"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

By #460385 at 14,Jun,16 14:44

And what are the important things that you think are being ignored?

By JustWill at 14,Jun,16 15:59 other posts of JustWill

The part at the beginning of the amendment. The part that specifically indicates that "regulation" is intended to go hand-in-hand with the right to bear arms. Just like it says in the original post.
Another example would be the case where an individual rants about his second amendment rights, but advocates "kicking in doors of these Mosques"--which would be a blatant violation of first amendment rights to freedom of religion.

By #460385 at 14,Jun,16 23:13

I agree, it's a violation of your rights. But I'm not sure I've seen where anyone is kicking in doors without probable cause. The same as I can not be stopped and detained for carrying my permitted weapon with out probable cause. But give it a little time. All your rights being taken away and the door kicking and deportations will start when Trump takes over.

By #210252 at 15,Jun,16 06:26

your very quick to defend a religion that kills homosexuals

By #460385 at 15,Jun,16 10:36

At what point did I defend any religion. And they are not just killing gays. They are killing Americans. See you are doing what the terrorist want. Dividing us into groups. The whites, the blacks, the LBGT. We are all Americans no matter our color, religion, or sexual choice. Stop that bullshit.

By JustWill at 15,Jun,16 13:35 other posts of JustWill

I think he was replying to me, countryboy.

By #460385 at 15,Jun,16 15:35

My bad. It looked as a reply to me.

By JustWill at 15,Jun,16 13:44 other posts of JustWill

I'm not defending the killing of homosexuals, nor am I defending any particular religion. I am merely pointing out that the CONSTITUTION provides for freedom of religion and that, by suggesting that we violate the sanctity of a house of worship because we are angry at some of the people who claim to follow that faith, we are not acting in harmony with the Constitution. It was a statement intended to highlight the irony of claiming Constitutional protection under the second amendment, while actively seeking to subvert the first amendment rights of others. (You can't have it both ways. Their rights are just as important as yours.)
I understand, however, that irony is a tough concept for many folk to wrap their minds around. Sorry if I confused you.

By phart at 15,Jun,16 16:30 other posts of phart

Well everything from humans to drugs to cheap knockoff cd's come in illegally and laws aint slowed it down much. With a good machine shop you can make your own damn gun.

You could ban firearms today, and folks would still kill.
Be it bombs, bricks, dicks spreading aid's, whatever method or tool the crook decides is easy to use.
So laws won't help the crisis we are in.
What will help is to take the political out of correct and just do what needs to be done to protect the American people.
If the words that the radical muslim terrorist read and warp and the killing that has already taken place is not probable cause to kick down doors of shelters for future terrorist then what is?
--------------------------------------- added after 2 minutes

A gun is a simple tool,like a hammer or a screwdriver. Both of those can kill. Are we going to ban those if a terrorist fills a bomb with them?
Are we going to ban rocks over the size of a marble being they can be used in sling shots?
Get real, deal with the criminal that missuses the tools. not the tools themselves.

By #460385 at 15,Jun,16 17:21

As stupid as it sounds. It was box cutters that were used to highjack the planes that brought down the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. A freaking $3.00 box cutter.

By JustWill at 15,Jun,16 21:21 other posts of JustWill

There are a number of critical flaws in your argument.

First, I'm not talking about banning guns, I am talking about REGULATING them (The types of guns available for domestic use, the registration of hand guns, the issuing of permits to own and carry them, who is mentally sound enough to own one, etc.)

Explain to me how an assault rifle is necessary, or practical, for home protection. Are you expecting to be attacked in your kitchen by an army? (If so, you are probably one of those individuals who fall into "not mentally sound enough to own a gun" category.

Second, the "people are going to kill each other even without guns" argument is a foolish one used to distract from the actual point. With the exception of explosives, no other weapon can claim as many casualties in such a short period of time. Or from a similar distance. A lunatic rampaging through a nightclub swinging a screwdriver is not going to create anywhere near the same body count as a machine gun would before he is taken down.

Third, the "anti-political correctness" nonsense is just a smoke-screen to further cloud the issue. It is a fact that the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists (and not all Jews are rich, not all Irish are drunks, not all Italians are mobsters, not all gays are ped0philes, not all black people are on welfare). That's not being PC, it's facing the truth--plain and simple.

