myself or at least have it collaborated by a few people.

I don't dismiss it outright but I am not fully accepting it either.

Robert Bork called the ninth amendment an "ink blot". Anything is possible.

Robert Bork called the ninth amendment an "ink blot". Anything is possible.

Ahh Bork. Now there is an ink blot in the history books.

The first three words-------A WELL REGULATED--------Obviously not NO regulation. In fact the state has the power to give LOTS of regulations. Militia by definition is ORGANIZED, not a bunch of civilians with NO training, just $200 to spend on a weapon. If you believe the constitution should not be interpreted then you have to accept the first three words.

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Short, and obvious (linguistic gymnastics aside).

" A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state"
- Cool. A voluntary group of young men who'll defend the country.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
The people as opposed to the militia. Fucking, Duh. It doesn't say the right of the militia to bear arms, it say's the people.
Why would they use the term "people"?
Because they had just fought a tyrannical state militia for two years.
They knew they might hafta do that again.
So they granted themselves the right to have weapons the militia couldn't take away.
Yeah, the comma is just a "pause".
Funny, those people can't point out anywhere else in the document where those hacks fucked up the wording.

Ahh Bork. Now there is an ink blot in the history books.

He's been more influential than you'd imagine at first glance though, what with his advocacy of originalism* and whatnot. It's certainly colored the way people talk about the constitution.

(*And before anyone posts to tell me that Bork didn't invent originalism, I am well aware of that, but he's been one of its big champions.)

liberal media

Ha! That's a good one!


The first three words-------A WELL REGULATED--------Obviously not NO regulation. In fact the state has the power to give LOTS of regulations. Militia by definition is ORGANIZED, not a bunch of civilians with NO training, just $200 to spend on a weapon. If you believe the constitution should not be interpreted then you have to accept the first three words.

The first part is a reasoning, not anything that modifies the clause. The clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and that's the only part that really matters.

The first part is a reasoning, not anything that modifies the clause. The clause is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" and that's the only part that really matters.You're right about the sentence structure but way off on the "only part that really matters" bit. If it didn't matter, the architects of the Constitution wouldn't have been so carefull in their wording and included it. It not ony gives a justification for the admendment but shows that they didn't mean for it to become an excuse for vigilantism or justification for practices that could endanger the public. Thus the carefully included "well regulated" phrase.

He's been more influential than you'd imagine at first glance though, what with his advocacy of originalism* and whatnot. It's certainly colored the way people talk about the constitution.

(*And before anyone posts to tell me that Bork didn't invent originalism, I am well aware of that, but he's been one of its big champions.)

Influential for all the wrong reasons. He has been useful in that more people now look at the Constitution and look for what it means vs what Bork want's it to mean.

Well at least he got a phrase(borked) so he did ok ;)

Though the original Constitution was written on parchment, but most modern copies that lawmakers look at are now written on paper. Unless of course whenever a question comes up, the entire bicameral legislature walks down to the Archives to examine the orginal, in which case nevermind.

You're right about the sentence structure but way off on the "only part that really matters" bit. If it didn't matter, the architects of the Constitution wouldn't have been so carefull in their wording and included it. It not ony gives a justification for the admendment but shows that they didn't mean for it to become an excuse for vigilantism or justification for practices that could endanger the public. Thus the carefully included "well regulated" phrase.

Well I'm also pretty sure some 18th century lawmakers never dreamed that their words would be twisted and bastardized in such a manner as to prevent private citizens from owning firearms.

You're right about the sentence structure but way off on the "only part that really matters" bit. If it didn't matter, the architects of the Constitution wouldn't have been so carefull in their wording and included it. It not ony gives a justification for the admendment but shows that they didn't mean for it to become an excuse for vigilantism or justification for practices that could endanger the public. Thus the carefully included "well regulated" phrase.

Allow me to rephrase it, then. Legally, the clause is the only part that matters.

Vigilantism is covered by other laws.

Well I'm also pretty sure some 18th century lawmakers never dreamed that their words would be twisted and bastardized in such a manner as to prevent private citizens from owning firearms.

Actually Madison probably had the idea it would happen as he allowed for interpretation to make a "living" document.....

