He has two out of three definitions on his side.

Post #281,101

4/9/07 6:10:39 PM

The one you seem to be relying on is the last one, which usually in dictionaries means the weakest one.

Personally, I don't think that's a valid definition of the concept at all; I've NEVER seen or heard it used that way -- EXCEPT by gun nuts trying to pull what you're trying to pull. BS like that sometimes, alas, finds its way into dictionaries... Fortunately, though, at least it usually ends up among the last of the definitions, just like here.

I don't think the word "militia" means what you WANT it to mean.

("American Heritage", BTW, doesn't that sound kind of rah-rah-right-wing?)

[link|mailto:MyUserId@MyISP.CountryCode|Christian R. Conrad]
(I live in Finland, and my e-mail in-box is at the Saunalahti company.)

Ah, the Germans: Masters of Convoluted Simplification. — [link|http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/?p=1603|Jehovah]

Post #281,110

by JayMehaffey

4/9/07 6:45:16 PM

Evolution of language

This is one case where the originalists like Scalia have a very good point. When we consider what that clause means we need to consider what those words meant and used when the constitution was written.

At the time the third meaning was the common usage. And this was how the framers envisioned the military working. Rather then keeping a large standing force, there would be organized groups of armed civilians that could be called up when needed.*

Unlike Scalia I don't believe those things are written in stone however. Things do change, and the key one where was cartridge cases for ammunition. This made pistols much more practical. It made it possible to load a weapon and leave it sitting around and expect it to work. This greatly changes the balance of the risk/reward equation for weapons. And does so in a way that requires more regulation then the founders probably had in mind.

One of the reasons they wrote the constitution in general broad strokes is because they wanted a document that could flex with the situation without requiring alteration for every little change.

Jay

*And part of the reason they wanted to do that was to avoid stationing a large army outside the US. They knew that if the only force available was call-up guard, it would be impossible for the US to built an empire the way the UK and France had done. In that regards history has proven them correct. It wasn't until we abandoned the idea of using the guard as our primary force that a large military build up outside the US became possible. Of course it can also be argued that the second world war made it necessary, but that is another argument.

Post #281,182

by imric

4/9/07 10:43:55 PM

Exsqueeze me?

1. Ordinary citizens. NOT professionals. NOT people trained, paid, and employed by the government.

2. The people that can be called up in an emergency. You know. Like most of us here in the US. It's an option that Shrub hasn't used because of it's unpopularity, but it's an option. It's been used before.

This is NOT the only right in the Bill of Rights that doesn't apply to an individual. It is NOT a right to serve the state, no matter how the anti-gun nuts want to spin it. It explicitly refers to the citizenry. The Bill was NEVER intended to reserve rights exclusively to the government; it was DESIGNED so that the government can't pull the crap that the anti-gun nuts want to pull.

Now - to throw the ones that want ONLY government employees to be armed a bone, it does say "well-regulated". We can keep 'em, we can bear 'em - but using them inappropriately should be HARSHLY punished, IMO. Nowhere are we granted the right to shoot people.

Ceding individual rights to the collective is not the way to go.

And BTW the American Heritage Dictionary is not a right wing dictionary.

Imric's Tips for Living

Paranoia Is a Survival Trait
Pessimists are never disappointed - but sometimes, if they are very lucky, they can be pleasantly surprised...
Even though everyone is out to get you, it doesn't matter unless you let them win.

Nothing is as simple as it seems in the beginning,
As hopeless as it seems in the middle,
Or as finished as it seems in the end.

Post #281,183

by bepatient

4/9/07 10:49:46 PM

Re: Exsqueeze me?

"And BTW the American Heritage Dictionary is not a right wing dictionary."

It is if it doesn't give the "correct" definitions ;-)

Too much of today's music is fashionable crap dressed as artistry._{Adrian Belew}

Welcome to IWETHEY!