Fourth, the "they shelter future terrorists" argument is idiotic. We can't target and harass a group of people because a very small number of them "might" commit a criminal act. By that same argument, anyone who owns an assault rifle should be treated as a potential threat and shot before they can go on a rampage. We can't predict the future behavior of other people, and it is un-American to assume that acting against others because they could possibly, at some point in the distant future, do something wrong is a reasonable position.

Finally, dealing with the "criminal that missuses the tools" is a REACTIVE response. It means that you have to wait for people to die before action can be taken. Regulation of fire arms is PROACTIVE. It is an attempt to prevent or, at the very least, decrease, the number of senseless deaths before they occur.

Nothing is ever going to stop people from doing harm to each other. Your "it's going to happen anyway, so let's just sit back and wait to clean up the mess" approach to the problem certainly isn't the answer.

By #460385 at 15,Jun,16 23:08

Regulations are definitely needed on guns. If you are on the FBI watch list or the TSA no fly list. You should not be able to purchase any guns including hunting rifles and shotguns. Hand guns are a little harder to purchase in my county, requiring a concealed permit or you wait 5 days for background checks. Problem is the NRA will cry that constitutional rights are being denied. The NRA will claim there are many innocent people on those lists. And we all know what a political contributing powerhouse the NRA is.

By JustWill at 15,Jun,16 23:54 other posts of JustWill

As much as it might surprise you, countryboy, we are in total agreement on this. The NRA is in it to make money and gain political power. They skew every issue to be anti-gun, no matter how slim or fictional the connection. For example, not too long ago, in an attempt to stop ivory trade and the slaughter of elephants, a bill was introduced in Congress which would make it unlawful to sell ivory objects unless they came with certification that the items were "antique" and created prior to the embargo. The NRA had it shot down because they claimed that it was an attempt to go after guns because so many pistols have ivory grips. Bullshit.

By bella! at 16,Jun,16 00:45 other posts of bella!

@ JustWill, how would it be possible to determine whether someone is mentally sound enough to purchase and own a gun of any kind?
--------------------------------------- added after 114 seconds

By the way, since this is a sex site, how long do you masturbate. THIS QUESTION IS FOR ANYONE.

By JustWill at 16,Jun,16 00:50 other posts of JustWill

Let me talk with them for five minutes, and I will let you know.

Background checks--including criminal records and medical history--should be mandatory before a person can own a gun of any kind.
--------------------------------------- added after 29 seconds

And, I masturbate until I am done.

By bella! at 16,Jun,16 13:49 other posts of bella!

5 minutes with you and you can sort it out, eh?

I don't fully understand "why" I do it, but I get kinda hinky when it comes to medical records. I figure our government knows so much about us based on our social security number so it grinds my ass when a doctor wants us to complete paperwork and supply them with our social security number. It kinda worked out when healthcare companies began using de-identified numbers on their member's cards. I figured what the hell and started modifying the last three numbers on any form when asked what my social is. Please don't turn me in, I don't want to be working on the chain gang for lying.....

By JustWill at 16,Jun,16 14:18 other posts of JustWill

You've heard of "gaydar"?
Well, I have a very finely tuned sense of cray-craydar.
When I am around crazy, my brain starts to twitch.
It's like my "superpower".

By #201583 at 20,Jun,16 23:42

The basic m-16 platform, aka ar-15 platform. How many men and women have served in the military and we're trained to the extent of being able to disassemble and reassemble their weapons in the dark? Combat based jobs handle that platform to the extent that the weapon essentially becomes part of you. You have more trust in its operation than the guy standing next to you. The weapon becomes part of you.

When they get out some choose to buy a legal version because they can operate that platform in complete darkness with more efficiency, and confidence than you could use a knife and fork with the lights on.

Then they teach others to shoot with it then most immediately fall in love with that platform. I have never missed on the range at 500 yards with open sights. It's a great platform.

However, I am surgical with a 12 guage, and just as good with my .454 casull. Then again I have been shooting, and hunting ever since I could walk. Not to mention the military service and all of my range time.
--------------------------------------- added after 8 minutes

Not to mention with a little training one could do a whole lot more damage with a shotgun or even a revolver. If all guns are banned or extremely regulated the nut jobs will find alternative means like jacking a hydrogen or propane truck. Look at Oklahoma City. You can't fix nuts...

By JustWill at 21,Jun,16 16:04 other posts of JustWill

The "they'll always find alternative means" argument just doesn't hold water, cumdump. It's much harder to jack a propane truck than it is to buy an assault rifle in the US. Either way, there is no point in making mass killings EASIER to commit. No one, despite what the NRA says, is talking about banning ALL guns. They are just talking about putting restrictions on the types of guns that a person can own.

By #201583 at 21,Jun,16 17:20

Sorry. But, man has been slaughtering men since the beginning of man. Do you seriously think it will ever change? Don't forget that swords, arrows, and spears have killed more people than guns. If you go to any truck stop you can pick up a truck with 40,000 pounds of payload and drive it well into any building.
Man is capable of complex thought and therfore you would think that they would realize that indifference can be overcome without ****.
A little girl gets shot and the whole country hears about it. A mother and her 4 kids get killed by a drunk driver and it's only local news. If they keep reporting the mass shooting crap and literally talking about it nationally for more than a week, these stinking losers are going to try for their sadistic week of fame. They stopped reporting and showing car chases out here, guess what doesn't happen much out here anymore?

By JustWill at 21,Jun,16 18:40 other posts of JustWill

Again, the "man has been slaughtering men since the beginning of man" argument is rhetorical BS. It suggests that we should just resign ourselves to mass slaughter, accept that the bodies are just going to pile-up no matter what, and do nothing to try and change it.
People have been dying from CANCER since the beginning of man. Therefore, it's totally ridiculous to waste time, money, and energy on finding a cure.
Perhaps the reason why you THINK that car chases aren't happening is because no one is talking about them.
There hasn't been anything on the news lately about malaria...so I guess that disease has been wiped-out for good.

By #201583 at 21,Jun,16 20:04

News control the hype. Drunks can't kill anyone without a car. The drunk gets blamed. A Chinese guy chops up nine people with a knife. The knee doesn't get the blame. A suicide bomber strikes, the explosives don't get the blame. A copy shots someone, the gun doesn't get the blame. A wake shots someone, the gun gets the blame. A gun is a tool. It can't function without an operator. They let just about anyone drive. But I have to pass all kinds of checks to buy a gun. I can't even buy the guns I want because of regulation. In 5th grade I had a .22 rifle and a 12 guage hanging on my bedroom wall. I have never even thought about shooting anyone. We settled disputes verbally or with fists. Sorry. But the Supreme Court has already spoke on this matter. The regulation and laws are in place. The police aren't reporting, the head shrinks aren't reporting. Hold them responsible, that's who I blame, not the tool.

By JustWill at 21,Jun,16 20:55 other posts of JustWill

Okay, here's the flaw in that argument:
All of the things you mention--cars, knives, explosives, Chinese guys, alcohol--exist for some other purpose and are being misused to cause death.
A GUN, on the other hand, ONLY exists as a tool used for killing. It's why they were invented...to KILL. The sole reason that that particular 'tool' was created is to make killing easier. That's it's only function. (And please don't bring up target shooting and collecting. The folks that created guns didn't say "Golly, I am bored. Maybe I should invent a device that would allow me to fire a deadly projectile at an inanimate object for the purposes of entertainment".)
If you have to pass a qualification test in order to drive, you should have to pass the same sort of test in order to own a firearm.

By #201583 at 22,Jun,16 02:16

Sorry. National average response time for **** to respond to a 911 call is 10 minutes. When **** can respond faster than 2,300 fps, I would agree with you. But, sport shooting is fun. With gun ownership comes a great responsibility. Actually guns don't make killing easier, lack of a conscious, morals,compassion...even with years of hunting, traing, and countless rounds fired it's just as hard to pull the trigger on a deer as it is to ring the neck of a chicken. Gangbangers are heartless. If they want to wack someone, gun or not, they are getting wacked. They should publish how many people get tied up and wacked with a Louisville, because it's a lot around here.

By #201583 at 22,Jun,16 12:05

If the firearm test would be as easy as the driving test, sure. I have never missed a single question. I drive about 65 miles a day. I set my cruise To the speed limit and sit in the right lane. When I work nights and get off at 22:30 and hit the expressway I merge with traffic doing the speed limit and cancel my cruise control when I hit the exit ramp 26 miles later. I get pushed off the road several times a year. This past school year I only managed to pass 9 vehicles while doing the speed limit. Why does the government allow the sales of vehicles that can go faster than maximum speed limit in the state, since speed kills. Regulation is not an answer. Try much stiffer and extremely harsh punishment. If someone breaks the law make punishment extreme. I know people that have no regard for laws. If a felon is found in possession of a firearm...whamo, work farm for life without parole. You get thrown in the slammer and you lose all your rights. No TV, no hot water, no time in the yard, minimal medical care, and a guarantee of only one meal a day unless on a work farm.
Then watch the crime rate drop dramatically.