Treasure map? What are you talking about?

A reference to that movie "National Treasure" I think. Nicholas Cage.

Influential for all the wrong reasons. He has been useful in that more people now look at the Constitution and look for what it means vs what Bork want's it to mean.

Well at least he got a phrase(borked) so he did ok ;)

Don't get me wrong. I don't care for Bork myself. I am more of a Cass Sunstein fan when it comes to constitutional intepretation. (Though I disagree with some of his substantive conclusions about it.)

A reference to that movie "National Treasure" I think. Nicholas Cage.

Ohhhhh. I think I saw an ad for it once.....

Well I'm also pretty sure some 18th century lawmakers never dreamed that their words would be twisted and bastardized in such a manner as to prevent private citizens from owning firearms.
That kinda talk will only go unnoticed. Wannabe lawyers abound here, and common sense outside of rhetoric won't encourage discussion. ;)

The first three words-------A WELL REGULATED--------Obviously not NO regulation. In fact the state has the power to give LOTS of regulations. Militia by definition is ORGANIZED, not a bunch of civilians with NO training, just $200 to spend on a weapon. If you believe the constitution should not be interpreted then you have to accept the first three words.
You've missed the definition of militia. At the time of the writing of the constitution, it meant every male able and old enough to carry a weapon. In other words... everyone, i.e. the people.

Allow me to rephrase it, then. Legally, the clause is the only part that matters.

Rephrase it however you like but I think the Supreme Court would disagree with you. And while no one here knows your eminent qualifications on Constitutional Law, I think I am safe in saying they 'might' has a bit more experience in legal matters then YOU.

And the National Guard IS the State militia. And here is Webster (who also ‘might’ have more knowledge) with his experience on words and their meaning: regulated
1. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct
by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles
or laws.
2: controlled or governed according to rule or principle or
law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with
regulated temperature"
3: marked by system or regularity or discipline; "a quiet
ordered house"; "an orderly universe"; "a well regulated
life"

And Webster again on Militia:
the body of citizens enrolled for
military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be
called into actual service except in emergencies.

A normal Joe Blow citizen with a .22, .30.06,.308, or a .50 Browning machine gun is NOT a well-regulated militia.

It also says necessary to the security of the state. STATE.... not your home but State. And they (the militia) were also registered (notice in the definition "enrolled") with the State. It wasn't just young men, it was any man 16 to 50 who possesed a firearm. It was considered their duty to register and they were only to assemble in response to the STATES call (or local representative).

Each state and the Federal Government can, has and will continue to regulate firearms. Why has this not been contested? It has. And the few people who went against it lost because the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution (which was written on paper parchment) allows for arms to be controlled.

You've missed the definition of militia. At the time of the writing of the constitution, it meant every male able and old enough to carry a weapon. In other words... everyone, i.e. the people.
Partially correct. The militia was every able bodied man because they had what amounted to a universal draft. Remember that nearly the entire population lived within 200 miles of the frontier. they couldn't afford to keep a large enough police force or sanding army to police the area. So EVERY man was REQUIRED to regularly train. (Sort of like the National Guard only with "every" thrown in.) That is where the regulation comes in. WELL REGULATED means lots of training so that if the time came everyone could be called out, by the state, to form a military force that would operate with order. Not a bunch of guys with a weapon running around in the woods without a clue. Notice that this was the case in the civil war. Nearly all of the units on both sides were called out, controlled, trained, and called by state names. The US government actually controlled few "regular army" and the Confederacy controlled almost no regular army. Lee could ask for help but couldn't order troops from anywhere other than Northern Virginia to join him.

So if you are willing to regularly train under the REGULATION of the state, you have the right to own a weapon. Or if you would like the state to reimpose a universal draft, you can tell everyone to buy a weapon to use during this training. This is the finding of every Supreme Court reading of the 2nd. NO interpretation--just what the 2nd says in plain language.

Well I'm also pretty sure some 18th century lawmakers never dreamed that their words would be twisted and bastardized in such a manner as to prevent private citizens from owning firearms.
If they could have envisaged our modern society, I suspect many of the 18th century lawmakers would have approved of preventing private citizens from owning firearms.

The constitution was written in an 18th century environment by 18th century minds. In order to function in the 21st century, it has to be interpretable to fit 21st century circumstances. Even better would be to re-write it - no other nation relies on such an antiquated constitution written for the needs of a country so very different from that which exists today.

If they could have envisaged our modern society, I suspect many of the 18th century lawmakers would have approved of preventing private citizens from owning firearms.

The constitution was written in an 18th century environment by 18th century minds. In order to function in the 21st century, it has to be interpretable to fit 21st century circumstances. Even better would be to re-write it - no other nation relies on such an antiquated constitution written for the needs of a country so very different from that which exists today.

Exactly.

NO other nation relies on it as no other nation has their original Constitution still. FACT. you don't believe me again Korrithor? well you do the work to prove me wrong... use the new technology called google.

The constitution was written in an 18th century environment by 18th century minds. In order to function in the 21st century, it has to be interpretable to fit 21st century circumstances. Even better would be to re-write it - no other nation relies on such an antiquated constitution written for the needs of a country so very different from that which exists today.

Ewww now that is scary. Who could we trust to re-write it?

The Consitution is hardly outdated. The amendment process makes sure of that.....

Partially correct. The militia was every able bodied man because they had what amounted to a universal draft. Remember that nearly the entire population lived within 200 miles of the frontier. they couldn't afford to keep a large enough police force or sanding army to police the area. So EVERY man was REQUIRED to regularly train. (Sort of like the National Guard only with "every" thrown in.) That is where the regulation comes in. WELL REGULATED means lots of training so that if the time came everyone could be called out, by the state, to form a military force that would operate with order. Not a bunch of guys with a weapon running around in the woods without a clue. Notice that this was the case in the civil war. Nearly all of the units on both sides were called out, controlled, trained, and called by state names. The US government actually controlled few "regular army" and the Confederacy controlled almost no regular army. Lee could ask for help but couldn't order troops from anywhere other than Northern Virginia to join him.

So if you are willing to regularly train under the REGULATION of the state, you have the right to own a weapon. Or if you would like the state to reimpose a universal draft, you can tell everyone to buy a weapon to use during this training. This is the finding of every Supreme Court reading of the 2nd. NO interpretation--just what the 2nd says in plain language.
Regulated meant organized, not the modern definition of regulated.
That being said however, the amendment clearly says the people have a right to bear arms, not necessarily just a militia. Well regulated militia part is the reason that the people have a right to bear arms.

If they could have envisaged our modern society, I suspect many of the 18th century lawmakers would have approved of preventing private citizens from owning firearms.

The constitution was written in an 18th century environment by 18th century minds. In order to function in the 21st century, it has to be interpretable to fit 21st century circumstances. Even better would be to re-write it - no other nation relies on such an antiquated constitution written for the needs of a country so very different from that which exists today.
And one of the most basic rights is that of self-defense. The right to bear arms is just an extension of the self-defense right.

Rephrase it however you like but I think the Supreme Court would disagree with you. And while no one here knows your eminent qualifications on Constitutional Law, I think I am safe in saying they 'might' has a bit more experience in legal matters then YOU.

And the National Guard IS the State militia. And here is Webster (who also ‘might’ have more knowledge) with his experience on words and their meaning: regulated
1. To adjust by rule, method, or established mode; to direct
by rule or restriction; to subject to governing principles
or laws.
2: controlled or governed according to rule or principle or
law; "well regulated industries"; "houses with
regulated temperature"
3: marked by system or regularity or discipline; "a quiet
ordered house"; "an orderly universe"; "a well regulated
life"

And Webster again on Militia:
the body of citizens enrolled for
military instruction and discipline, but not subject to be
called into actual service except in emergencies.

A normal Joe Blow citizen with a .22, .30.06,.308, or a .50 Browning machine gun is NOT a well-regulated militia.

It also says necessary to the security of the state. STATE.... not your home but State. And they (the militia) were also registered (notice in the definition "enrolled") with the State. It wasn't just young men, it was any man 16 to 50 who possesed a firearm. It was considered their duty to register and they were only to assemble in response to the STATES call (or local representative).

