“When the people fear the government there is tyranny. When government fears the people there is liberty.” –Thomas Jefferson
"Do you realize the bullet out of an AR-15 travels 5 times as rapidly as a bullet shot out of any other gun?" –Joe Biden (video)
What does the term “well regulated” mean?
For the record, the muzzle velocity of an AR-15 is not even in the top ten rifle muzzle velocities, as noted in a comment in the link above. For example, the Remington .22-250 muzzle velocity is 4,550 feet per second, and the AR-15 is about 3,250 fps depending on whether it’s .223 or 5.6. There is no ”muzzle velocity clause” in the Second Amendment anyhow.
So Biden lies right to our faces and paints the most popular rifle in America as the worst thing in the world, while he’s surrounded by rough men with guns 24/7. Tea for me but not for thee. This nicely augments his press secretary’s recent comments demonizing Trump voters, not to mention his own.
Examples of how the term "well regulated" was used in 1789
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.” Rather straightforward. But what does the term “well regulated” mean? Please answer that question first before reading further, and be sure to remember your answer.
These are examples of usage for the term “well regulated” in the Oxford English Dictionary, 1709 Edition, “If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated appetites and worthy inclinations…” 1714, “The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world.” 1812, “The equation of time… is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sundial.”
The year the Constitution was ratified, 1789, is in the middle of these and other examples in the OED. For something to have been considered “well regulated” in 1789 it must have been complete, up-to-date, functional, and so on. It did not mean “well legislated” in any sense, or “well controlled.”
Furthermore, “militia” cannot mean the National Guard according to the Militia Act of 1903, which split the “reserve militia” from the “organized militia,” the nouveau National Guard with some federal strings attached. The reserve militia contains all able-bodied men ages 17-45 since the Militia Act of 1903.
It also does not limit the ownership or carrying of arms to those aged 17-45, because the Second Amendment does not so limit these rights but guarantees them to “the people” without distinctions like age, race, class, sex, etc.
Who wants our lawful reserve militia to be disarmed, and why? A thinking man would ask himself this question on the way to forming his opinion: Cui bono? Who benefits?
Behind every blade of grass
All good Americans want our nation to be able to defend herself adequately. Every good American wants the reserve militia to be able to compete at some level with say, an invading army, right? If China invaded Portland, Oregon, all joking aside, wouldn’t we want our reserve militia to be able to shoot Chinese soldiers for effect? “A rifle behind every blade of grass,” remember?
By the way, some say that this quote was invented by some newspaperman or whatever, and was not spoken by Adm. Yamamoto regarding his reluctance to invade America. When you think about it though, it’s essentially true either way. And that’s why they don’t want the reserve militia to be armed.
_
Convention of States is here to stop government overreach, e.g. governments at all levels ignoring the Second Amendment. Using the Article V procedure to bypass the DC swamp, we are on our way to collecting enough states to call a convention of states to amend the Constitution. We want to end multi-decade tenure of elected officials with term limits. We also aim to balance the budget, and end unconstitutional laws and regulations. We’ll keep fighting for you until you join us, then we’ll fight together.
