That's cool. I'm not fixing or editing anything, but thanks for the threat. You gunna jump through the internet and choke me if I don't censer my words? Here I though helo guys had thick skin...
Glad to know you were there in the 1700s, that must have been cool. By the way, they routinely drilled with their weapons, fully understood the concept of military hierarchy, came to duty when called, and were infinitely more disciplined (when needed) than we are today. They were also basically farmers with pitchforks...and cannons...yes, CANNONS. Imagine Jim-bob in Kansas having a fully operational 155 howitzer hanging out in his barn. Historically, that's actually a pretty close technological equivalent. What's more, they built many of their own weapons and their own ammunition. They also drank. A LOT. Don't go cherry picking comparisons. Full context is key.
I feel confident in my assumption that the authors used "well regulated" intentionally because it could grown, expand, or contract as required with time and social requirement as needed. They understood that having some constantly drunk dude rolling up with his arsenal was not helpful to the fight. Discipline then, as it is now, was highly important. No doubt, they had their well armed "a Florida man" who did what he wanted, and the framers intentionally didn't want to empower that asshat.
My point is not that the government or some other central agency should regulate our militia capable citizens. Rather, that our citizens should adhere to a high standard if they intend to own weapons. Modern day suburban Karen, who owns a baby Kimber .45 that she carries with one in the chamber at the bottom of her purse while she never practices, maintains, or even fires it, and still shouts about her second amendment rights, is being violently arrogant. A right is a responsibility, not an entitlement. Too many 2nd amendment thumpers forget that there is a first framing portion in that amendment's text, and they tend give responsible gun owners a bad name.
We the people are supposed to be disciplined, regulated, responsible, and good stewards of the rights and freedoms purchased with blood that we didn't have to spill. Cherry picking rights and omitting framing text in the guidance passed by our forefathers is rather childish. If you're going to pick up a weapon and claim it as an American Right...which it is...you must pick up the responsibility that goes along with it.
A 'well regulated militia" implies going way beyond defending my personally property, and asserts that that I am willing to subordinate myself and my armed capacity into a military structure for the purpose of defending my state or country. Sadly, that's taking critical thinking and analysis of our constitution WAY farther than most drunk airline pilots are willing to intellectually go. More unfortunately, educating people into being responsible is damn near impossible, but I'll keep trying.
Out of curiosity, how would you have me edit my statement? All I did was quote the a constitutional amendment. What triggered you?
So we're clear, here's the full text of the second amendment:
"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."
For the millennials: TLDR - If you own a gun, you're supposed to be responsible and proficient with it. It's not just for defending yourself or your own interests, it's for defeating tyranny and defending your country if so needed. Many abuse that right and it pisses me off. Governments should be afraid of, and work for, their people, not the other way around.