3 votes

On Nuclear Weapons And The 'Well-Regulated Militia'

If you take a double rifle to a British gunsmith -- to this day -- and ask him to "regulate" it, he will ask not about government restrictions, but rather for what charge and weight of ball you want those two barrels "regulated." Those barrels are said to be "regulated" for a .45 caliber ball ahead of 70 grains of black powder if they will both hit the same target at a predetermined range (often, 60 yards) with that loading.

A "well-regulated" militia is one which is well enough practiced in the use of their weapons -- and accustomed to operating together in the field -- to be an effective fighting force.

Far from "sidestepping this question" (the victim disarmament gang only keep SAYING we ignore it -- it's a rhetorical trick, you see) I define the term directly at the bottom of page 424: "Well-regulated means well-trained ... in firing volleys, reloading quickly, and blowing things up. What do you think George Mason and George Washington were up to when they organized meetings of the Fairfax Country Militia in the mid-1770s -- trading ginger cookie recipes?"

Nor would the other Founders have told George and George, "You're only free to exercise your 'collective right' to bear arms by joining the uniformed mercenaries retained by the crown governor." Quite to the contrary, such "special militias" -- the 18th century equivalent of today's "National Guard" -- were a form of armed security the Founders specifically warned us AGAINST, insisting that the only guarantor of freedom was that "every man be armed; everyone who is able must have a gun." (Patrick Henry, who called this "the great object.") No, George and George did not seek the crown's permission to take up arms and form their Committees of Correspondence.

More importantly, I continually ask, both in my first book and in my subsequent writings, "If the other side wants to insist on the relevance of the non-binding introductory phrase, 'A well- regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state ...' let Janet Reno and company explain to me when and how and where I and my hunting buddies are SUPPOSED to go to practice our small-unit tactics with M-16s and a Model 58 or Model 60 Squad Automatic Weapon, the better to BECOME a 'well- regulated militia,' better prepared to shoot and kill the next tyrant to dispatch tanks against harmless civilians on American soil. We'll drive as far out into the desert or the woods as they like; just let them explain to us how we're supposed to legally practice such drills without being jailed for "conspiracy to violate the National Firearms Act of 1934."

full text: http://jpfo.org/alerts/alert20010801.htm




Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The Discussion Of The Word Regulate

also pertains to the commerce clause. Just think of the harm done by the additional meaning ("to restrict") that this word developed in American English.

Now everyone can point to the commerce clause and contend that it gives the Congress power to restrict commerce, when the intention of the founders was no doubt to facilitate commerce. (According to Tom Woods, the purpose was to establish free trade within the nation's borders.)

I'd heard Judge Nap assert that to the founders the word regulate meant "to keep regular" but I never fully got it before reading this piece.

Has anyone read the book "Send In The Waco Killers?"

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard