TexasCHLforum.com

JustSomeOldGuy wrote: I also found their interpretation of "well-regulated militia" amusing. But not up to what college standards of reading and logic should be......

I hear you and agree. However, we all must remember we all have a tendency to read and interpret things from our own unique perspectives and how we process the information is subject to our individual biases. It is just human nature and some deal with it better than others. Same applies to situational ethics.

Their argument attempts to re-write 2A to say a well regulated People .. instead of well regulated Militia (3A soldiers) being a necessary evil, (comma in both 2A and 3A [written 45 minutes apart with same mental outlook or thought process] separates soldiers/militia/standing army from People/property owners) the right of the People (see 3A property owners )to be armed (see 3A to prevent quartering soldiers) ... shall not be infringed

I've always felt their boldest hypocrisy was interpreting the same words differently according to their emotions.
If, in your opinion, "the right of the people" in the 2nd amendment means the right to keep and bear arms belongs to the state and not individuals, then it follows that you consider the right to free speech means a state-sponsored news media, freedom of religion means a state-sponsored church, and right to privacy means the state has the authority to search and seize at will as long as it isn't shared with the federal government.
The freedom of others can be scary, deal with it.

Jeff

Isn't the militia made up of the people/citizenry? Seems like that makes it pretty clear to me.

Chronology:
Militia Acts were not until 1792 and Militia Act of 1862

However the Bill of Rights, Second and Third Amendments in Articles 3 to 12, approved on September 25, 1789 and sent to the states for ratification ratified December 15, 1791

At that time, we were very suspicious of the power of a standing Federal army (Militia)
We had just gotten rid of British army controlling us, confiscating our stuff (3rd Amendment).
http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... y#p1019598

I think earlier in this thread I linked to

Richard Henry Lee, in his widely read pamphlet "Letters from the Federal Farmer to the Republican" worried that the people might be disarmed by modeling the militia . http://www.texaschlforum.com/viewtopic. ... et#p677651

So, Amendment 2 was written 45 minutes before Amendment Three, with the same "mindset" mental process of allowing the People/property owners/population to protect themselves and their property from a militarized government.
If a general militia/standing army is a necessary evil, (comma) the right of the People shall not be infringed ...
(Also, The People/property owners needed protection from Quartering armed Soldiers, hence, Amendment 3 was written about 45 minutes after Amendment 2, with Amendment 2 providing the ways and means to ensure Amendment 3

Amendment 3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner ...

--------------------------
Grammar and Right
Well regulated refers to the LEFT side of the comma, well regulated standing army militia.
Well regulated does not refer to the RIGHT side of the comma, the RIGHT of the Property Owners PEOPLE (which shall not be infringed

2
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.
3
No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law
===============

Hopefully Judges understand Grammar and the history and relationship of 2A and 3A when reading this professors bunch of garbage they filed frivolously about how THE PEOPLE (Citizenry/Property Owners) need to be "well regulated"
(Which is precisely what prompted a revolution and Boston Tea Party, over regulation by the government)
THAT is why we have 2A and 3A to protect US PEOPLE FROM GOVERNMENT over-regulation, quartering soldiers them confiscating our "stuff" etc.


My neighbor explained it well (skip to 4:40 if you want)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvTO-y-B2YM

Case update:

Because the Plaintiffs amended their complaint, the Defendants have withdrawn their previously filed Motions to Dismiss and will file new Motions to Dismiss by September 12th.

v7a wrote:Case update:

Because the Plaintiffs amended their complaint, the Defendants have withdrawn their previously filed Motions to Dismiss and are planning to file new Motions to Dismiss by September 12th.

I hope that when they lose, the.three professors have to pay all court costs and attorney's fees to both the State, and UT.

v7a wrote:Case update:

Because the Plaintiffs amended their complaint, the Defendants have withdrawn their previously filed Motions to Dismiss and will file new Motions to Dismiss by September 12th.

Thank you for the continued updates on the case.

And at the time of the adoption of 2A, the term "well regulated" didn't mean "ruled by a panel of bureaucrats in the capitol", it meant well drilled and trained. A well regulated militia was a group of townsfolk who could assemble and forcibly resist an aggressor, whether it be roving marauders or those acting under the color of authority.

Regarding the meaning of well-regulated, I've often thought the meaning of a similar word, registered, gave a good example of unexpected usage.

When a printer set up a four color job and got the colors all properly aligned, he said the colors were correctly registered

He didn't mean they were properly reported to the government, just properly positioned.

XinTX wrote:And at the time of the adoption of 2A, the term "well regulated" didn't mean "ruled by a panel of bureaucrats in the capitol", it meant well drilled and trained. A well regulated militia was a group of townsfolk who could assemble and forcibly resist an aggressor, whether it be roving marauders or those acting under the color of authority.

This is part of the professors arguments. Because we are not law enforcement or military they do not consider students "well trained." We also do not drill together so they don't think we could possibly be a militia; instead, they see us as wannabe vigilantes who pose a threat to their personal safety.

As far as I'm concerned if they really want to push those buttons we can form a student organization and apply for funding for our ammo.

All I know is unarmed classes of students are soft targets and there's history to confirm this.

Apparently, the professors have willfully overlooked this fact.

Once the dust settles, and unarmed students can be armed if they so choose (assuming they're qualified of course) then the willfully ignorant professors can move to New Jersey or some other anti state.

So what happened to the 3 porfs. Are they still teaching or took a hike?