Each state and the Federal Government can, has and will continue to regulate firearms. Why has this not been contested? It has. And the few people who went against it lost because the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that the Constitution (which was written on paper parchment) allows for arms to be controlled.
Hmm, I'll address these backwards paragraph-wise. There are only two real SCOTUS cases that address the issue post-civil war. The first of which ocurred in 1875 and is known as US v Cruikshank. and basically said that unlike the other amendments in the BoR the 2nd was not incorporated to the states. Nowhere however, did the case state that it wasn't an individual right. If you look at the backround of the case , what happened was that a bunch of Klansmen were forcibly keeping the local blacks from keeping guns. If you read their decision it makes less sense and is much less grounded in reality than the RvW decision, which most people will tell you was one of the worst written supreme court decisions ever. The other case is US v Miller. Even Cat-Tribe agrees that the case does not state one way or the other definitively that the 2nd is a collective or state right. All that it states is that the guns must be militarily useful and that during the case the defendant had not demonstrated such. Of course, since he wasn't there to defend himself and didn't have the best council, that was kind of hard.


Now onto the words well-regulated.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html
Well Regulated

Of all the words in the Second Amendment, "well regulated" probably causes the most confusion. The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989):

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

The first definition, to control by law in this case, was already provided for in the Constitution. It would have been unnecessary to repeat the need for that kind of regulation. For reference, here is the passage from Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution, granting the federal government the power to regulate the militia:

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

Some in their enthusiasm to belong to a well regulated militia have attempted to explain well regulated by using the definition "adjust so as to ensure accuracy." A regulated rifle is one that is sighted-in. However well regulated modifies militia, not arms. That definition is clearly inappropriate.

This leaves us with "to adjust to some standard..." or "to put in good order." Let's let Alexander Hamilton explain what is meant by well regulated in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. 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.
--- See The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

"To put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, (1989) defines regulated in 1690 to have meant "properly disciplined" when describing soldiers:

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

The text itself also suggests the fourth definition ("to put in good order"). Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or just the right amount of laws [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia?

If they could have envisaged our modern society, I suspect many of the 18th century lawmakers would have approved of preventing private citizens from owning firearms.

Interestingly enough, a great many of those same lawmakers would think it perfectly right to keep slaves.

Regulated meant organized, not the modern definition of regulated.
That being said however, the amendment clearly says the people have a right to bear arms, not necessarily just a militia. Well regulated militia part is the reason that the people have a right to bear arms.
So you admit that the only reason is to belong to a militia. And the militia has to be officially organized. So if you don't belong to an officially organized militia?

A bunch of rednecks with a beer can in one hand and an AK-47 in the other is not a millitia.

If they could have envisaged our modern society, I suspect many of the 18th century lawmakers would have approved of preventing private citizens from owning firearms.

The constitution was written in an 18th century environment by 18th century minds. In order to function in the 21st century, it has to be interpretable to fit 21st century circumstances. Even better would be to re-write it - no other nation relies on such an antiquated constitution written for the needs of a country so very different from that which exists today.

You might not be from America so I won't jump on you, but the US Constitution has a provision which allows for it to be ammended at any time. That is how it stays relevent.

Interestingly enough, a great many of those same lawmakers would think it perfectly right to keep slaves.

A perfect lesson! The Constitution was ammended to prevent slavery. So it was brought in line with 19th century values. Into the 1900's it was also ammended. First it banned alcohol, then it allowed it. It changed. With the ammendment process there is no need to go about scrapping your consitution every generation like places such as France (up to the Fifth Republic now, correct?) do.

Anyways my point is if you want private ownership of firearms banned, do it the fair and democratic way and have people vote on it.

So you admit that the only reason is to belong to a militia. And the militia has to be officially organized. So if you don't belong to an officially organized militia?
It says a regulated militia is necessary to the existance to a free state. No where does it say "officially" organized. And, you still miss the point that it says the people have the right to bear arms. By extension, the people have a right to form militias that are outside the realm of the "official".

Nice twist tho.

A bunch of rednecks with a beer can in one hand and an AK-47 in the other is not a millitia.
Why not?

Why not?Well a Militia inplies some sort of organization and a common enemy or cause.