By JustWill at 22,Jun,16 12:45 other posts of JustWill

Still, your "solution" is to let people die and THEN take action. I'm sure that all of the dead gunshot victims are glad to have made the sacrifice to bring a killer to justice.

By #201583 at 22,Jun,16 23:52

A life sentence without parole for possession of an unregistered firearm for a first offense. Treat all gangbangers as terrorist. Now for murder you have guys walking out the door after 5 years or sooner. Put a mandatory 10 prison sentence for first offense drinking and driving, and never receive your license for the rest of your life. Please...that would reduce murder. Like I said, you can't fix wacko. Wackos are unpredictable. The victims will see justice. The second wife didn't report and therfore is just as liable as the shooter.
I don't care how you paint the picture. I don't believe in punishing everyone for the actions
of a few, less than 1% of the population of 318,900,000. 30,000 gun deaths works out to 0.0000940734 percent of the population. (yes it's sad and I truly feel for the families) Now, even less of that percentage is ass-hats that committed murder with a firearm(multiple victims for a percentage of shooters). The judicial system needs to stiffen sentences, and stop sending criminals to summer camp. Crime would drop significantly, but you would never stop it. Unless you completely due away with rights, Barcode everyone, and installed microchips in their brains it will never happen. It's sad, a completely horrible tasting shit sandwich, but it is a harsh reality of human nature. Humans kill each other over religion, and shoes. Old people have been murdered for Pocket change and social security checks. You can't fix stupid. You can only prepare and say, "It will not happen to me."

By #435701 at 21,Jun,16 17:50

Since 2007 America is averaging 30,000 gun deaths a year...I defy you to tell me that could be managed with hammers, screwdrivers, icepicks, rocks and slingshots. England's average per year gun death...50. All because there are (comparatively) NO guns! You are an idiot and must belong to the NRA...BTW...I own a Sig 9 MM simply because America has so MANY guns in the hands of people like that indescribable asshole in Florida! I would NOT own it if America were actually a safe place to live and not be murdered by an assault rife, etc...You really should read a little more. And try to actually think.

By #201583 at 21,Jun,16 20:18

Funny, I wouldn't ever live there. Most of those gun deaths are gang and **** related, try reading a little more. I live outside of chicago and work next to the cook county line. Over 90% is gang related **** related. 30,000 is less than one percent, 0.0000940734 percent. One gun deaths is too many. But, national averge for 911 response time is 10 minutes. When the police can respond faster than 2,300 fps, I will gladly stand for stricter regulation.

By phart at 22,Jun,16 01:53 other posts of phart

I don't know where this reply will wind up on this flow chart.
But anyhow.
Some folks seem to forget once you give the government a inch they will take a mile.
This gun this year banned,next year it will be another until all gone. Read about Agenda 21. Part of it is to totally disarm America.
Also read in history that the Japanese did not invade mainland US because they expected behind every blade of grass there was a American with a gun.
If the liberals have it there way, a small group of dope dealers could take over the whole damn country in 3 days.

And someone ask, "do you expect to be attacked by a army in your kitchen?"
Well no,BUT here is the thing. When a crook decides to commit a crime, he knows what he is going to do,has what he feels he needs to do it . As a person in my kitchen cooking grits, I have no idea what the crook has planned. I am just standing there with a pot of hot water and the door crashes down. Now, I can have a single shot 22 rifle and hope for the best against the crooks gun with 9 bullets or more. Or I can have a Ak handy to grab and punch his ass full of holes and perhaps save my own life.
We can not expect to prepare for every incident, but having a gun with a couple 30 round clips does help to level the playing field for the innocent man minding his own business.
Again, it is miss use of the tool not the tool it's self.

By #201583 at 22,Jun,16 23:12

Exactly, better to have and not need, than need and not have...

By #201583 at 20,Jun,16 18:44

The government doesn't trust the military. In fact the military is disarmed until the men are in a controlled environment. While in the field Senators and foreign dignitaries would visit us to see demonstrations. Before they arrive they would line us all up and remove our firing pins.

