The Word Regulated

Even without any knowledge in the history of language and how English has changed since the late 1700s, you could extract the meaning simply by looking at the context in which it was used.

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

Well what about a militia helps secure freedom? Control? Possible, but unlikely. Equipment and training? Most certainly.

Anyway, the meaning of regulated in the Second doesn't change the meaning of the sentence regardless of which meaning a person wants to claim is true. The first half of the sentence is simply the justification for the command given in the second half.

In other words, if you flipped the order of the two halves, and phrased it in layman terms, it would read, "The right of Americans to keep and bear firearms shall not be restricted, because a well-regulated militia is critical to ensuring the freedom of any people."

"Well regulated" means well equipped, well trained, and well disciplined. In other words, the Founders were trying to distinguish a citizen army (and BTW, not a standing army) from a mere armed mob. They were just as afraid of armed mobs (see: the Whiskey Rebellion) as they were of standing armies. Their solution was to create a nonprofessional army made up of all able-bodied citizens -- the militia -- and make sure, through the 2nd Amendment, that it was as well-armed as any standing army. (I have to say that this original vision has not stood the test of time, since the general militia system went out of favor by the 1830's -1840's, to be replaced by self-selected "volunteer" militias. The 2nd Amendment that we have today is the remnant or residue of this early vision, which is why the courts and the politicians have so much trouble dealing with it. It doesn't fit easily into the modern context.)

Wait, isn't this perennial question moot? IIRC, "well regulated" is in reference to the militia, for which the peoples' uninfringed right to keep and bear arms is acknowledged in order to guarantee their security. Since no one is discussing whether we need to better regulate militia, "regulation" has nothing to do with an individual's rights as acknowledged by the constitution and court ruling.

The whole "regulated means personal gun laws" bit is merely cherry picking one word and applying it (loosely) to a policy position-- "Senator X said 'woman' yesterday and 'murder' today; he must have killed her!"

Honestly, if groups of armed civilian men were gathering to form a security unit today (we should be so lucky), I'd demand they be required to be well trained and equipped before being allowed to operate. Last thing we'd want is a bunch of fat yokel "swamp people" forming militias to make gun owners look like dangerous fools (oh, wait...). But since no one's talking about militia these days...that portion of the 2nd amendment is not germane to the current "conversation"

TCB

Actually barnbwt, there are numerous militias in America. From my understanding, none of them are actually backed by a state, but there are several that have hundreds of people in their memberships. They train regularly on private land, and are generally fairly well-equipped as far as small arms are concerned.

The idea most of them operate under is the whole idea of the militia (civilians working together in an organized, volunteer/unpaid "army") should have never gone away.

Bobson wrote:

Actually barnbwt, there are numerous militias in America. From my understanding, none of them are actually backed by a state, but there are several that have hundreds of people in their memberships. They train regularly on private land, and are generally fairly well-equipped as far as small arms are concerned.

The idea most of them operate under is the whole idea of the militia (civilians working together in an organized, volunteer/unpaid "army") should have never gone away.

Click to expand...

The "2nd Amendment militia" is characterized by its universality. As the institution of the militia was set up in the early American republic, membership was mandatory and extended to all able-bodied male citizens (within certain ages). This was the early republic's substitute for a standing army. This institution rather quickly fell into disuse, with the rise of a regular army, on the one hand, and "volunteer" militias, on the other. The closest thing we have to that in modern times is the "unorganized militia" as defined in the United States Code, which exists on paper only.

The public at large (the "unorganized militia") can claim 2nd Amendment protections.* A self-selected, self-organized subgroup cannot, because it lacks universality and is easily subverted into partisan purposes. In other words, the 2nd Amendment does not provide cover for private armies.

*Note: Justice Scalia, in his Heller opinion, seemed to indicate that the Militia Clause of the 2nd Amendment was mere excess verbiage and could be ignored. However, this reasoning was not necessary to arrive at the result in the case, and could thus be characterized as a non-binding dictum.

I understand that the second amendment doesnt "cover" any sort of civilian militia. I was responding to barney's third paragraph. Point was, they are out there, and they are completely lawful. With or without the second amendment, there's no law forbidding large numbers of citizens from organizing on their own private property, whether they're shooting or playing roller hockey.

The reason they're out there isn't because the second amendment supports or encourages it; but because they were needed before. Despite the fact that America now has a standing army, its foolish to believe they'll never be needed again.

That whole idea is what the second amendment is about.

The phrase "well regulated" meant, at the time of its writing, "to keep and make regular".


(source: Judge Andrew Napolitano)

I always thought that the militia and people were seperate entities. I read the second amendment like this:

"Even though a well equipped militia (military if you will) is necessary for the security of the state (from domestic or foreign entities), the right of the people (regular citizens) to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed."

Now I could be wrong about this and others smarter than me regarding the constitution will disagree, but I put this out for discussion.

This would allow protection of the people from the militia or government.

I always thought that the militia and people were seperate entities. I read the second amendment like this:

"Even though a well equipped militia (military if you will) is necessary for the security of the state (from domestic or foreign entities), the right of the people (regular citizens) to keep and bear arm shall not be infringed."

Now I could be wrong about this and others smarter than me regarding the constitution will disagree, but I put this out for discussion.

This would allow protection of the people from the militia or government.

Click to expand...

The militia and the People are one and the same. The militia is drawn from the People. The militia and the military are separate from one another.

Guy's and Gals,
I'll raise the level of the conversation just a bit by referring folks to the Federalist Papers.

If you dig through these concentrating on Gun rights, you will surely find as I did that the Founders had several worries for which the 2nd Amendment was to provide citizens protection. In one exchange (I forget who the correspondents were) but the discussion was how folks in a small town in Pennsylvania, near the boarder could PROTECT themselves from and armed group that lived across the boarder in a neighboring state. They wanted small communities to be able to be able to assemble and form an armed group that could defend against aggression be it Civil, or Government sponsored.

A real history professor could expand on this better than I, but I did find it enlightening.


KKKKFL