the definition of "well regulated" question

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

Greenmachin3

Member
Joined
Mar 20, 2009
Messages
93
After watching a documentary about double rifles and shotguns by famous old companies, a thought occurred to me. Most people assume today "well regulated" in 2nd amendment means "well controlled" or "well supervised", but when it comes to double rifles and shotguns, well regulated means good accuracy and precision between barrels. It seems any company that makes these fine firearms tends to go on and on about how important well regulated barrels are. By that logic, I could see how important a well regulated militia is.. a group of ordinary folk who can actually hit something with a certain level of accuracy with their firearms if the need arises.

Could "well regulated" actually mean "capable of good accuracy" ? Has something been lost in translation as English has changed over the last three centuries.

Using it a defense against anti's would be fun if it were indeed what was meant.
 
That would be awesome! Have to look into the etymology of the time but the general consensus I learned in my history studies in college was that "well-regulated" was consistent with training and discipline.
 
Last edited:
Well regulated at the time meant "to make regular." It meant well equipped and trained, on par with the "regular" troops. Obviously somewhat impossible today with all the heavy weapons/equipment that would be far beyond most people's means even if they were legal (exception of small arms), but no it does not mean controlled.
 
What it refers to is a well regulated militia, but it says the peoples right to bear arms shall not be infringed. The whole group of people shall not be infringed. The militia is actually a set of volunteers from the larger group of people.
 
It means to keep in good working order. Like a mechanical watch or printing press must be kept "well-regulated" or they do not work correctly. The wrong time or misprint is the same as failing completly. Only in the modern era does the word regulated mean "controlled" in a negative sense.
 
I see. Hopeful thoughts, then. Regulating the barrels of a double rifle is to put them in good working order (a double rifle with poor accuracy is useless and therefore not in good working order).

ohwell, I'm not getting your point. I understand the militia aspect, I was just curious about the term regulated. Please advise.
 
A "well regulated" militia, in the 2nd Amendment sense, means that it's an army, and not merely an armed mob. That implies drill, discipline, organization, and officers. As far as accuracy of individual weapons, remember that in 1791, the standard infantry weapon was a smoothbore flintlock musket, with which you'd be lucky to hit a line of opposing infantry at 100 yards. The specifications expected of the weapons obviously move with the times. Whatever the regular army uses, would be adequate.
 
Greenmachin3 said:
I see. Hopeful thoughts, then. Regulating the barrels of a double rifle is to put them in good working order (a double rifle with poor accuracy is useless and therefore not in good working order).

ohwell, I'm not getting your point. I understand the militia aspect, I was just curious about the term regulated. Please advise.
Click to expand...
If a watch is not "well-regulated" then it either doesn't work or shows the wrong time. It has failed at it's task. A printing press that smears ink or has paper fly off the wheels cannot serve its purpose either. They must be "well-regulated".

A militia must be "in good working order" so that it can be depended upon to do its task; to defend the Republic.
Think back to the time of the Revolution. Minutemen were an elite group of Militia who kept thier guns and equipment at the ready to be called to serve in less than a minute to fight.

This could not happen if they were not in "good working order".
"My gun doesn't work"
"I don't have powder"
"I can't find my gear"
etc
 
I see, thanks.

Like I said, perhaps I was being a bit hopeful, but I couldn't help but notice the similarity in terminology between making a double rifle shoot accurately and making a militia function well.
 
The militia is actually a set of volunteers from the larger group of people.
Click to expand...

In 1791, no. The "militia" referred to in the 2nd Amendment was the entire body of the people (or at least the able-bodied, free, males). The "volunteer" militias arose in the 1820's and thereafter, after the breakdown of the general militia system (the annual musters degenerated into drunken picnics).

To this day, the U.S. Code defines the "militia" as including all abled-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. (10 USC section 311.) The "volunteer" portion of this (the organized militia) is the National Guard, and the rest is the unorganized militia.
 
All you have to is read the context, if "well-regulated" means heavily legislated then does "A heavily legislated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" make any sense as a restriction on the federal government?
 
To me "regulated" means adjusted to a set standard. Therefore, "well regulated" means that a good standard has been adopted and whatever ( militia in this instance ) is properly set up to meet those standards.

The key word in the whole 2A is the word Militia. Based on the historic use of the word during the founding of this country Militia means just about everyone who is capable of bearing arms.
 
It means well trained, skilled, and well equipped.

Stated another way - A well trained and equipped militia is necessary for the security of a free state and therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I also beleive the free state the founding fathers was talking about was freedom from both outside powers and freedom from our own government. They just overthrew their own government, the British, so this was very much on their minds.
 
