It also says that Congress "shall make no law" restricting the "free exercise" of religion, but that doesn't mean you can go Old Testament on somebody.

Donations by individuals to the NRA are at a 15 year high.

Thank you rabid gun control advocates. First you got The Donald elected President and now you're making the NRA more powerful than ever.

Carry on carrying on.

Yes, the 1791 definition

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

I thought you were trying to support Bruce's point... Yeah, I don't dispute that the NRA has a lot of rabid followers.

Anti's undermining their own causes with their furious stage methodologies that get Trump elected and the NRA empowered meet my conception of rabid.

Weird argument. The NRA getting more rabid is proof that both sides are equally rabid.

It's hard to make out what you're trying to say when you're foaming at the mouth like that.

Who was this weeks mass murder of the week? It was not asked 20 years ago when we were less a safe due to less guns and no military caliber munitions.

Did I remember to thank you? I shall do so now for you have done more than anyone else in this community to get Donald Trump elected President and empower the NRA. Your unwavering piety and pomposity has contributed immensely to the downfall of ideas you represent and made you the quintessential enabler of opposing positions.

Thank you, thank you so very much.

I'm curious about this source, but their 'About' link is a 404 Error :sweat:

The Meaning of "well regulated militia" section of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article in Wikipedia actually does contain some excerpts of Supreme Court deliberation on the matter.



But I'm sure the Oxford English Dictionary is a better source of legal wisdom. :rolleyes:

[quote=Flint;1007565]I'm curious about this source, but their 'About' link is a 404 Error :sweat:

works for me http://www.constitution.org/about.htm

It was just the first link I noticed that explained the 1791 definition.

Dude, it's a dictionary entry, and some random guy's blog opinion.

Wikipedia is one click away. Plenty of Supreme Court discussion regarding how to interpret the meaning. One click. I tagged the section.

"well-regulated" summary of Oxford via constitution.org: "[the] property of something being in proper working order"

then per Wikipedia: The term "regulated" means "disciplined" or "trained".[169] In Heller, the U.S. Supreme Court stated that "[t]he adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training."

Proper training, so as for a group to be in proper working order. These definitions are roughly equivalent. I could have used either one.

Cos they're both different from your exasperated sigh R E G U L A T E D definition, am I correct?

No, that definition is fine.

As far as I know, that is all anyone is asking for.

The exasperated sigh is: when you ask for the imposition of proper discipline and training, there is a very vocal, very hyperbolic faction of our society that immediately makes the hyper-space jump to "the government / liberal media is going to TAKE YOUR GUNS AWAY" --so, as a compromise, we agree to do nothing. And we quibble over dictionary definitions that we don't disagree on.