LengAwaits

You are technically correct, which is the best kind of correct!

I should have been more precise.

I didn't intend to suggest that they redefined the word, I didn't say that as such, but I agree that they may have made official changes to the word (splitting it, as you say) in some fashion.

It does read a bit like a federal power play meant to consolidate power, though the re-framing of the word "Militia" was not subsequently used as a way to undermine the 2nd amendment, as one might suspect if that were the case. One must wonder if the NRA (established in 1871), or another interested party, had any hand in influencing Charles Dick's advancement of this legislation.

To me it reads more as a way to protect the 2nd amendment's "militia" verbiage from scrutiny.

I don't know any lawyers personally, so I can't ask them. It sounds as though you might have some sources you could provide, though, if you're parroting them? I'd love to read more if you have any links handy. I tried searching the web for the phrase but was unsuccessful.

I did find the Wikipedia article on the word "militia" and it suggests that the accepted "official" definition may have been changed by the "Militia Act of 1903".

I do find it interesting how one can change the constitution by making official changes to the meanings of language, without a constitutional amendment. That seems concerning.

So, a militia, in your interpretation is:

"A group of able bodied males who posses firearms and who are organized, in good working order, by their local government."

Or do I have it wrong? I'm not trying to put words into your mouth, only to understand.

“Well regulated” translated from 1700’s speak just means “in good working order”, not meaning regulated by a bureaucracy issuing permits.

Assuming that to be true, what does "militia" mean when translated from 1700's speak?

Absolutely! Thankfully. Just tipping their hand with regards to the ridiculous bullshit they'll try use to prevent a Trump vs Obama situation.

Unfortunately, the legislative policy that's being floated in the House is that a president can seek a third term only if their first two terms were non-consecutive. (Source)

So let me follow your logic, then.

I'm saying I'm dumb just to "sound like an intellectual". But saying I'm dumb actually doesn't make me sound like an intellectual, like you think I think. I just am dumb, like I've been saying all this time, genuinely, with no audience other than you on a dead thread.

Whew. That's a pretzel if I ever saw one.

Have you ever considered that there might be people out there who don't think they're as smart as you seem believe that you are?

I'm not an intellectual. I'm a 40-something man who has seen some shit and learned a lot, but never had the luxury of a college education. Of course I'd like to improve myself, who wouldn't? For me that means acknowledging that I'm not as smart as I wish I were.

That said, if you wanna exchange addresses we could be real life pen-pals. I'm enjoying talking with you. You're not as dumb as you think I am.

Can't even answer a direct question.

How does self-deprecation make one sound like an intellectual, exactly?

So you're a mind-reader and smarter than me?

I'm not in the habit of saying things I don't mean. How does self-deprecation make one sound like an intellectual, exactly?

I am not a smart man. I do my best to get smarter every day, but I'm not inherently intelligent.

Not my intent to question the efficacy of medication, for sure. Just engaging with the reality that many people are medicating against factors that aren't caused by brain chemistry.