What if "Regulated" really means "Regulated"?


PDA






ReadyontheRight
February 9, 2004, 12:16 PM
I've been thinking about this one for a while.

"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."

What if the word "regulated" simply means ... "regulated"?

Regulated means "subject to regulations of a superior authority". I certainly want the power of any militia to be regulated by a superior authority.

Who is the superior, ultimate authority in our form of government? The PEOPLE.

If you look at the analysis of Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California from the September 13, 1991 issue of GUN WEEK: THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman at this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=63764

Specifically, Professor Copperud analyzes the word "regulated" in the Second Amendment.

"...[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military. ..."

According to Professor Copperud, the word "regulated" really fits our modern definition of "regulated".

And -- as described above (and elsewhere in the founding documents), the PEOPLE are the superior authority of any US government or its military.

Then, the right to keep and bear arms would provide the People with an effective means for civilian control over a corrupt government in control of the military.

We jump through a lot of hoops defining "militia", "well-regulated", "the people", etc., but looking at it this way makes the 2nd Amendment very straightforward -- the people are armed to control (regulate) the power of the military and keep our free state secure.

This sure fits with the thinking of the Founding Fathers and supports my view of the value of RKBA, but I've never before seen the 2nd Amendment described this way. Am I missing something?

What do you think?

If you enjoyed reading about "What if "Regulated" really means "Regulated"?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Mark Tyson
February 9, 2004, 12:23 PM
That's kind of a stretch. The constitution, when it mentions the militia, clearly has a top down chain of command in mind. It says the militia exists to suppress insurrections, not create them. State's appint the militia's officers. Militia members can be called into service of the United States, the President is CINC of the militia, Congress provides for the organizing and arming of the militia, etc.

The right to revolt exists in theory when a government becomes tyrannical.

This doesn't mean that the militia is authorized to take over the federal government.

ReadyontheRight
February 9, 2004, 12:42 PM
This doesn't mean that the militia is authorized to take over the federal government.

In countries that supress RKBA, the military has been known to take over the federal government -- it's called a Coup. The authority comes out of the fact that they are the only ones with guns. RKBA is one means to prevent this.

Bruce H
February 9, 2004, 12:42 PM
I've thought that was the proper definition ever since school. The well regulated part is to stop every Tom, Dick, and Harriet from having their own standing armies. Back when the constitution was written there were still several independent feifdoms in Europe. The founders wanted to stop this before it started.

MeekandMild
February 9, 2004, 01:02 PM
I went so far as to get my public library to borrow me a copy of a dictionary which was used in the 1700's. IMHO the sense of 'regulated' was to train the militia to move and fire together like a 'well regulated' clock. In those days military firepower was all about staying together, moving together, shooting together and reloading together. As Heinlien would say "by the numbers and on the bounce". The higher authority back then was composed of elected officers and whichever local big boy who could afford to support a cannon.

ReadyontheRight
February 9, 2004, 01:05 PM
The well regulated part is to stop every Tom, Dick, and Harriet from having their own standing armies.

That makes sense Bruce H.

I've always thought that without rifles, settling the United States would have required fiefdoms, lords, dukes, etc. to organize and protect regions.

When each man has a rifle, you don't need a "Lord" to protect you and your land from all but the largest invasions.

Waitone
February 9, 2004, 01:59 PM
Substitute the proposed definition of "regulated" then place it next to the definition of "infringe" and you get a nonsensical statement.

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military. ..."

According to Professor Copperud, the word "regulated" really fits our modern definition of "regulated".

1 : to encroach upon in a way that violates law or the rights of another *infringe a patent*--from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary

Sam Adams
February 9, 2004, 03:55 PM
Ditto, what Waitone said. If something is called a "right," but it can be regulated ad infinitum, then it ISN'T a right - it is a privilege. This CANNOT be what the drafters of the 2nd Amendment could have intended.

IMHO, backed up by the Federalist papers and other writings contemporary to the adoption of the Constitution and the BOR, the People instituted a government of limited powers. They were very afraid of the potential for tyranny embodied in a powerful central government (like that of England, which they had just bloodily defeated less than a decade before), so they split the government's limited powers into three co-equal and self-interested branches. Further, certain rights (which PRECEDED THE EXISTENCE OF THE COUNTRY) were viewed as being SO IMPORTANT that they were specifically placed outside of the sphere of activities in which the government was permitted/authorized to act. Within those amendments, the Constitutional "reset" button is the 2nd Amendment - which, unlike all of the other amendments, absolutely protects the right in question (...the right of the People to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT be infringed). The objective of its passage was to ensure that the People would ALWAYS possess the actual means by which to sweep away a tyrannical government (and not merely the theoretical right to do so, as was so eloquently stated in the Declaration of Independence) and start over, should the noble experiment of the Constitution fail to prevent such a tyranny.

