Even CNN acknowledges the true meaning of “well regulated”

CNN, aka the “Clinton News Network”, has published a surprisingly even-handed analysis of the Second Amendment.  Key quote:

“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state.”

One response to “Even CNN acknowledges the true meaning of “well regulated”

  1. Today is August 12; I have just listened to Episode 8 of the GOAL podcast, so this commentary is being furnished a couple months after the fact.

    When I heard Mike from Lexington mention that Dr Rotberg is internationally known in his field, I looked up his Wikipedia page…
    … and his personal blog:

    I find it more than ironic that a good deal of the Professor’s academic work has involved the study of repressive regimes and failed states. As those of us familiar with “2A issues” know all too well, disarming the population is always an early step taken by those who want to usurp liberty for the sake of some utopian vision of “how society should be”. Over and over we have seen how, in order to fully implement such an “enlightened” vision and ensure “social justice”, complete top-down control of the population MUST be instituted. And the only form of government that will ensure 100% compliance by the population must be… a repressive regime quite possibly leading to a failed state; the very situation Dr Rotberg has so strongly opposed during his long career!

    On his personal blogsite, Dr Rotberg’s list of publications includes a book he edited, published in 2010, titled Mass Atrocity Crimes: Preventing Future Outrages (https://www.amazon.com/Mass-Atrocity-Crimes-Preventing-Outrages/dp/0815704712), of which he is the editor. This work is a compendium of articles by Dr Rotberg and 11 other authors.

    I have not read the book, but Amazon.com describes the overall viewpoint shared by the book’s contributors as:

    “When states cannot—or will not—protect their citizens, … the international community must step into the breach.
    “Why have efforts to stop horrific state-sanctioned crimes seen only limited success, despite widespread support of R2P [ie, the UN’s “Responsibility to Protect” doctrine]? As this enlightening volume explains and illustrates, converting a norm into effective preventive measures remains difficult. The contributors examine the legal framework to inhibit war crimes, use of the emerging R2P norm, the role of the International Criminal Court, and new technologically sophisticated methods to gather early warnings of likely atrocity outbreaks. Together they show how mass atrocities may be anticipated, how they may be prevented, and when necessary, how they may be prosecuted.”

    If this is a fair summary, then I suspect that Dr Rotberg and his colleagues sincerely believe that the only legitimate way to ensure good government and defend against tyranny is… “big government” — and ideally, a REALLY BIG, worldwide authority like the European Union or the United Nations. Perhaps failing to understand that self-defense is a natural right– and possibly unfamiliar with the very concept of “natural rights” itself– it would only make sense that Dr Rotberg may harbor a deep-seated mistrust of ordinary citizens, and view our capability to wisely govern ourselves, much less wisely defend ourselves, with a great deal of skepticism. How he arrived at such conclusions would be fascinating to learn.

    But the “Big Brother has a Responsibility to Protect us” viewpoint fails when taking world history itself consideration. Sadly, there are many well documented historical examples of governing bodies and ambitious individuals seizing power, once forced disarmament of the population has been accomplished. The following link from the Warrior Times blog lists a number of well known 20th and 21st-Century examples :

    Based on our historical experience, the one thing we may state with 100% confidence is: those who wish to do harm to their fellow citizens and exchange the civil society for one of tyranny and oppression, will NOT be turning in THEIR guns! Nor will those who wish to rob or destroy the property of fellow citizens, or gratuitously do them harm.

    Although I am not a Lexington resident, I respectfully encourage all patriots to consider the following: there are many citizens who are ignorant of the above facts; who do not know our Constitution or world history, having been educated according to the Howard Zinn and Bill Ayers revisionist model that substitutes cultural Marxism in place of authentic world history and American history. A brief lesson with true, well documented historical examples of what takes place following wholesale disarmament of the civilian population would add innumerable value to a “town-wide” discussion. Who knows, by the end of the evening it’s possible that the citizenry might even learn a thing or two!

    I am most concerned, however, that the current proposals for the “town-wide discussion” appear limited to engaging an outside consulting firm to host the event. Not only is this proposal, if implemented, likely to run into many thousands of dollars. In addition, if the “consultants” themselves are products of an education system where they learned only revisionist history, or no history, it’s quite possible that actual historical events such as listed in the Warrior Times (see link, above) will be completely overlooked.

    Why not create a “town reading list”? Why not offer historical movies, followed by small group discussion? Why spend the taxpayers’ money to stage an event where everyone feels good, but no one learns anything in the end?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *