Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
"well regulated" What does mean to you, in the 2nd Amendment?
What does "well regulated" mean in the 2nd Amendment?
- Thread starter Derby FALs
- Start date
- Status
Sindawe
Member
Well ordered, consistent and reliable in its performance.
Example: A pH meter that will consistently measure NIST standard pH solutions to within 0.001 pH value is well regulated.
Example: A pH meter that will consistently measure NIST standard pH solutions to within 0.001 pH value is well regulated.
Derby FALs
Member In Memoriam
That does somewhat resemble Washington and his gang.
But, I don't believe George Mason had the opportunity to read the Turner Diaries so what do you believe he meant?
TCB in TN
Member
It means folks well practiced, well healed, and both willing and able to pick up arms to defend against all enemies both foreign and domestic!
MikePGS
Member
To me, it seems as if the second amendment is a cause and effect type of thing. Since a well regulated militia will be required, the people in general have the right to bear arms. This isn't saying that only the militia can be armed, but rather that if the population is armed, one of the natural results of that would be a well regulated militia.
Lupinus
Member
by their meaning of the time it ment well trained/equiped/supplied/etc
1911 guy
Member
It doesn't matter what it means to me.
It only matter what "well regulated" meant to those who wrote it and that we understand their original intent.
It does mean well equiped and trained, in the context. It has nothing to do with being under the thumb of beaurocrats.
It only matter what "well regulated" meant to those who wrote it and that we understand their original intent.
It does mean well equiped and trained, in the context. It has nothing to do with being under the thumb of beaurocrats.
Robert Hairless
Member
- Joined
- Oct 11, 2003
- Messages
- 3,983
It's an Eighteenth Century concept. In the Age of Reason the universe often was conceived of as a machine, like a clock, which functioned properly when it was "well regulated." Sindawe's message is probably closest to that concept.
Although many of the previous suggestions are pretty good, they miss the essential recognition that the parts of the machine must themselves be perfect or else it would be impossible for the complete machine to be perfect.
In Eighteenth Century terms, within this new country the militia was conceived as a defensive organization drawn from the people and not from a class of professional soldiers such as the Hessians or other mercenaries. In the old world, wars were fought offensively as well as defensively by professionals. Of course the professionals in those countries had arms or were supplied with arms by the government, so there was no need for the people to have arms. And, in fact, an armed people in those old world countries was a danger to the government. Governments in the old world simply could not conceive of guaranteeing "the right to keep and bear arms" to their people. It would have been incomprehensible under a monarchical concept of government, for example, and suicidal too.
The United States was different from the old world in a great many ways and the Second Amendment is crucial to understanding the essential difference. Because this new country was committed to defending itself, and because its militia was any citizen in the country, and because the efffectiveness of the militia as a machine depended on the skills of the citizens who comprised the parts of the militia, the people had a right to keep arms (in other words, to own firearms, lances, spears, and whatever else could be used as a weapon) and to bear them (in other words, to carry them on their person and to use them at any time--with the assumption that they would not be used for illegal purposes, such as robbery or murder). Look at the statue of the Minute Man for one representation of the concept: he is an idealized citizen-soldier, holding his musket while he stands next to his plow, an embodiment of the basic component in a well-regulated militia.
In case anyone is interested, the Civilian Marksmanship Program was founded in 1903 by the U.S. government on exactly those principles. They worked. They were a major reason why this country was able to create effective military forces out of its citizen-soldiers in all wars through World War II: a majority of the U.S. population was familiar with guns and their use. The U.S. government encouraged them in those endeavors every way possible, because in case of war they could be trained fairly quickly: eight weeks of basic training followed by eight weeks of training in a specialty, and we had troops that were capable of performing at least competently. Although some of what I've said is subject to discussion or even argument, the basic concepts are accurate.
The concepts started to go out the window after the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, were dealt a fatal blow when the draft was discontinued (an awful blunder, I think), the country shifted towards a volunteer military (which implies a military made solely of professional soldiers and a military class), and growing numbers of people began to believe that there was no longer a need or a national benefit in people owning arms or becoming skilled in using them. These are all dreadful mistakes based on misunderstanding or ignorance, and they hurt the country. They also make the country's founding fathers and all of its Presidents up to Lyndon Johnson roll around in their graves and curse their descendants for screwing up their well-regulated machine.
I feel the need to add something of possible importance. What I've described had nothing to do with whether a President was a "liberal" or a "conservative." Most of the Presidents throughout our history owned and shot guns as a matter of course. For example, Eleanor Roosevelt (liberal wife of the liberal FDR, and one of my eternal heroes) shot revolvers as a hobby and carried one for self defense when she traveled. She would have thought that contemporary anti-gun liberals are just plain nuts and an embarrassment. Here's a photo of her in action:
Although many of the previous suggestions are pretty good, they miss the essential recognition that the parts of the machine must themselves be perfect or else it would be impossible for the complete machine to be perfect.
