In the parlance of the day it was written as evidenced by the term being used extensively in a variety of other contexts describing purposeful groups of people, the term “well regulated” means organized, competent, capable. For example, it was typical for something like particularly competent and capable fire brigade at the time to be described as well regulated.
The 2A states simply that the people of the US have the right to keep and bear arms, that this is a necessary condition for them to be able to come together as an organized/competent/capable militia, and the ability to form that capable militia is a necessary condition for security of the state.
Sadly I must agree, for you, one who either just denies or is completely mystified by the fundamental principles of conferred powers and retained rights, “inalienable rights” is just meaningless gibberish.
Inalienable rights only have meaning at the very genesis of the establishment of government and then, only in/under the type of government founded on the following principles:
a) all governmental power is derived from the people
b) there exist certain powers over one’s self that are too important to ever be surrendered to another person (un/inalienable)
c) no legitimate government (one established to protect the rights of the people) would accept the surrender of those rights even if it was offered
d) government possesses only the limited powers specifically conferred (surrendered) to it, by the people
e) government only exercises those limited powers with the consent of the people and the people retain the right to rescind that consent
One could think of it this way, “inalienable rights” certainly is a completely meaningless concept without a government being established to NOT surrender those rights to . . .
So, if you outright deny or are hopelessly confused by such fundamental maxims of US government I understand why you get “inalienable rights” all wrong too.
Yes, you do have the right to cook meth in your garage.
Currently, the government has sustained laws that essentially disable that right to the degree of criminalizing that action.
I only respond to the information in front of me. I do not ask for references or biographies, I let a poster’s arguments / statements speak for them which is why I dismiss your Not_Bright fanboy act here as sockpuppetish drivel.
Gee, what gave away my “anti-gun” stance?
Was it my admitting that I grew up with guns?
Was it my tales of growing up in northern Idaho and going out with my first weapon-a Winchester 30 .06?
Was it my time in the military?
Is it my position that the 2nd Amendment should be cleaned up so that there is no doubt as to the right of the individual to own guns?
Some jackass gets it in his/her head that because I disagree on some point I must be “anti-gun”, and others grab onto the label because it’s easier to blindly attack a supposed enemy then to argue points.
Just so we understand each other, you are saying that restrictions on drug manufacture are unconstitutional?
Because he’s a vocal liberal, and people assume that liberals are anti-gun. It’s not like those of us who are liberal are shy about it. I am a vocal proponent of gun control, but I have also clearly stated that I think the Second Amendment would have to be repealed for real gun control to take place.
I don’t know what’s up with the search function, but the only hits I got were posts by ExTank complaining about Czarcasm’s use of the phrase in threads where hehadn’t.
Huh. I’m a registered Democrat, Obama supporter, pro-labor unions, pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and could not be construed as anything but a liberal. Yet it never happens to me.
This doesn’t answer your actual question, but it’s also something that we need to realize.
The constitution is 225 years old. The guns they had then, the population they had then, and the society they had then was ENTIRELY different. The entire constitution should be rewritten, and even though it’s a fantastic “living” document, it’s outdated. We shouldn’t be arguing modern policy using a document that was written by men that could have never imagined an AK47.