And the destruction of road signs doesn't count.

It says a regulated militia is necessary to the existance to a free state. No where does it say "officially" organized. And, you still miss the point that it says the people have the right to bear arms. By extension, the people have a right to form militias that are outside the realm of the "official".

Nice twist tho.
The people have the right to bear arms for the expressed purpose of belonging to the state militia. ie. all men REQUIRED military training. ie a universal draft, so when the Indians come over the hill they can fight in an ORGANIZED manner. So every person should be drafted and provide his own weapon.

The people have the right to bear arms for the expressed purpose of belonging to the state militia. ie. all men REQUIRED military training. ie a universal draft, so when the Indians come over the hill they can fight in an ORGANIZED manner. So every person should be drafted and provide his own weapon.

Sorry, but we must put into context of the reason for armed citizens.

1. Conflict/War
2. Self defense

In the case of war, we can see examples of the American revolution, vietnam, and even Iraq as ways for citizens to fight a larger army from oppression, and rule. The American founding fathers wanted the citizens to guard their civil liberties, and independence. Read their friggin writings. To take away the common man's ability to defend himself destory that populations' ability to engage in theoretical conflicts that may be either in an attempt to overthrow trannical rule by their own government that has violated the social contract theory. It also stops their ability in times of invasion harry enemy forces (enemy logistical movement primarily) from their property, nation, community. Invasion perhaps isn't likely now, but in the future that is less predictable. Hell even Japanese officers thought invading America directly was suicide because of the amount of armed citizens would be devistating to their forces.

For crying out loud already, this is America. The hell type of insanity allows for the concept of taking away our civil rights on this issue? This country was help created by farmers with flintlocks. It makes FAR more sense to promote more training so eager and foolish 18 year olds don't cause accidents with their firearms because they know nothing of them at the time of their purchase. Its like the Vatican's position on aids. "DON'T HAVE SEX." Right. That's going to work. How about use a condom and know what is involved with sex. Sounds more reasonable.

How about this deal? You on the right can have all the frigging guns you want, and as loose an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as you like -- as soon as you start paying more respect to the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. When you stop calling anyone with a differing viewpoint a communist (BTW, what's with that? this isn't 1955, you know), when you stop trying to force ID down our throats, when you stop blowing up abortion clinics, and when you stop claiming the PATRIOT Act is necessary to combat terrorism so that makes it ok to violate civil rights of citizens who have been charged with no crime just because you say they might be against the government, then you can play with as many guns as your little hearts desire, ok? Until you're willing to do that, sit down and STFU.

How about this deal? You on the right can have all the frigging guns you want, and as loose an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as you like -- as soon as you start paying more respect to the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. When you stop calling anyone with a differing viewpoint a communist (BTW, what's with that? this isn't 1955, you know), when you stop trying to force ID down our throats, when you stop blowing up abortion clinics, and when you stop claiming the PATRIOT Act is necessary to combat terrorism so that makes it ok to violate civil rights of citizens who have been charged with no crime just because you say they might be against the government, then you can play with as many guns as your little hearts desire, ok? Until you're willing to do that, sit down and STFU.
You don't understand that it is the right to own guns that guarantees your right to spout crap.

You don't understand that it is the right to own guns that guarantees your right to spout crap.


Two things. First, you are free to disagree, but you are not free to insult me. By what right do you label another viewpoint "crap"? And don't presume to imply that disagreeing with you makes me stupid. Second, I'd be very interested to hear your explaination of how all other rights are derived from gun ownership.

Two things. First, you are free to disagree, but you are not free to insult me. By what right do you label another viewpoint "crap"? And don't presume to imply that disagreeing with you makes me stupid. Second, I'd be very interested to hear your explaination of how all other rights are derived from gun ownership.
Never said you were stupid... never even said you were the one spouting crap... implied it, sure, but I actually meant the "your spouting crap" in the general sense of everyones right to spout crap.

Part of the original intent over civilian ownership of arms was to help defend this country vs outside invaders.
But another important part is to defend the country from a take over by a tyranical government from the inside.

So, by the people being armed, thus keeping a democratic government in power, thus keeping the constitution as the basis for the system of laws etc., thus protecting the rest of the rights listed in the constitution.

The founding fathers thought that civilian arm ownership so important, they expressly pointed that out in writing. A well-Regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed
A well organized armed citizenry being necessary to keep a free state free (thereby protecting all the other rights that a free state should protect), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Never said you were stupid... never even said you were the one spouting crap... implied it, sure, but I actually meant the "your spouting crap" in the general sense of everyones right to spout crap.

Part of the original intent over civilian ownership of arms was to help defend this country vs outside invaders.
But another important part is to defend the country from a take over by a tyranical government from the inside.

So, by the people being armed, thus keeping a democratic government in power, thus keeping the constitution as the basis for the system of laws etc., thus protecting the rest of the rights listed in the constitution.

The founding fathers thought that civilian arm ownership so important, they expressly pointed that out in writing.
A well organized armed citizenry being necessary to keep a free state free (thereby protecting all the other rights that a free state should protect), the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.


OK, I think I see what you're saying. I still don't buy it, but I see where you're coming from. It almost seems to be saying people with guns is the only thing keeping the newspapers running, allowing peeople to speak their minds, and keeping churches from being burned down (kind of ironic, considering how guns tend to be used in this country -- as a means of shutting the other guy up). IMHO, there are more important rights than gun ownership, I don't think that when the Bill of Rights was drafted they were purposely put in some sort of order of importance. I also don't agree with taking langauge that, to me, seems to refer to a situation in the context of the 18th century and applying it to the 21st in a strictly literal sense if that senario is no longer relevant. I'm pretty sure that the Redcoats aren't going to invade us. Besides, I never said gun ownership should be completely illegal, that's never going to happen. I am in favor of VERY tight control over sale and distribution, including keeping background checks in place, and even strengthening them, child locks, etc. It irks me to no end that the NRA wants to have no restrictions at all. Some sort of regulation is needed. If one has a felony conviction, one ought not be allowed to own a gun.

OK, I think I see what you're saying. I still don't buy it, but I see where you're coming from.
Difference of opinions... that's what makes debates interesting.
It almost seems to be saying people with guns is the only thing keeping the newspapers running, allowing peeople to speak their minds, and keeping churches from being burned down (kind of ironic, considering how guns tend to be used in this country -- as a means of shutting the other guy up).
That is what I am saying. The chances are remote now, but weren't all that long ago. A government with a health respect for it's citizenry is always a good thing. Once the government loses that respect, it leads to alot of the crap we see in other countries (and unfortunately it appears to be creeping into this country).
Your comment about how guns are being used is misleading, or perhaps misinformed. Were you aware that guns are used defensively, as in to stop crimes, 3.5 million times on average each year?
IMHO, there are more important rights than gun ownership, I don't think that when the Bill of Rights was drafted they were purposely put in some sort of order of importance. I also don't agree with taking langauge that, to me, seems to refer to a situation in the context of the 18th century and applying it to the 21st in a strictly literal sense if that senario is no longer relevant. I'm pretty sure that the Redcoats aren't going to invade us. Redcoats might not invade us, but the possibility exists for an invasion in this country, as does the possibility of a tyrannical government taking over. Of course, the first thing the tyrannical government would do (probably before they did the actual taking over) is remove civilian gun ownership e.g. Nazi Germany.
Besides, I never said gun ownership should be completely illegal, that's never going to happen. I am in favor of VERY tight control over sale and distribution, including keeping background checks in place, and even strengthening them, child locks, etc. It irks me to no end that the NRA wants to have no restrictions at all. Some sort of regulation is needed. If one has a felony conviction, one ought not be allowed to own a gun.
Again, misleading, or misinformed. The NRA is the first group to scream for inforcement of existing gun laws. Including felons and mentally instable NOT owning guns.
What do you think a "VERY tight control over sale and distribution" would accomplish? Do you think it would reduce gun crimes? It wouldn't, and there is no evidence that suggests that it would.
The vast majority of gun possesors in this country are law abiding citizens. Meaning they do not commit crimes. The rest are non-law abiding citizens, criminals. New gun laws would only affect the law abiding citizens only, because criminals just ignore laws anyway so something new they wouldn't care about.
Better crime reduction would be accomplished by inforcing laws already on the books, and increased sentances/stricter incarceration for those who commit violent crimes.