I would say the well regulated militia part means well trained and organized. MY point is the militia is a subgroup of the people meaning they cant regulate the whole peoples right to bear arms. They can only regulate the militia. The whole people shall not be infringed.
 
Greenmachin3 said:
I see, thanks.

Like I said, perhaps I was being a bit hopeful, but I couldn't help but notice the similarity in terminology between making a double rifle shoot accurately and making a militia function well.
Click to expand...
Yes. The terms are the same because the meaning is the same. If, today you go to the fancy gun shops in London (yes, England) they will "regulate" your families $15,000 Purdy shotgun. It means they will check to make sure all the measurements are correct, safe and ready to use. They will give you a certificate that says it has been "regulated". They have been doing this for centuries. These are not about government regulations to limit ownership.

IMO, ammo cannot be banned because the Militia must be kept in "good working order". Guns don't work without ammo. The "well-regulated" phrase protects our right to ammo, accessories and training.
 
To this day, the U.S. Code defines the "militia" as including all abled-bodied males between the ages of 17 and 45. (10 USC section 311.) The "volunteer" portion of this (the organized militia) is the National Guard, and the rest is the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

The response to this is to ask if they would like to ban women voting too?
as according to them they shouldn't own guns....
 
The response to this is to ask if they would like to ban women voting too?
as according to them they shouldn't own guns....
Click to expand...

The practical significance of 10 USC sec. 311 is that it defines the base (the unorganized militia) from which a future military draft would be drawn. We've never drafted women, but I can't imagine a future draft exempting women. If it did so, men could successfully attack it as being discriminatory and unconstitutional. So as it stands, yes, 10 USC sec. 311 is probably unconstitutional.

In the Heller case, Justice Scalia decoupled the right to bear arms from service in the militia. He treated the introductory clause of the 2nd Amendment as a mere nullity. (Which I think was a mistake, since it cements the right to own military-style weapons.)
 
In English grammar, "A well-regulated militia ..." is a Nominative Absolute and can better be understood by adding the word "THAT" or "BECAUSE" before the phrase. It indicates that the Framers believed and stated the proposition that a well-regulated militia was necessary in order for a free state to be maintained.

However, having stated that, it does not alter one iota the fact that THE RIGHT belongs to THE PEOPLE, regardless of their status ... militia members or not. No military/militia association is required for the right to exist or to be exercised. (English grammar rules!!!)

I think Miller makes the point better. McReynolds, writing for the majority, that while the Court could take no notice that a short-barrelled shotgun had any utility/use for the militia/military service (since no one came forward to support Miller's position), my understanding is that it was made clear that arms in general use by the military or arms which would be useful for military service were precisely the kinds of arms which the Framers had intended be protected from infringement by the government. I'd take this as a clear indication that an AR15 or AK47 type arms (and many others too) clearly have utility for military use and meet the standard set by the Framers in the 2nd Amendment.
 
From: A Dictionary of the English Language
A Digital Edition of the 1755 Classic by Samuel Johnson

To Régulate. v.a. [regula, Lat.]

To adjust by rule or method.
Nature, in the production of things, always designs them to partake of certain, regulated, established essences, which are to be the models of all things to be produced: this, in that crude sense, would need some better explication. Locke.

To direct.
Regulate the patient in his manner of living. Wiseman.

Ev'n goddesses are women; and no wife
Has pow'r to regulate her husband's life. Dryden.
Click to expand...

Dictionary.com

reg·u·late [reg-yuh-leyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), reg·u·lat·ed, reg·u·lat·ing.
1.
to control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.: to regulate household expenses.
2.
to adjust to some standard or requirement, as amount, degree, etc.: to regulate the temperature.
3.
to adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation: to regulate a watch.
4.
to put in good order: to regulate the digestion.
Origin:
1620–30; < Late Latin rēgulātus (past participle of rēgulāre ). See regula, -ate1

Related forms
reg·u·la·tive [reg-yuh-ley-tiv, -yuh-luh-tiv] Show IPA , reg·u·la·to·ry [reg-yuh-luh-tawr-ee, -tohr-ee] Show IPA , adjective
reg·u·la·tive·ly, adverb
an·ti·reg·u·la·to·ry, adjective
mis·reg·u·late, verb (used with object), mis·reg·u·lat·ed, mis·reg·u·lat·ing.
non·reg·u·lat·ed, adjective
Click to expand...
 
Romeo 33 Delta said:
In English grammar, "A well-regulated militia ..." is a Nominative Absolute and can better be understood by adding the word "THAT" or "BECAUSE" before the phrase. It indicates that the Framers believed and stated the proposition that a well-regulated militia was necessary in order for a free state to be maintained.

However, having stated that, it does not alter one iota the fact that THE RIGHT belongs to THE PEOPLE, regardless of their status ... militia members or not. No military/militia association is required for the right to exist or to be exercised. (English grammar rules!!!)

I think Miller makes the point better. McReynolds, writing for the majority, that while the Court could take no notice that a short-barrelled shotgun had any utility/use for the militia/military service (since no one came forward to support Miller's position), my understanding is that it was made clear that arms in general use by the military or arms which would be useful for military service were precisely the kinds of arms which the Framers had intended be protected from infringement by the government. I'd take this as a clear indication that an AR15 or AK47 type arms (and many others too) clearly have utility for military use and meet the standard set by the Framers in the 2nd Amendment.
Click to expand...
Well said, but I believe Heller specified that 'Arms' are not necessary the same arms as provided to the regular army. Hence, no full auto or even 3 round burst.

I would be interested to know the difference, if any, between the arms of the militia, and the arms of the regular army, at the time of the drafting of the 2nd Amendment.

Because of the need for the people to maintain freedom from excessive government, the arms possessed by the militia should be sufficient to maintain a free state, even when the threat to the free state is the government itself. This is why AR-15 are so important. It is unlikely a group armed with revolvers is able to maintain the freedom of the state when the government has full auto arms.
 
For me "... well regulated..." is a matter of - after common citizens are called to the defense of the nation they are to be assessed, formed, trained if necessary and feasible then regulated or controlled as a cohesive fighting force rather than armed "rabble".

I see it very much as I would have in the Army in arriving to a region in order to whip already armed indigenous citizenry into a force effective in their own defense. Later might come "regularization" with standardized equipment and proper military discipline but the already armed individual is quite the asset in the short term given his willingness to lend himself over to a regulated militia.
 
ApacheCoTodd said:
For me "... well regulated..." is a matter of - after common citizens are called to the defense of the nation they are to be assessed, formed, trained if necessary and feasible then regulated or controlled as a cohesive fighting force rather than armed "rabble".

I see it very much as I would have in the Army in arriving to a region in order to whip already armed indigenous citizenry into a force effective in their own defense. Later might come "regularization" with standardized equipment and proper military discipline but the already armed individual is quite the asset in the short term given his willingness to lend himself over to a regulated militia.
Click to expand...

Actually that power is specifically given to Congress in Article I of the Constitution. The 2nd amendment is a restriction on Congress from taking away the right of the people to be armed.

Constitution for the United States of America - Article I, section 8

The Congress shall have Power...
-To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
-To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
-To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Click to expand...

Although the states are specifically forbiden from having armies, except as allowed by Congress, their citizens are intedend to be armed and act as ready Militia. The armed citizens are the only defense against federal power.

No State shall, without the Consent of Congress, lay any Duty of Tonnage, keep Troops, or Ships of War in time of Peace, enter into any Agreement or Compact with another State, or with a foreign Power, or engage in War, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay
Click to expand...
 
Organized militia

The National Guard is not the militia referred to in the second amenment. It is equipped by the federal government (Hence does not satisfy the right to keep and bear.), subject to call by the frderal government, and is essentially a reserve to the military reserve. In a SHTF scenario the National Guard might well be on the wrong side.

The organized militia is purely a state function. During WWII my father served in the Michigan State Militia which was NOT part of the National Guard. They were organized, uniformed, drilled, lived in barracks, paid, and under the command of the head of the Michigan State Polce.

All of which gives the lie to the antis who claim the 2nd provides for the National Guard.
 
It seems any company that makes these fine firearms tends to go on and on about how important well regulated barrels are. By that logic, I could see how important a well regulated militia is.. a group of ordinary folk who can actually hit something with a certain level of accuracy with their firearms if the need arises.

Could "well regulated" actually mean "capable of good accuracy" ? Has something been lost in translation as English has changed over the last three centuries.

Using it a defense against anti's would be fun if it were indeed what was meant.
Click to expand...

No, the militia is well regulated, not the arms. It was not the "right to keep and bear well regulated arms."
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
The real definition of "regulate"
Replies
13
Views
3K
Dex Sinister
D
R
  • Locked
2nd Ammendment etymology question
Replies
13
Views
717
AZRickD
A
G
  • Locked
So now that the 2nd is recognized, get ready for rising death tolls...
2
Replies
44
Views
2K
bmitchell
B
F
  • Locked
Pperformance-Based Gun Regulation
Replies
9
Views
342
LWGN
L
P
  • Locked
Just thought I'd share this moronic point of view
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
don
D
Back
Top