On military bases weapons are secure in an armory and ammo is stored miles away in bunkers. Any small trained **** can overrun a base.

Our national Guard and reserves are so well regulated they couldn't stop a small attacking for-ce either. For starters about half of a unit takes about 4 to 5 hours for every one to report after being called. Next, and most importantly, their ammo stores are located in bunkers on military installations hundreds of miles away.

The guard and reserves are in fact smoke and mirrors. They are not even close to being able to stop an attacking for-ce. Unless guys running around with empty magazines inserted into their rifles yelling, "bang, bang" scares anyone.

"We The people" (armed citizens) keep our government from oppressing us as well as detour invasions.

The P-o-l-i-ce is only trained to contain and detain. Other than swat receiving some training, most have no real tactical knowledge.

SO, my question is now that you have knowledge on the competency of what gun grabbers consider a militia, what exactly is left to regulate?

FYI. Cars have killed more people in the United States than the combined total of every casualty from combat we have sustained since the revolutionary war TIMES TWO. Regulate drivers first. However, that would never happen because government does not care about you,they only desire your dollars...

By #510842 at 21,Jun,16 04:06

The naval base I was stationed at would probably do a pretty decent job of holding off a good sized attack. It was a small base with about two dozen smaller ships but I still think we could have done a pretty good defensive job. Each ship had three armed watch standers at any given time. An officer of the deck armed with a 9mm and 45 rounds, a brow watch also with a 9mm and 45 rounds as well as a 12GA with 5 in the tube and 10 spare and a rover again with the 9mm with 45 rounds as well as an M-4 with 90 rounds. The ships were also equipped with two Browning M2-HB 50 cal machine guns, one port and one starboard as well as two MK-19 40mm belt fed grenade launchers, again one port and one starboard. Granted the 50's and the MK-19's were not loaded at all times it would take all of about 5 minutes tops to have the locked and loaded as well as breaking out additional M-4's, 9mm's and any or all of the 3 or 4 M-60's that each ship carried. Now I've only been on naval bases, never set foot on an Army, A/F or Marine base but I can say with a lot of confidence that barring a Pearl Harbor type attack any given naval base would do a pretty good job of holding off any kind of attack.

By #201583 at 21,Jun,16 11:41

That's a ship. One could still take the base.

By #460385 at 21,Jun,16 12:17

I don't think there is a concern with terrorist taking over a NG Armory or a Reserve Station. There is nothing to gain and not enough people present to kill. And as far as our Bases being dry of ammo and under staffed. Can either one of you explain why that is?

By #201583 at 21,Jun,16 17:03

Bases aren't dry of ammo, it's kept in a bunker. The bunkers is secure. Giant steel doors. Ammo technicians only have the ability to open the bunkers. If there is no request for ammo to fill the guys lock up and set the alarm and go home and typically go bar hopping like most military men. On a typical week night (Monday through Thursday) they only have one or two MPS at a gate, two to three guys in squads, and maybe another two to three in the office. That is the only ammo and personnel with weapons on main side. About two thirds of all the personnel would be intoxicated. How hard do you think it would be? We used to bypass the main gate on foot at night to avoid getting caught for **** drinking. It made me think about how easy it would be. Most people think that the military has readily access to both weapons and ammo, truth is they have to schedule with the armorer to just pull a weapon out for weekly cleaning. In an emergency one would have to locate an armorer, an ammo technician to pick up the ammo, and call over to the command duty officer of the ammo technician to locate a tech to go unlock the bunkers. Then you have to find a sober 5 ton driver to take the ammo technician with the proper authority to withdraw the ammo. Hell, I had to go out to the field to set up artillery targets and my hummers oil pan was ripped open while off-roading on a Saturday. It took 14 hours to locate a sober driver and get to my location. Just think...

By #460385 at 21,Jun,16 17:52

I'm not arguing with you. But Bases over seas are different then Bases in the States. Security levels are based how hostile the region. Security levels here in the States will increase when the threat level hits "Bravo". But I do understand your point. Depending if your military service was pre 9/11. Things have changed a little.

By #201583 at 21,Jun,16 20:20

Not as much as you think.