ReadyontheRight
February 9, 2004, 04:34 PM
If something is called a "right," but it can be regulated ad infinitum, then it ISN'T a right - it is a privilege. This CANNOT be what the drafters of the 2nd Amendment could have intended.

Maybe I'm not making myself clear. I know the traditional defense of the 2nd Amendment and the concept of rights vs. priviledges.

If you consider the "militia" to mean the US military (the founders did not want a standing army) mustered in times of war, the power of a well-armed populace -- which is a right that shall not be infringed -- would regulate any misuse of that military force.

So -- if "regulate" means "subject to regulations of a superior authority", It's the military that needs regulating, and a well-armed populace is the only means to do so.

If we take Militia to mean those between 18-45, can't they then take away our guns when we all turn 45?

bjengs
February 9, 2004, 04:47 PM
Try this (modern low brow English):

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is largely because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

That is a correct grammatical reorganization of the second amendment. My reason for pointing this out is that the words "regulated" and "right" do not have any interplay whatsoever.

As to the definition of "regulated," it has become clear to many (myself included) that it refers to a sense of organization, whether voluntary or by law. This, in turn, refers to both training (per MeekandMild) and structure (to some degree per Bruce H). Thus it was to be a structured organization of commoners who, only in time of homeland defense, would temporarily trade their proverbial plowshares and join their specific squad->platoon->company->battalion etc. (organized per the 2A) with which they had been training (per the 2A) every so often.

Specifically, NO standing army.
Specifically, NOT NECESSARILY a branch of government, although its being in the Federal Constitution certainly requires that there be a higher staff level than just State regiments.
Specifically, though it was mostly to ensure that the militias were maintained, it is a reiteration of the personal right to defend oneself and one's country using one's own means.

grnzbra
February 9, 2004, 05:09 PM
If a well regulated militia referred to some way to control from the top down, the word "free" wouldn't be necessary. The same statement could apply to any dictatorship in the world. You want a well regulated armed group to keep yourself in power and those under you from removing you from power.

Keep in mind, that these people had just engaged in the violent overthrow of the duly constituted government of the time. They did this for a reason and it seems to me that the whole purpose of 2A is to guarantee that the people of this country have the ability to do it again, if necessary.

greg700
February 9, 2004, 05:28 PM
Actually, I think it is irrelevant.

It could read "A government controlled and restricted militia...." and it would not make a difference in the right upheld by the second amendment. Of course, the courts wouldn't see it that way....

The term "well regulated" occurs in the statement of purpose, which was included to help illuminate the reasons why the founding fathers had to make an amendment that read "the right of the people to keep....." A statement of purpose occurs in several other places in the BOR, and the courts have ruled that it is irrelevant to the legal interpretation of the actual amendments with which they are included.

So legally speaking, what we actually have is a second amendment that reads "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

At least, that's my take, I could be wrong.

bjengs
February 9, 2004, 05:42 PM
greg700: Glad we agree.

The point I did not mention is the one that you did, namely that the bit about "militia" is not part of the law itself. It's like passing a law that makes drunk driving illegal: "The drinking of alcohol being a detriment to one's health, the penalty for driving while inebriated is double the normal vehicle accident penalty." This would not be the same as a law banning alcohol!

BowStreetRunner
February 9, 2004, 06:13 PM
it is my understanding, and i may be wrong, that regulated may have meant (and still may in England) to mean something more like "good working order" or " well armed"
anyone have a perspective on this??
BSR

Jrob24
February 9, 2004, 06:16 PM
IMHO the sense of 'regulated' was to train the militia to move and fire together like a 'well regulated' clock

I looked up "well regulated" in the oxford english dictionary and the clock example was used for an early 19th century example. Therefore it is fitting that the 2nd Am refers to a "functioning" militia.

Standing Wolf
February 9, 2004, 08:26 PM
Am I missing something?

Yep. Sorry. The Second Amendment means the federal government shall not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms—period. No more. No less.

LiquidTension
February 9, 2004, 09:23 PM
Standing Wolf - you're preaching to the choir. This discussion is more so we can shoot down the anti's flawed interpretation of the 2A, IMO. Oh yeah, and to answer ReadyontheRight's question :)

AZRickD
February 9, 2004, 09:36 PM
Here is what "well-regulated" meant back then...

From the “General Principles of Constitutional Law” by Thomas Cooley, which was the main text used by law schools in the mid to late 19th century:
“The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon...If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet in voluntary discipline in arms, observing in so doing the laws of public order.”
And just in case you think that the Constitution grant the Feds or the States to disarm We the Goodguys...

William W. Rawle, A View of the Constitution 125 (2d ed. 1829) was the author of "A View of the Constitution of the United States of America." His work was adopted as a constitutional law textbook at West Point. He is quoted by Stephen P. Halbrook in "That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Consitutional Right" as follows.
"In the Second Article, it is declared that a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state: a proposition from which few will dissent. Although in actual war, the services of regular troops are confessedly more valuable, yet ... the militia form the palladium of the country .... The corollary from the first position is, that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. THE PROHIBITION IS GENERAL. NO clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a right to DISARM THE PEOPLE." Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But, if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

grnzbra
February 9, 2004, 09:39 PM
Yep. Sorry. The Second Amendment means the federal government shall not infringe the right of the people to

So, it's all right for the states to infringe? How about quartering troops? Free speech? Self-incrimination? Is it all right for the states to do those things also?

deanf
February 9, 2004, 10:30 PM
The problem that many antis fall into is forgetting that the government has only those powers specifically delgated to it by us in the Constitution. The 2A delegates no authority to the government whatsoever, no matter the many definitions of the words in question.

Even if the 2A was only meant to protect the ability of states to arm militias, the government still has no authority whatsoever to regulate the private use and possession of arms.

ReadyontheRight
February 9, 2004, 10:50 PM
You guys are arguing back with the standard interpretations as if I were an anti. I'm asking you to think about the words in a way I've never seen.

If it were interpreted this way, I think it would help our cause -- so I'm wondering why it's not interpreted this way.

Let me try it this way...

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

Agreed -- that is the essance of the Second Amendment.

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

This is where the anti's think they have us. To them it says that the militia -- or military forces -- is the group that should be allowed to have arms to protect the state. We all agree this is ridiculous -- why would the government tell itself it can have arms for the army in a document that otherwise limits the power of that government?

So...why is it so important that the people be armed? It's not for hunting, it's not for self-defense from crazed druggies -- it's to stand up to tyranny.

Tyranny is not imposed by some crazy dictator, it's a crazy dictator or charming committee backed up by a military or police force that imposes its will upon people to turn them into subjects.

Without a military, no tyrant.

So any military must be controlled, or regulated to ensure the security of the free state.

Who better to maintain control over a rogue military than an armed populace?

This interpretation certainly isn't politically correct, but it fits well with the reason I want me and my countrymen armed - protection from tyrannical rule imposed by a military force. I still can't see why pro-RKBA forces have not interpreted the 2nd Amendment this way.

Standing Wolf
February 9, 2004, 10:56 PM
So, it's all right for the states to infringe? How about quartering troops? Free speech? Self-incrimination? Is it all right for the states to do those things also?

Nope. All I meant to point out is what the Second Amendment does: prevents the federal government from infringing our right to keep and bear arms. Other amendments and state constitutions—in theory, at least—prevent states from doing so.

labgrade
February 10, 2004, 02:01 AM
Every one of the first 10 are a firm restriction on the federal guv to just keep their hands off every bit of what was written - the whole point they were written in the first place.

Really as simple as that.

What the antis don't get, or rather choose not to, is that the miltia is, by definition, a (mumble - somebody help me out here) a 1798, or so, law which defined it as so.

Every intent of the founders was to ensure the federal government didn't get out of control (too much - I know ;) , there's the Federalists & anti-Federalists, etc. arguments, but still, .... ) - the first Big Ten are very firm restrictions on any intervention whatsoever.

grnzbra
February 10, 2004, 09:58 AM
Other amendments and state constitutions—in theory, at least—prevent states from doing so.

If 2A only limits the actions of the fed, why don't the rest only limit the actions of the fed? Seems to me that 10A limits that actions of the fed to those specifically given to the fed by the constitution (which is why ATF has historically been an agency of the treasury - constitution says it's ok for the fed to impose taxes) and the rest restricted the states, regardless of the states constitutions.

Nowhere does COTUS give the feds the right to control firearms. Therefore, why do we need 2A to control the fed? It must be a control on the states. (Unless, of course, it is to prevent the fed from taxing private firearms out of existance)

AZRickD
February 10, 2004, 10:01 AM
grnzbra, did you not read my post?

You wrote: "If 2A only limits the actions of the fed, why don't the rest only limit the actions of the fed?"
NO clause in the Constitution could by any rule of construction be conceived to give Congress a right to DISARM THE PEOPLE. Such a flagitious attempt could only be made under some general pretence by a state legislature. But, if in any blind pursuit of inordinate power, either should attempt it, this amendment may be appealed to as a restraint on both."

ctdonath
February 10, 2004, 10:32 AM
IF - a big "if" - the word "regulated" referred to the modern socialist understanding thereof, the government would have an implicit duty/obligation to facilitate exercise of the activity.

Analogy: cars.
Driving automobiles is obviously "well-regulated" (in the modern socialist understanding thereof). This does not mean the gov't does all it can to hinder ownership and use (beyond basic widely-accepted safety limits); cars capable of exceeding 55MPH are not banned, nor are cars prohibited within 500' of schools. This does mean that in exchange for certain (arguably) socially beneficial regulation (traffic lights, drive on the right side, inspections, registration, speed limits, etc.), the gov't does a great deal to facilitate vehicular travel (build/maintain roads, plow snow, clean up accidents, apprehend drunks, etc.). Sure we have to put up with a lot of "regulation" to drive, but it sure is handy for the gov't to provide a clear path from my home to work (50 miles in 50 minutes).

This is in stark contrast to most people who insist RKBA's "regulated" definition be modern. If they are serious about a "well-regulated militia" they MUST insist on allowing (at minimum) standard world-class modern arms, complete with gov't-provided training (conveniently located and mostly $free) geared toward actual "security of a free state". Instead, the socialist "regulated" crowd only uses "regulated" to justify restrictions and infringements designed solely to inhibit, and ultimately prohibit, RKBA. If they are serious about the 2nd's first clause, they must insist on lawful ownership of M16s and turning the CMP into a real homeland-security train-the-citizens organization.

No, the National Guard does not count: just as driving on a freeway does not conscript you to be a federal courier for 2 years, exercising RKBA should not make you liable for 2 years in Iraq.

If anyone suggests "regulated means regulated (modern definition)", ask them if their method of "regulation" facilitates "security of a free state" thru ability to effectively participate in the militia. If they insist on "regulated", make them support the WHOLE 2nd; they're not allowed to pick-and-choose any more than we are.

ReadyontheRight
February 10, 2004, 11:05 AM
Please read the thread detail and not just the subject before responding.

"Regulated" applies to the word "Militia", not to the word "Arms" or to the word "People".

My question applies to the concept of an armed populace being the only means to control/regulate a tyranical militia.

grnzbra
February 10, 2004, 12:27 PM
armed populace being the only means to control/regulate a tyranical militia

If so, wouldn't it be "Regulation of the militia, being necessary..."? But I do agree with the concept. An armed populace is necessary to keep the rulers in line. To me 2A is to be a Sword of Damocles over the heads of the politicos; a way of saying "You will go this far and no further!". Ah, but who am I kidding. The politicos would just unlimber the spinmeisters and convince everyone that slavery is freedom (Sounds awfully like "Arbeit macht Frei!").

As far as the application of the ammendment (does it limit the fed or the states), the question still stands. If 2A only limits the feds, then the states can say, "No guns." and they could also say "No printing presses" and "To hell with Miranda!".

Any time the feds want to get rid of the guns constitutionally, all they need is an ammendment.

Mark Tyson
February 10, 2004, 12:36 PM
Remember that most state constitutions have a right to bear arms amendment in it. Most are worded similarly to the federal constitution. They associate a right to bear arms with the militia, but also state that there is a personal, individual right as well. This is a false dilemma tha antis are creating: either the 2nd amendment means that the government can maintain state militias or individuals have a right to own guns. It's both.

And what's the point of a state constitutional right to bear arms? To prevent the state from disarming its own militia? Gibberish. Nonsense. Horse apples. The antis are full of it and they know it.

