And honestly, we've learned what "discussing" anything with you entails. You ignore the written word of people, preferring to interpret what they say in a manner only the kool-aide pack could.

I don't dislike you GR, I just don't have the time to spin my wheels with you today. And really that's what it almost always ends up being, spinning wheels like mad staying in the same place.

crickets . . .

He was sounding protectionist (free trade), and whining about everything from CEO compensation to healthcare to just spending more money on people.

Also his nonsense on immigration was aggravating as well. We don't need Bush 2 "compassionate" garbage which basically just amounts to spending us to hell.

He sounds like a populist which was Buchanan territory on the right. Buchanan was a loser and so is Huckabee. Though Huckabee is a lot more likeable. Fortunately he is not gaining ground.

I would be leery of Huckabee and if he somehow (no chance as far as I can see) won the nomination I would consider Hillary.

actually RATIFIED didn't have the extra commas, and thus the reading is unambiguous.  It is the "right of the people to keep and bear arms [that] shall not be infringed."  Thanks for clarifying that in you other posts.

That's funny.

The main R candidates for President are afraid to even talk to 'the colored people' at a Republican debate. And that was just facing questions.

Are you saying there is no racism in America? Cause if you are, I will call you a liar, (in advance).

:-$

From The Federalist Papers No. 29 :
by Alexander Hamilton

"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, or even a week, 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 well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."

In this paper Hamilton is arguing against a proposal that would require all members of society to be regularly trained as part of the militia on an almost full time basis. He argues instead that the best that can be achieved is to insure that the people at large are "properly armed and equipped," and that to insure this is the case that they be assembled "once or twice in the course of a year."

As part of his argument he notes the following two advantages of such a militia:

1. This plan would not require so much training as to be a drain on the economy.
2. That if there was ever a need to raise a standing army, having the militia in place and trained in the proper use of arms would represent a suitable check against any abuses by that army.

In the course of his discussion he makes the following point:

... 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 well-regulated militia ...

Here we have an example of the use of the term "well-regulated militia" as it was used in Colonial times. In this comment the characteristic attributed to the character of a well-regulated militia is the degree of perfection that they have attained in the use of arms and the execution of military exercises. It is clearly not referring to legislative constraints, as you seem to be.

At the time the meaning was referring to the proper functioning of the militia as a unit, not unlike our current usage when referring to a well-regulated time piece (i.e. one that keeps time properly and is in good working order).

So I disagree with your proposition that the founders meant legislative constraints by their use of the word regulated, and to bolster that point I will simply repeat their very next clause of the amendment: the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Shall not be infringed is pretty much the opposite of what you claim they meant by regulated. Thus, of course, the meaning that you ascribe makes no sense as it would make the text of the amendment self-contradictory.

------------------------------------------------------

* Apologies to the writers of The Princess Bride.

Under a strict reading of the 2nd amendment, everybody should be able to own their own tomahawk missiles-- guns aren't even a question. But since I don't think that's a very good idea, I tolerate the passage of some laws which are really unconstitutional, because I'd rather that the Constitution get fettered than for some idiot to blow me up.

In other words, I agree with quaoar's whole statement, including:

The amendment is ridiculously outdated and should be rewritten

you are in the fricken South... Of course it can be warm in October.

It's often is still warm even in NY (we are incidentally having a pleasantly globally warmed week full of 80s).