By #510842 at 22,Jun,16 01:57

At the base I was stationed at it would be one of anywhere from 12 to 24 ships, depending upon how many were out to sea at the time, with 10 to 15 people after hours and a full ships crew during working hours that would be able and willing to defend the entire base. Between the armory on the base itself, which happened to be centrally located in the base, and the armories of the individual ships, that equates to a hell of a lot of firepower someone trying to take that base would be walking into.

By #514236 at 15,Jun,16 14:03

If you want your opinion on the internet, it will be given to you.

By JustWill at 21,Jun,16 18:25 other posts of JustWill

Unless you are deleted. Then, you will never know what your opinion is.

By #494374 at 16,Jun,16 00:09

First of all, I realize everyone has a right to make a post on here about whatever topic they want. But I have to say, I find it odd to make a post about such serious matters on a site where we come to look at cocks and pussies and jack off. To me it kind of trivializes the issue. I never thought I would be on a site where I get a message from a dude who wants to pound me all night then 10 seconds later read a post about terrorism and right to bare arms, lol. Am I the only one mystified by this?

By bella! at 16,Jun,16 00:35 other posts of bella!

You're probably not the only one who feels the way you do HOWEVER, just because this is an adult site, there should be more substance to SYD. Yeah, there's the guy who wants to pound your ass into next week and the other folks who post and beg; "look at my cock, look at my cock and please rate it" while other members post pictures hoping that you will comment on their jizz filled face, the forum is THE place for adult based conversation and to exchange ideas and thoughts on things other than cocks and gaping pussies, no?

By #460385 at 16,Jun,16 01:22

I agree. Some of us use this Forum as an outlet. I don't speak to people, family or friends about my past, religion, or politics. It's much easier to express myself here to people I don't know. If that makes sense. As the forum gets really boring with the same old topics about "look at my page I love all men" and "dudes getting off on showing his dick to his s-ister" and "show your gaping asshole pics".

--------------------------------------- added after 3 minutes

Oh and don't forget about "pissing at urinals" that one has been around for 5 years.

By big9inch21 at 16,Jun,16 01:55 other posts of big9inch21

CB54, you gotta love the "pissing at urinal" threads

By bella! at 16,Jun,16 06:42 other posts of bella!

@ big9inch21.......WHY?

That thread clearly separates SYD from SYC members. I wonder if the ladies would agree, we sit or squat while we tinkle rather than stand while having a raging piss!

By bella! at 16,Jun,16 06:45 other posts of bella!

@ countryboy, why don't you or aren't you able to speak to people, family or friends about your past, religion or politics?

By #460385 at 16,Jun,16 13:14

It's not that I'm not able too, I just choose not too. Religion and politics always ends in an argument. And my military past I keep to myself. My boys have asked questions before and I have talked with them. But that's about it. Of course my wife knows most of it. But it is easier to debate with strangers than family.

By bella! at 16,Jun,16 14:06 other posts of bella!

Discussions relating to religion and politics don't always end up in an argument. When you see that the thick headed ninny is not grasping your views, just remember to say something to this affect; "Let's change the subject, you don't seem smart enough to understand."

By JustWill at 16,Jun,16 12:43 other posts of JustWill

I'm not sure how the venue in which a subject is discussed can "trivialize" it. When people come together to exchange thoughtful views on any topic, no matter where they hold that discussion, it is a worthy endeavor.

By #210252 at 15,Jun,16 06:22

At the time the Constitution and Bill of rights were written the term regulated meant in good working order . Pull your head out of your ass and put the blame where it belongs . Do some research before you try to school others and keep your personal opinions out of it . If you want a government that dictates your every move then by all means leave the U.S. for a more socialist nation .

By JustWill at 15,Jun,16 13:52 other posts of JustWill

Golly, there's that silly IRONY thing again!
For someone who insists that I keep my "personal opinions" out of my posts, you sure seem to include a lot of "personal opinions" in your own.
What makes you so special?
Folk like you seem to have a great deal of trouble with the whole "their rights are just as important as mine" concept.
As to your "At the time the Constitution and Bill of rights were written the term regulated meant in good working order" nonsense, if you want to get into a discussion about LANGUAGE and its USAGE, I'm ready to do so whenever you are. (I'll even toss in some free instruction on how to use a comma...just because I like to be helpful that way.)
--------------------------------------- added after 8 hours

And, for what it's worth, the term "regulated" meant exactly the same thing back then as it does now.

"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state..."

New Comment