Dex Sinister
February 10, 2004, 01:23 PM
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

This is where the anti's think they have us. To them it says that the militia -- or military forces -- is the group that should be allowed to have arms to protect the state. We all agree this is ridiculous -- why would the government tell itself it can have arms for the army in a document that otherwise limits the power of that government?

So...why is it so important that the people be armed? It's not for hunting, it's not for self-defense from crazed druggies -- it's to stand up to tyranny.

Tyranny is not imposed by some crazy dictator, it's a crazy dictator or charming committee backed up by a military or police force that imposes its will upon people to turn them into subjects.

Without a military, no tyrant.

So any military must be controlled, or regulated to ensure the security of the free state.

Who better to maintain control over a rogue military than an armed populace?

This interpretation certainly isn't politically correct, but it fits well with the reason I want me and my countrymen armed - protection from tyrannical rule imposed by a military force. I still can't see why pro-RKBA forces have not interpreted the 2nd Amendment this way.

The difficulty here, I think, is not that the idea is a bad one, but simply that the text does not support the idea in a useful way.

Your idea would be applicable if the amendment said ]"A well regulated military, being necessary to the security of a free state," – as one possible interpretation of regulating the military would be for an armed populace to “regulate” it by suppressing it by force of arms if necessary.

However, as the FF’s made a clear distinction between the military (“standing armies”) and the militia (made up of the armed populace) I think that your suggestion would logically self-destruct in actual use, as your idea requires “militia” to be interpreted as “standing army”.

Logically, once you advance such an argument, all one would have to do to argue against it would be to accept your premises as correct, and then show that the word “militia” could not mean “standing army.”

Once that was done, you would then, having advanced the argument, logically be honor-bound to agree that the FF’s intended “someone” to regulate ("subject to regulations of a superior authority") possession of arms of the militia (the people at large.) The only debate then would be who “someone” was, and an anti would simply argue that it was either the government, as granted therein, or the people in general, as expressed by the democratic process, which of course devolves right back to control by the government.

Dex }:>=-

MeekandMild
February 10, 2004, 01:54 PM
FWIW the highest authority in the 1700s was somebody's cousin or friend down the road. The population of the entire US in 1780 was less than 3 million, less than the population of ALABAMA now. Thomas Jefferson lived in a boarding house with common citizens when he was elected president!

They just didn't have megagovernments back then and there is no reasonable way we can construct 'well regulated' to imply anything like the modern meaning .:banghead:

ReadyontheRight
February 10, 2004, 02:09 PM
Dex -- I think you've got my answer. Thank you!

The distinction between "militia" and "military" when this was written clears it up for me. I always assumed the Founding Fathers were against a standing army, so the militia WAS the US army.

It also makes a lot of sense -- to MeekandMild's point -- that "regulated" as we know it now would be a foreign concept to those who seek to limit government.

Oh how far we've slipped down the slope.

Thanks all!

ctdonath
February 10, 2004, 03:07 PM
ReadyontheRight:

"Regulated" applies to the word "Militia", not to the word "Arms" or to the word "People". My question applies to the concept of an armed populace being the only means to control/regulate a tyranical militia.

Ah, I see the confusion.

"Militia", as legally defined, means (for most practical purposes) all of us. The armed populace is the militia - that's what the Founding Fathers meant, and that's what current law says.

My prior answer addressed the point that in "regulating", antis are not regulating the militia in such a way as to promote "the security of a free state".

What you seem to be saying is that an armed populace is regulating the military/government, standing ready to hit "reset" if need be. Well ... yeah! Different technical line of reasoning, but same basic result.

Who constitutes the "militia"?

According to the Founding Fathers, the "militia" is the whole populace able to act in that capacity. A great many quotes show this is their intent, with few to none indicating anything to the contrary. To that end, "a well-regulated militia" is "the people" well-equipped.

If one attempts to interpret "regulated" as you are (i.e.: as the antis often insincerely insist), the "militia" is the "military" (i.e.: standing army plus formal reserves), and the 2nd calls for "the people" to be well-equipped to regulate the militia.

However you look at it, we end up with an armed populace.

iapetus
February 10, 2004, 04:04 PM
What I've read here and else where mainly convinces me otherwise.

But on my road from conversion from anti to pro, I did have a "sudden realisation" that that was what it might mean.

"We need an army to defend the state".
"And the people must be armed to keep the army in line".