Yes the original was high quality paper, ie PARCHMENT, not the skin kind.

FYI-there is a "secret" treasure map on the back, next Sept 17 we'll take the original, then start a zany search for the treasure, only to find that true happiness is inside us, not in a sack of gold.
no really

didnt they find treasure at the end of the movie and get wicked rich (and therefore quitehappy)?

and wasnt it on the declaration of independance?

How about this deal? You on the right can have all the frigging guns you want, and as loose an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as you like -- as soon as you start paying more respect to the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
What about those of us on the left who also want what you call a "loose" interpretation?

It's not really right-left so much as authoritarian-libertarian. New thing is spot-on -- the authoritarians don't want any resistance to their increasingly draconian laws. It's why the PATRIOT Act has anti-gun clauses, the authoritarians want to do an end-around on ALL our civil rights while baiting the pro-gun people with "t3h librulls w4nt ur gun5!!!1!" Authoritarians from both sides are in on it, that's why the PATRIOT Act passed so easily (not because "no one read it"), and lawmakers only started dragging their feet once their constituents went apoplectic.

It says a regulated militia is necessary to the existance to a free state. No where does it say "officially" organized. And, you still miss the point that it says the people have the right to bear arms. By extension, the people have a right to form militias that are outside the realm of the "official".

Nice twist tho.

Article I Section 8:

Congress shall have the power to:

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union,
suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia, and for
governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United
States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers,
and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline
prescribed by Congress;

Article II Section 2:

The President shall have the power to:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United
States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual
Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the
principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject
relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to
Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in
Cases of Impeachment.

So apparently, Congress has the ability to raise and call forth the militia, as well as arm them, and the President has the duty to command them. Moreover, the Militia has certain prescribed duties which it may engage in, limited to execution of the laws of the U.S., suppression of insurrections, and repelling foreign invasions.

Given that Congress has the power to arm and regulate the militia, it seems logical that they have the power to determine by what means the militia is armed. So if you really want to call the people the militia, then Congress has the power to regulate their firearms. If you don't want to call the people the militia, then personal firearms aren't protected under the Constitution at all, although since I'm one of those pesky radicals, I'd consider probably extending limited protection of firearm ownership under that dreaded Ninth Amendment protection.

Sorry, but we must put into context of the reason for armed citizens.

1. Conflict/War
2. Self defense

In the case of war, we can see examples of the American revolution, vietnam, and even Iraq as ways for citizens to fight a larger army from oppression, and rule. The American founding fathers wanted the citizens to guard their civil liberties, and independence. Read their friggin writings. To take away the common man's ability to defend himself destory that populations' ability to engage in theoretical conflicts that may be either in an attempt to overthrow trannical rule by their own government that has violated the social contract theory. It also stops their ability in times of invasion harry enemy forces (enemy logistical movement primarily) from their property, nation, community. Invasion perhaps isn't likely now, but in the future that is less predictable. Hell even Japanese officers thought invading America directly was suicide because of the amount of armed citizens would be devistating to their forces.

For crying out loud already, this is America. The hell type of insanity allows for the concept of taking away our civil rights on this issue? This country was help created by farmers with flintlocks. It makes FAR more sense to promote more training so eager and foolish 18 year olds don't cause accidents with their firearms because they know nothing of them at the time of their purchase. Its like the Vatican's position on aids. "DON'T HAVE SEX." Right. That's going to work. How about use a condom and know what is involved with sex. Sounds more reasonable.

It's the fact that I've read their writings that I disagree with you. The Founding Fathers greatest fear was tyranny by the majority or mob rule. That rule only becomes more likely as you increasingly arm the citizenry. So while the Founding Fathers likely wouldn't have thought (just as I do) that outright abolition of firearms was not only practically impossible but legally unconstitutional, they nevertheless would never have approved of a blank check approach to firearm ownership. If you don't believe me, try googling "The Whiskey Rebellion" sometime. They did not have a fond view of large numbers of uneducated people owning a crapload of firepower.