In Eighteenth Century terms, within this new country the militia was conceived as a defensive organization drawn from the people and not from a class of professional soldiers such as the Hessians or other mercenaries. In the old world, wars were fought offensively as well as defensively by professionals. Of course the professionals in those countries had arms or were supplied with arms by the government, so there was no need for the people to have arms. And, in fact, an armed people in those old world countries was a danger to the government. Governments in the old world simply could not conceive of guaranteeing "the right to keep and bear arms" to their people. It would have been incomprehensible under a monarchical concept of government, for example, and suicidal too.
The United States was different from the old world in a great many ways and the Second Amendment is crucial to understanding the essential difference. Because this new country was committed to defending itself, and because its militia was any citizen in the country, and because the efffectiveness of the militia as a machine depended on the skills of the citizens who comprised the parts of the militia, the people had a right to keep arms (in other words, to own firearms, lances, spears, and whatever else could be used as a weapon) and to bear them (in other words, to carry them on their person and to use them at any time--with the assumption that they would not be used for illegal purposes, such as robbery or murder). Look at the statue of the Minute Man for one representation of the concept: he is an idealized citizen-soldier, holding his musket while he stands next to his plow, an embodiment of the basic component in a well-regulated militia.
In case anyone is interested, the Civilian Marksmanship Program was founded in 1903 by the U.S. government on exactly those principles. They worked. They were a major reason why this country was able to create effective military forces out of its citizen-soldiers in all wars through World War II: a majority of the U.S. population was familiar with guns and their use. The U.S. government encouraged them in those endeavors every way possible, because in case of war they could be trained fairly quickly: eight weeks of basic training followed by eight weeks of training in a specialty, and we had troops that were capable of performing at least competently. Although some of what I've said is subject to discussion or even argument, the basic concepts are accurate.
The concepts started to go out the window after the Kennedy and Martin Luther King assassinations, were dealt a fatal blow when the draft was discontinued (an awful blunder, I think), the country shifted towards a volunteer military (which implies a military made solely of professional soldiers and a military class), and growing numbers of people began to believe that there was no longer a need or a national benefit in people owning arms or becoming skilled in using them. These are all dreadful mistakes based on misunderstanding or ignorance, and they hurt the country. They also make the country's founding fathers and all of its Presidents up to Lyndon Johnson roll around in their graves and curse their descendants for screwing up their well-regulated machine.
I feel the need to add something of possible importance. What I've described had nothing to do with whether a President was a "liberal" or a "conservative." Most of the Presidents throughout our history owned and shot guns as a matter of course. For example, Eleanor Roosevelt (liberal wife of the liberal FDR, and one of my eternal heroes) shot revolvers as a hobby and carried one for self defense when she traveled. She would have thought that contemporary anti-gun liberals are just plain nuts and an embarrassment. Here's a photo of her in action:
ArfinGreebly
Moderator Emeritus
Regulated: Effective, skilled, practiced, reliable
Ever seen one of these?
Or one of these?
Here's a pretty stunning example, complete with big pics and lots of words.
http://www.astro-clock.com/4sale/regulator30/regulator30.htm
You will note: Great precision and not a law book in sight.
Ever seen one of these?
Or one of these?
Here's a pretty stunning example, complete with big pics and lots of words.
http://www.astro-clock.com/4sale/regulator30/regulator30.htm
You will note: Great precision and not a law book in sight.
justashooter
member
well regulated means well trained in the arts of war. that's why they call soldiers "regular army", "regulators", or "regulars", because they are trained in the "regulation of arms". it has to do with arms proficiency.
Thin Black Line
Member
It means whatever the current administration says it means....the spirit of
the law is now irrelevant in this country
the law is now irrelevant in this country
"Well-regulated" means what it says - well trained, well-disciplined, well-organized, in this case according to the ways provided for by Congress, and trained in such regulations under the authority of the States. These were determined to be the 1779 "Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States", and other provisions set out in the 1792 Uniform Militia Act. Regulations provided guidance for aspects of military life - uniform, equipment, manual of arms, drills, formations, how to salute, etc. It would not be good to have the President depending on militias for the defense against invasion, to fight insurrections, etc. that were not well-(& fairly consistently) trained, well-disciplined fighting forces. If the militia was not worthy, there would be a greater need for a larger standing army, which the presense of well-regulated militias (under direct control of officers chosen by the State) was hoped to lessen.
Of course that has nothing to do with the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, other then the people - well armed AND expected to be well-regulated (trained), were/are the militia.
The RIGHT to keep and bear arms, for self defense, the common defense, and to protect our life, protect our property and tp protect our liberty from tyranny, is inalienable, and is NO WAY dependent on ANY type of "miltia". In fact, it is only dependent on the 2nd amendment in so far as that command has proven to be the best way to keep others who don't agree with the constitution or the right from usurping that right.
Of course that has nothing to do with the RIGHT of the people to keep and bear arms, other then the people - well armed AND expected to be well-regulated (trained), were/are the militia.