Although I now think its probably (and rather clumsily worded) "An armed population is necessary for security and freedom, so don't disarm us".

grnzbra
February 10, 2004, 04:26 PM
Please check this out (http://home.comcast.net/~e.franzen/224Helicopter_Kills.mpeg) and then tell me about an armed citizenry keeping the military in line.

ctdonath
February 10, 2004, 05:18 PM
I'll tell you about an armed citizenry keeping the military in line.

Every year some 14,000,000 snipers fully equipped with cammo, transport, GPS, maps, communications, intel, rations, and other military equipment go on exercise maneuvers throughout the country during a few weeks every fall. That's more than the sum total of the four biggest formal militaries combined. Every member of this militia operates completely independently, or as part of small, nearly impenetrable cells. They practice their skills on highly alert live targets. Every single one keeps and maintains his own equipment. Only voluntarily do they alert the state to their activities and success, and only voluntarily make themselves visible to the general public via bright orange markings, as they participate in Operation Deer Season.

Don't scoff at what that means to the security of a free state.

Yes, I have seen the video you refer to. Yes, it is very impressive. The effort that went into that strike was huge - and that was three obvious tangos standing out in a desert. Imagine the "tango" is just another face in the crowd ... or that he's piloting that Apache.

grnzbra
February 10, 2004, 09:21 PM
I seriously doubt that there are 14 million Carlos Hathcocks out there, but you are barking up the right tree. I just don't think they'd do too well against that. Pick a different target.

ctdonath
February 10, 2004, 09:29 PM
If 1% of 1% are "Carlos Hathcocks" as you put it (and it's not THAT hard to hit a 1m target from 1000m), that's 1400 out there ... and they are part of the populace.

The pilot has to get out and pee some time.

M1911Owner
February 10, 2004, 10:13 PM
Well, look at how well the U.S., at pretty much maximum motivation, did against Muhammad and Malvo--the two of them pretty much did what they wanted to, and only got caught because they were trying to get caught.

(Yeah, I know that they were only up against the civilian police force, not the military. And Chief Moose, at that. But, on the side of the equation, as has been pointed out many times here in THR, they were a long way from what a trained sniper would call "snipers.")

grnzbra
February 11, 2004, 09:45 AM
The incident in DC was being handled from a law enforcement standpoint; they wanted to catch the shooters. End of story. However, if we are trying to control an out of control military, the best we can hope for is something like that faced by our opponants in Iraq at the height of the war; the military trying to minimize non-combatant casualties.

I don't think that would happen in the case we are discussing. We would be demonized as crazies and they would be quite happy to kill our families to get to us. Therefore, if I were running the show from our side, I would definitely go with the long range shooters, but I would avoid engaging the military, because they, too, have long range shooters who could be assumed to have better equipment (Gen 3 night vision seems to be top of the line that available to us - I expect they might have Gen 5 or 6) than we (whatever we have going in would be about it - any resupply would have to be liberated - wasn't this part of the south's problem during the Civil War?).

We could only "win" if someone on the other side chose to let us win by saying "Enough". In a fight to the last man standing, the last man would be military.

Coltdriver
February 11, 2004, 10:21 AM
Go to the oxford english dictionary. The meanings now are the same as they were then.

Regulated means supplied. A Well Supplied...............

The authors were also pretty good at the use of the english language.

The first part of the sentence in no way modifies the second part. I have posted an analysis of the 2nd amendment from an English professor who wrote the analysis without regard to anything but the structure of the english sentence used in the amendment. It is absolutley clear that you have a right to keep and to bear arms, period.

The founding fathers knew that ownership of guns would always present an implied threat to those who would run our government. Its not the hunting amendment.

If the members of the government have no intention of taking our freedom, what are they all in an uproar about? They are all about arguments they can use to dis arm you and make you into a defenseless subject.

All freedom through the history of this country and through out the world issues forth from the barrel of a gun. All suppression of freedom also issues forth from the barrel of a gun. Namby pamby parasites of freedom known as liberals are either too much of a sissy (in the name of high brow cultural sophistication) to acknowledge this or they are tyrannical enough to know their desires can not be realized while citizens are armed. Each type of liberal supports the other.

Make no mistake about it, you have every right to keep and to bear arms.

zahc
February 11, 2004, 10:27 AM
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is largely because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."

Just in case you use that agian, you forgot "of the people" which I think is really important.

