What does the term “well regulated” in the second amendment mean?

[ProficientRifleman]

Well Regulated?

"To regulate" means to put something, or things, in good order.

In a military sense it would mean guided by clear and understood regulations, so that all would be in good order, i.e. orderly.

A Well Regulated Militia would be one disciplined and guided by clear and easily understood regulations. All members would be "on the same sheet of music" so to speak, so as to have an "orchestration" of effort.

The above being said, the second amendment does not prescribe a well regulated militia. It prescribes an armed populace. This makes it possible to assemble a "Well Regulated Militia".

The second amendment proscribes interference with the right to bear arms, which interference would hinder the assembly of the militia, "Well Regulated" or otherwise.

 

[ilcylic]

The intellectual yoga that the Left goes through in reading out the Second Amendment is very amusing.

Amusing, if it wasn't so bloody serious. :|

 

[ctdonath]

The federal and state governments are Constitutionally granted the powers to arrange for a "well-regulated" militia. My point: it is THEY who decide what constitutes "well-regulated", and are responsible for achieving it. That the federal government achieves this by unilaterally declaring (among other smaller groups) all able-bodied male citizens age 17-45 to be militia members, registers them via the Selective Service System, offers optional/voluntary training and arming via DCM/CMP, and that the states appoint officers and provide further training as they variously see fit, by implied definition fulfills whatever a "well-regulated militia" is. Just because someone doesn't like the result doesn't mean it isn't.

 

[3fgburner]

In his Autobiography, "Private Yankee Doodle", a Rev War soldier named Joseph Plumb Martin uses the phrase. He gets up one morning (IIRC, at Yorktown). Describing the sequence of events, he says, "When I had got myself regulated", in exactly the same context as a modern American soldier would say, "After I got my **** together..."

 

[Ieyasu]

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

 

[ProficientRifleman]

3fgburner, Thank you...

Describing the sequence of events, he says, "When I had got myself regulated", in exactly the same context as a modern American soldier would say, "After I got my **** together..."

That was exactly my point above.

 

[Maximum1]

The Bills of Rights grants right ONLY to Individual Citizens NOT Government...

FACT, ALL the Amendments grant specific rights to United States Citizens so somehow only the second grants rights to the government??! NOT! That's the biggest lie repeated by the Liberal Media. The CONSTITUTION is the document which grants rights to Federal and State Governments...Hence the two documents.



READ THE FOLLOWING TO GET A TRUE UNDERSTANDING AND CONTEXT....(BTW) I saved this but forgot where/whom I got it from)...

Yes, The Constitution Really Does Protect Your Right to “Keep and Bear Arms.”

As a gun owner, it would be best to have a few fast facts in your back pocket when it comes to your right to own and/or carry a weapon. The original body of the Constitutionof the United States consisted of 7 Articles (or sections) that set up the basic functions of government offices, such as Executive functions like taxation, roads, post offices, commercial regulations, armed forces, states rights, elections, etc. Try not to yawn here. Hold on, it gets better! This document was signed by those fellas, sometimes referred to as the Founding Fathers, all gun owners, on September 17, 1787. George Washington, James Madison, and Alexander Hamilton were some of the notables that signed it before it went to the states to agree upon it. To them, owning and carrying a gun was as natural of a right as any they outlined in the Constitution. The opening sentence that begins with “We the People…” is a beautiful piece of enlightened thinking;

The Guns of America—Stories of Independence Alexa H. Madison, a collector of fun historical facts and stories. Concordia University Graduate—History.

Madison traveled the Western U.S. for 20 years before settling in the Wisconsin area. e-mail: [email protected] Alexa H. Madison the actual document reads like a ho-hum laundry list of rules. But the Bill of Rights portion of the Constitution is where we get into our personal rights. Some people, at that time, felt that the Constitution did not fully protect “the people” or individuals or individual rights. The citizens of the new country wanted to be sure that an elite class of a bully king, and their legislative rhetoric, could never again infringe on their newly declared rights as American citizens. Taking away the right for people to own arms, and to have a free press and free speech are the first steps on the journey to a Monarchy or Dictatorship. For this and other reasons, The Bill of Rights was brought to life by the first congress and fully ratified by the states by December 15, 1791. The original ten amendments protect a variety of personal rights, and among these rights the Second Amendment guarantees to you the right to keep and bear arms. “…the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”


The Second Amendment appears in the Bill of Rights among the amendments securing individual rights, a placement that indicates that the right of the people to keep and bear arms belongs to individuals. The Amendment secures to “the people” the right to keep and to bear arms owned by them, not the National Guard. It secures the right for citizens to be able to use their own firearms in time of invasion of home, family, or country. These arms were used for hunting, and personal protection.


To “bear” means to carry. “I come bearing gifts” does not mean I have to leave them at home! Not only was the right to keep them guaranteed, but also to carry them from place to place. David Ramsay, a state legislator of the era, asked, “What European power will dare to attack us, when it is known that the yeomanry of the country uniformly armed and disciplined, may on any emergency be called out to our defense. John Locke (1632-1704) “Whereas by supposing they have given up themselves to the absolute arbitrary power and will of a legislator, they have disarmed themselves, and armed him to make a prey of them when he pleases...” Did the image of people from flooded homes desperately waving helpless hands in the air to be lifted to safely, or the image of businesses being looted bring home the fact that personal safely is each person’s responsibility? The Constitution does not guarantee your personal safety or your family’s safety; that’s your job, and the Second Amendment is the tool that guarantees you the right to carry out your responsibility. We must not fall victim to the vague laws proposed, written by legislators designed to subvert the true spirit of our Constitution. Endless buried regulations, restrictions, and registrations cannot counter the simple and timeless words, “keep and bear arms.” That ranks right up there with freedom of religion or speech. You just can’t mess with those simple words. It is what it is. The Second Amendment is part of an armory, both philosophical and physical, that can be used to defend your freedom and the American way of life.