The RIGHT to keep and bear arms, for self defense, the common defense, and to protect our life, protect our property and tp protect our liberty from tyranny, is inalienable, and is NO WAY dependent on ANY type of "miltia". In fact, it is only dependent on the 2nd amendment in so far as that command has proven to be the best way to keep others who don't agree with the constitution or the right from usurping that right.
Last edited:
shermacman
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 1,751
The importance of the term 'well regulated' can not be underestimated. Making and storing powder was a major technical problem. Think about what we take for granted today. Our roofs are a watertight. A simple thing, for us, but colonial people in the 1700's didn't have a Home Depot with asphalt roofing shingles in stock. Not many people had climate controlled central air conditioning. Electricity was somewhat scarce. If you wanted your firearm to function correctly you had to make sure that every component was 'well regulated'.
Of course WalMart didn't sell ammo back then either!
Of course WalMart didn't sell ammo back then either!
Thin Black Line
Member
Shield20, well-worded. It's too bad you're not writing the script for TV news.
tsteven1
Member
Thank you Robert Hairless for an interesting read.
The Real Hawkeye
member
You're close. It's actually sort of the opposite of that. The ideal of a well regulated militia remains possible only so long as the people's right to keep and bear arms is not infringed. A militia is, by definition, a volunteer force of armed civilians bearing their own weapons, equipment and supplies, who muster (ideally, at any rate) for periodic training and to respond to emergencies, such as Mexicans coming across the boarder in massive numbers.
An example from history was the John Brown capture of the Arsenal at Harpers Ferry. The first responders to that emergency were the militia, i.e., civilian men mustered with their own personal arms to respond to the emergency, and quickly had him and his men surrounded while waiting for the military to arrive to do the actual siege work. Another example from history was the Clock Tower Sniper in Texas. The police were ill equipped to deal with him, not possessing high powered scoped rifles. The militia responded with their scoped bolt action hunting rifles and quickly pinned the sniper down, allowing many civilians who had been pinned down by sniper fire to escape.
But, you see, in these examples, the militia could not have responded at all if they had already been disarmed by law. That's the point of the Second Amendment's prohibition of infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This prohibition makes possible the formation of well regulated militias, while without this prohibition, formation of well regulated militias (or any militias at all) would be impossible.
lance22
Member
You mean our clocks need to be restricted to only goverment use?
Ha ha just kidding. Yeah, a good clock is "well regulated" because it functions well, and one cannot function well for national defence if you are not capable of defending the nation.
Ha ha just kidding. Yeah, a good clock is "well regulated" because it functions well, and one cannot function well for national defence if you are not capable of defending the nation.TBL, Thanks!
Unfortunately, the congress choose to shorten the proposed amendment from what it started out as..."The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."..to what was finally adpoted.
This original version would have gone a long way if approved verbatim to stop those who misrepresent the 2nd as a "collective right", "state right", or means the National Guard or any other such bull. It more clearly seperates the people's right to bear arms from the purpose of a militia. No doubt the people constitute the militia, and well-armed, are the best security against a tyrannical federal gov't, but while the part about militia is a statement, the one concerning the inalienable right is a command.
IF the intention was in anyway meant to limit the RKBA for use only in a militia capacity, the 1st Senate would have approved the motion to add 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:' They didn't, further confirming what they took for granted - that the right is an individual one.
Unfortunately, the congress choose to shorten the proposed amendment from what it started out as..."The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."..to what was finally adpoted.
This original version would have gone a long way if approved verbatim to stop those who misrepresent the 2nd as a "collective right", "state right", or means the National Guard or any other such bull. It more clearly seperates the people's right to bear arms from the purpose of a militia. No doubt the people constitute the militia, and well-armed, are the best security against a tyrannical federal gov't, but while the part about militia is a statement, the one concerning the inalienable right is a command.
IF the intention was in anyway meant to limit the RKBA for use only in a militia capacity, the 1st Senate would have approved the motion to add 'for the common defence,' next to the words 'bear arms:' They didn't, further confirming what they took for granted - that the right is an individual one.
Thin Black Line
Member
Good point. And the evidence that the above quote is still recognized in this
country is when it comes to concientious objection. This is because of the
spirit of the time in which the final version was approved. We still understand
what the Founding Fathers would have intended at that time and also the
traditions held and practiced since then.
Of course, it is the slow methodical revisionism taking place in the media
--both so-called liberal TV and so-called conservative radio-- that accomplishes
the changes in original intent and spirit. It takes both the left and right
hands to disassemble something from its whole and ultimately destroy its
intent. This is the process of socialism itself. Most people who consider
themselves conservative think only liberals are "socialist" when they also
participate in the process of decontruction themselves. The liberal is often
actively conscious of their own participation in it whereas the conservative
being used as a tool by the same mind is not.
I guess the conservative could argue that their unconcious participation in
this process should absolve them of some guilt in its final result, but maybe
we should also apply the old adage of "ignorance of the law is no excuse"
to them as well --especially if we are going to follow letter over spirit
- Status