The Real Hawkeye
February 11, 2004, 11:10 AM
This is real simple, folks. The language is clear. The Second Amendment merely states 1) what is necessary for the security of a free state, i.e., a well regulated militia (so far, no rights are mentioned), while 2) guaranteeing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You see, if you infringe on that right, then a militia (well regulated or otherwise) is not possible, as a militia is by definition made up of people bringing their own personally owned guns to muster.

It doesn't matter if there is a well regulated militia today, however, and it doesn't matter how you interpret the word "regulated," as there is no requirement in the Second Amendment that there even be an active militia (well regulated, or otherwise), only a statement that one is necessary for the security of a free state. You see, we the people are free to choose not to do what is necessary for the security of a free state. The Constitution compels, and places limits on, the government's actions, not the people's. The important part is that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and decrees (as the highest law of the land) that this right shall not be infringed. The Founding Fathers desired that we the people would always choose to do what is necessary for the security of a free state, i.e., that we would muster, drill and practice as fighting units with our own weapons, but we are not legally bound by their expectations. On the contrary, it is the government that is bound and restrained by the Second Amendment to leave that avenue open to [we] the people, in the hopes that we would do what was necessary for the security of a free state.

To reiterate, the first part of the Second Amendment is merely a statement of why the right must not be infringed (i.e., people having their own guns is a prerequisite for a militia of any type, let alone the well regulated variety thought necessary for the security of a free state). The second part states that it must in fact not be infringed (that's the law of the land), but (and perhaps more importantly) within the second part is also a clear acknowledgement of the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the issue of whether it ought not be infringed. The most important part, in other words, is that the right is acknowledged at all as belonging to the people. We all know who the people are. They are you and I. We all know what a right is. It is the situation wherein no one may rightly prevent you from doing something. So you and I may keep and bear arms, and no one may rightly prevent it. It is not the existence of any type of militia (well regulated or otherwise) that is a requisite for this right, but rather it is this right (and its non-infringement) that is a requisite for any type of militia; one type of which (the well regulated variety) having been thought by the Founding Fathers necessary for the security of a free state.

That said, the words "well regulated" meant "well ordered" to the Founding Fathers. If a militia is good, an orderly one is even better. The Founding Fathers did not use the word "regulated" the way we moderns do, as in "government regulations." In the context of a militia, "regulated" meant that there were regular and orderly drilling and mustering procedures. The meaning of the word "regulated," however (as I hope I have made very clear) has absolutely no bearing on exactly what the government is legally restrained from doing. The government is legally restrained by the Second Amendment from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. There ought to be absolutely no confusion here for anyone whose native tongue is the English language.

ctdonath
February 11, 2004, 08:19 PM
We could only "win" if someone on the other side chose to let us win by saying "Enough".

"Our side" loses only when each and every participant decides "enough".
"Their side" loses only when leaders decide "enough".

Kinda like Europe in WWII: France, Poland, etc. all gave up swiftly when the top dogs decided to surrender and underlings obeyed ... but Switzerland was left alone precisely because everyone was armed and refused surrender.

Waitone
February 11, 2004, 08:40 PM
Kinda like Europe in WWII: France, Poland, etc. all gave up swiftly when the top dogs decided to surrender and underlings obeyed ... but Switzerland was left alone precisely because everyone was armed and refused surrender.An addtional factoid that is now public is the Swiss bankers were bankers of the Third Reich. They were instrumental in financing Chermany's war machine.

Switzerland was also left alone because is was where both sides could communicate privately without raising eyes.

Yea, the Swiss were armed and trained, but there is more to the story than just that.

The Real Hawkeye
February 11, 2004, 08:48 PM
Hitler wanted to invade Switzerland, but when he proposed it to his generals, he was informed that it could be accomplished, but at the cost of over 100,000 of his troops lost. He chose to go around instead.

ReadyontheRight
February 11, 2004, 09:56 PM
I have posted an analysis of the 2nd amendment from an English professor who wrote the analysis without regard to anything but the structure of the english sentence used in the amendment.

Are you talking about this analysis?:

Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California from the September 13, 1991 issue of GUN WEEK: THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman at this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...&threadid=63764

Specifically, Professor Copperud analyzes the word "regulated" in the Second Amendment.

"...[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military. ..."

The founding fathers had just declared independence from their own English governement and fought their own military -- in which many of them had served. The "invading army" used to be their own army. They proved their superior authority by, among other things, being crack shots with their own arms.