How about this deal? You on the right can have all the frigging guns you want, and as loose an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as you like -- as soon as you start paying more respect to the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights.
You do know that it was an NRA board member who threatened to filibuster the Patriot Act? Larry Craig (R) Idaho was certainly not thinking only of gun rights when he took a stand against the bill.

How about this deal? You on the right can have all the frigging guns you want, and as loose an interpretation of the 2nd amendment as you like -- as soon as you start paying more respect to the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. When you stop calling anyone with a differing viewpoint a communist (BTW, what's with that? this isn't 1955, you know), when you stop trying to force ID down our throats, when you stop blowing up abortion clinics, and when you stop claiming the PATRIOT Act is necessary to combat terrorism so that makes it ok to violate civil rights of citizens who have been charged with no crime just because you say they might be against the government, then you can play with as many guns as your little hearts desire, ok? Until you're willing to do that, sit down and STFU.
I'm neither conservative, nor liberal. But when liberals stop cherry-picking from the Bill of Rights, I'll take them seriously when they bitch about civil liberties.
When you stop encouraging 1st Ammendment-hating politically correct rules and regulations, and remember that the 2nd Ammendment is, indeed, there to reinforce the first, then I'll listen.
Until you're willing to do that, sit down and STFU.

With all the other comments the shrub has made, I would not be surprised.

However, even the dumbest american has heard of the Constitution and believes it to have some importance.

For the shrub to spout of like that? I want to hear it myself or at least have it collaborated by a few people.

I don't dismiss it outright but I am not fully accepting it either.
Actually, sadly enough, I've heard quite a few Americans state that the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper that can and should be ignored because the government and American society has expanded beyond it. And most of them were pretty intelligent.

As for the whole 2nd ammendment debate regarding whether or not the term militia was meant to mean an organized militia, I'm surprised no one has referrenced the US Code yet:
TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311

§ 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.
In otherwords, yes a bunch of rednecks with shotguns are considered part of the militia as defined by the US Code of Law.

Also in agreement with the fact that the 2nd ammendment is an individual right is pretty much every ruling by the Supreme Court that involved the ammendment:
Among legal scholars, it is undisputed that the Supreme Court has said almost nothing about the Second Amendment. [FN1] This article suggests that the Court has not been so silent as the conventional wisdom suggests. While the meaning of the Supreme Court's leading Second Amendment case, the 1939 United States v. Miller [FN2] decision remains hotly disputed, the dispute about whether the Second Amendment guarantees an individual right can be pretty well settled by looking at the thirty-five other Supreme Court cases which quote, cite, or discuss the Second Amendment. These cases suggest that the Justices of the Supreme Court do now and usually have regarded the Second Amendment "right of the people to keep and bear arms" as an individual right, rather than as a right of state governments.
Chief Justice Melville Fuller's Supreme Court (1888-1910) had the most cases involving the Second Amendment: eight. So far, the Rehnquist Court is in second place, with six. But Supreme Court opinions dealing with the Second Amendment come from almost every period in the Court's history, and almost all of them assume or are consistent with the proposition that the Second Amendment in an individual right.

Actually, sadly enough, I've heard quite a few Americans state that the Constitution is an outdated piece of paper that can and should be ignored because the government and American society has expanded beyond it. And most of them were pretty intelligent.

As for the whole 2nd ammendment debate regarding whether or not the term militia was meant to mean an organized militia, I'm surprised no one has referrenced the US Code yet:

In otherwords, yes a bunch of rednecks with shotguns are considered part of the militia as defined by the US Code of Law.

Also in agreement with the fact that the 2nd ammendment is an individual right is pretty much every ruling by the Supreme Court that involved the ammendment:


I wouldn't dispute that its an individual right. I would dispute, however, the notion propounded by the NRA that Congress has no power to regulate firearms. If you look at my post above, its clear that such a power isn't even an implied or inherent power of government: it was in fact specifically listed as an enumerated power of Congress that they are to arm, organize, and discipline the militia. If rednecks with shotguns are part of the militia, then Congress has the power to arm, organize, and discipline them. That effectively means that Congress has the power to tell even rednecks with shotguns which kinds of guns and how many they can and cannot have within reason.