Yes, The Constitution Really Does Protect Your Right to “Keep and Bear Arms.”

 

[Orthonym]

I voted for disciplined, capable, effective, of course.
Sometimes I wonder if we should get up a writ of mandamus to make the government folks regulate us, like require us to show up once a month with weapons, boots, rucksack etc and do "military exercises" as the Founders put it, or otherwise we would not be allowed to vote.

 

[Orthonym]

Oh, it might also mean that everybody's weapon uses the same cartridge. I think there was a provision like that in the original Militia Act of 1792.

 

[slewfoot]

In my opinion, a "well regulated" militiaman would be responsible for equipping himself with the things needed to serve during any emergency, at his own expense.

In the forming of our nation, the government did not have the assets to equip more than a small number of regular soldiers. It expected to draw it's manpower from the civilian population if needed.

With the state of our present government debt, we may be headed in that direction again.

 

[AirForceShooter]

Doesn't matter what we think.
Justice Roberts and his cohorts will probably be telling us in about a year.

AFS

 

[shield20]

Lets get this clear - the 2nd amendment DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS - TO ANYONE! It articulates, secures and protects an existing right of the people from any infringement! It restricts power, it does NOT grant rights.

 

[Maximum1]

"Lets get this clear - the 2nd amendment DOES NOT GRANT RIGHTS - TO ANYONE! It articulates, secures and protects an existing right of the people from any infringement! It restricts power, it does NOT grant rights."

Semantics maybe...

But I will agree with your point although NOT entirely....

There are two key purposes to the Bill of Rights:

-They limit the power of the federal government

-They give citizens explicit rights

"On April 30, 1789, George Washington was sworn in as the first president of the United States. The new U.S. Constitution was already ratified. Many of the founding fathers were demanding a "bill of rights" which would protect the people from the government. This Bill of Rights was to be added to the Constitution to protect individual rights that every citizen has. The founding fathers wanted to make sure the new government would not treat its citizens like the old government of Great Britain. In this section of our WebQuest, we will take a look at the Bill of Rights and develop an understanding of what each one means to us as American citizens. The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights."

 

[shield20]

Semantics yes - but I think it is important to know the difference between counting on the BoR to "give rights" to the people, and knowing when it enumerates, declares, secures, and protects rights that already existed. The 2nd DID NOT give us a right! That right is inherent! We would have the personal right to arms whether the 2nd respected it or not. Yes it is likely a given that right would be more infringed upon then it has been w/o the 2nd, but that is the fault of usurpers - NOT the BoR. [In fact, the Constitution already secured the people the right of keeping arms via the Miltia clause in Article 1, S8, C16.]

"Mr. Madison has introduced his long expected amendments .... "The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.

Joseph Jones: "they are calculated to secure the personal rights of the people ...."

Those enumerations are the law of the land, and when applicable, should limit ALL infringment, not just the feds.

 

[CannonFodder]

Well-maintained and supplied.
So, really, the government should stop buying solar-powered toilets and duke each of us a case of ammo.

 

[AZRickD]

From "General Principles of Constitutional Law" by Thomas Cooley.

Cooley's was one of the most popular law school texts of the latter 19th Century.

The right of self defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible.

Further, 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.

 

[ZXD9]

A "well regulated" militia is one that eats plenty of fiber.







Sorry....couldn't resist.

 

[yermolai]

Short answer: none of the above, but closest to “well-equipped.” Meaning of “regulated” in this context seems closest to our sense of the word in phrases like “voltage regulator.” My best guess is it refers to the need for a population of armed citizens that remains a) armed and b) populous throughout a state, where the state is subject to rapid geographic and demographic evolution. The proportion of Americans that served as a repository both for a) the arms and b) the skill to use them needed to to remain constant as the population grew; this population also needed to maintain consistent distribution over a changing and expanding map.

One step toward the meaning of the adjective “well-regulated” is understanding the noun it modifies. If you look at the Oxford English Dictionary, in 17–18th C. the word “militia” was undergoing semantic shift from “A system of military discipline, organization, and tactics; a manner or means of conducting warfare; the art of warfare” to “A military force.” But the OED’s most relevant sense of “militia” is:

“4. spec. The name of various military units and forces, raised locally (and usually for the purpose of local defence) from the civilian population of an area, and distinguished from professional standing armies as the latter developed. With sing. or pl. concord. In the U.S.: the body of able-bodied citizens eligible by law for military service. Now hist.
The term was originally used in England, esp. of the trained bands of London, and was adopted in the British colonies in North America from the 17th cent., and elsewhere, e.g. in Australia and New Zealand, by the 19th cent. The reconstitution of the U.S. militias as the National Guard was substantially complete by the beginning of the 20th cent., and elsewhere the term had lapsed, being often replaced by a variant of ‘territorial forces’ by 1945.”

You also need to consider historical changes in the meaning of “regulate.” Dictionary quotes Adam Smith writing in 1776: “The quantity of every commodity..naturally regulates itself in every country according to the effectual demand.” I think this is the sense of “regulation” closest to that in question. In other words, “well-regulated” is “[well-adjusted], in respect of time, quantity, force, etc., with reference to some standard or purpose; especially ... so that the working may be accurate” (OED).

The question is not “how do you define ‘well-regulated’” or even “how do you define ‘militia’.” The question is, “given the definitions of ‘militia’ and ‘well-regulated’, how do you define the standard or purpose to which your militia is to be held?”