However you look at it, we end up with an armed populace.

Agreed -- I was just wondering why I've never heard the interpretation I mentioned above -- which I believe would help the RKBA cause.

However, as the FF’s made a clear distinction between the military (“standing armies”) and the militia (made up of the armed populace) I think that your suggestion would logically self-destruct in actual use, as your idea requires “militia” to be interpreted as “standing army”.

Yes, that does break the idea apart.

Every year some 14,000,000 snipers fully equipped with cammo, transport, GPS, maps, communications, intel, rations, and other military equipment go on exercise maneuvers throughout the country during a few weeks every fall. That's more than the sum total of the four biggest formal militaries combined. Every member of this militia operates completely independently, or as part of small, nearly impenetrable cells. They practice their skills on highly alert live targets. Every single one keeps and maintains his own equipment. Only voluntarily do they alert the state to their activities and success, and only voluntarily make themselves visible to the general public via bright orange markings, as they participate in Operation Deer Season.

Amen Brother. Let's all encourage some youngsters and get them involved in deer camp.:D A well-equipped citizenry trained in firearms and woodscraft makes both our armed forces and our country undeniably stronger.

Carlos Hathcock was a great man, but isn't the whole point of the gun and RKBA to allow all of us a measure of lethal self-defense? I think Mr. Hathcock would have been great even if he had been limited to sticks and stones. Just a little training with a good rifle can make almost any man worth his salt an extremely disruptive force.

The Real Hawkeye
February 11, 2004, 10:10 PM
That definition of "regulated" makes no sense, as the militia and the army are two seperate and distinct bodies. The militia's role, or at least one of them, is to prevent a standing army imposing tyranny at the behest of the central government. It makes no sense, therefore, to suggest that the FFs intended that the central government regulate the militia. This defeats its purpose.

That said, the meaing of "regulated" bears no relevance to the recognition of the right belonging to the people. See my above post for an explanation.

cracked butt
February 11, 2004, 11:32 PM
Interstingly enough I just posted an item on a different board about "well regulated" in response to someone who believed that government could ban whatever weapons they like.






"well regulated" in terms of the language when the bill of rights was ratified meant something along the lines of "well equipt and trained." Alot of conscripts into Washington's army showed up without enough ammunition if they brought a rifle at all- they often times left their arms at home so the woman of the house could defend it if needed.

If you don't believe me, take alok at the words "well regulated" in a modern sense. What do the two words mean together? Would it mean highly regulated? Heavily restricted? A militia that cannot legally own military weapons?

No, that would not make sense, would it?

Don Gwinn
February 12, 2004, 12:15 AM
Wouldn't matter if it did. The duty to regulate a thing is not the right to destroy it.

Some antis will also argue that since the militia is "not well-regulated" today, that makes the 2nd void. Of course it does not. If a government has a duty to make certain that the militia is well-regulated, then only keeping it well-regulated is the only action that would address that. Getting rid of the militia because the government has not kept up with its duty to the militia is not an option.

Also, if any government were given any authority to regulated the militia, it would be the states or lower. Never the feds.

grnzbra
February 12, 2004, 09:38 AM
"Their side" loses only when leaders decide "enough".

BINGO!

hvengel
February 12, 2004, 02:00 PM
"Well regulated" means to function correctly as in a well regulated watch keeps good time. You can not separate the two words (well and regulated) since this would alter the meaning from working correctly to controlled. In fact my spell checker in Word wants to hyphenate “well-regulated”; in effect treating like it as a single word. If the 2Nd Amendment read “A regulated militia being ….” Then this would have to be interpreted to mean that there had to be controls on the militia. This still would not restrict the main clause of the 2Nd Amendment since it would only let the government regulate (control) the militia not the keeping and bearing of arms.

The opening part of the 2Nd Amendment could be rewritten as "A properly functioning militia ..." and it would have exactly the same meaning as the original wording. An armed population is a prerequisite to a properly functioning militia. Therefore the FF intended for the 2Nd Amendment to prevent the government from disarming the population in order to make the militia possible in order to preserve a free state. Its that simple.

Also until the 14th Amendment was ratified the BOR only restricted what the federal government could do not the states. The 14th Amendment changed that and now the BOR applies to the all levels of government including the states.

If you enjoyed reading about "What if "Regulated" really means "Regulated"?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!