What does "well regulated" mean in the 2nd Amendment?

[Thin Black Line]

There is no question what it means.

Sure --but only for most of us here. The twisting of the original intent and
the words themselves have already been accomplished.

F Hayek said it best:

To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us. Freedom in this sense is, of course, merely another name for power or wealth. The demand for the new freedom was thus only another name for the old demand for a redistribution of wealth.
...
The most effective way of making people accept the validity of the values they are to serve is to persuade them that they are really the same as those they have always held, but which were not properly understood or recognized before. And the most efficient technique to this end is to use the old words but change their meaning. Few traits of totalitarian regimes are at the same time so confusing to the superficial observer and yet so characteristic of the whole intellectual climate as this complete perversion of language.

The worst sufferer in this respect is the word "liberty." It is a word used as freely in totalitarian states as elsewhere. Indeed, it could almost be said that wherever liberty as we know it has been destroyed, this has been done in the name of some new freedom promised to the people. Even among us we have planners who promise us a "collective freedom," which is as misleading as anything said by totalitarian politicians. "Collective freedom" is not the freedom of the members of society but the unlimited freedom of the planner to do with society that which he pleases. This is the confusion of freedom with power carried to the extreme. It is not difficult to deprive the seat majority of independent thought. But the minority who will retain an inclination to criticize must also be silenced. Public criticism or even expressions of doubt must be suppressed because they tend to weaken support of the regime. As Sidney and Beatrice Webb report of the position in every Russian enterprise: "Whilst the work is in progress, any public expression of doubt that the plan will be successful is an act of disloyalty and even of treachery because of its possible effect on the will and efforts of the rest of the staff."

Thus we have the current situation with the public in how they now interpret
the 2nd Amendment which is more restrictive than in the past.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Hayek points out rather well how positions have changed over time. This is
what he had to say in 1960:

The picture generally given of the relative position of the three parties does more to obscure than to elucidate their true relations. They are usually represented as different positions on a line, with the socialists on the left, the conservatives on the right, and the liberals somewhere in the middle. Nothing could be more misleading. If we want a diagram, it would be more appropriate to arrange them in a triangle with the conservatives occupying one corner, with the socialists pulling toward the second and the liberals toward the third. But, as the socialists have for a long time been able to pull harder, the conservatives have tended to follow the socialist rather than the liberal direction and have adopted at appropriate intervals of time those ideas made respectable by radical propaganda. It has been regularly the conservatives who have compromised with socialism and stolen its thunder. Advocates of the Middle Way with no goal of their own, conservatives have been guided by the belief that the truth must lie somewhere between the extremes - with the result that they have shifted their position every time a more extreme movement appeared on either wing.

Of course, the language has changed again. You could say moderates instead of
liberals now. And we would say liberals today in place of the socialists. Then
we also have the situation in which parties are equated as GOP=Conservative
and Dems=Liberal. The moderates are that supposedly unaligned mass who
are "on the fence", make no solid statements to party affiliation, and sometimes
vote.

This has had the effect of shifting thought over time in which individual freedoms
are lost and the public's position on firearms has changed.

In any case, I like the diagram of the triangle and Hayek has a way of
explaining things clearly.

 

[baz]

Since my first reply in this thread didn't engender any response, think about it this way.

What difference does it make? Take any definition you want: does it change your view of the meaning of the second clause? If we do not have "well regulated militias" today (whatever that means), does it invalidate the individual right to keep and bear arms?

Someone else has already said it -- the "collective" view is focused precisely on interpreting "well regulated militia" to mean something that no longer exists, so there is no longer a need for individuals to keep and bear arms. To make the first clause of the 2nd Amendment the independent clause, and the second subordinate, is to give the argument away.

The easiest way to demonstrate which is the independent clause, and which is the subordinate clause, is to insert a "because" at the beginning of the clause. So which makes more sense?

Because [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.

Or...

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, because the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Isn't it clear that the sticking the "because" at the beginning of the second clause is nonsense? The second clause is independent; it stands on its own. The first clause is dependent, or subordinate -- it cannot stand alone, and by itself it makes no sense.

Try it out: "A well regulated miliatia, being necessary to the security of a free state." That is not a complete sentence. On the other hand, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." is a complete sentence.

So, what difference does this make? All the difference in the world. The dependent clause in a complex sentence is merely a sufficient condition in its relation to the independent clause, it is not a necessary condition. The meaning of the second clause is not contingent, or dependent, on the meaning of the first!

I'm not the first to point it out, but the 2nd Amendment is the only amendment in the Bill of Rights that proffers a "reason" for the amendment. One can well argue that in no longer having the kind of militias the founders were thinking of when they penned the 2nd Amendment, that we as a nation have lost something of their wisdom and vision. But that is no reason or justification to conclude that the second clause has become anachronistic (which is what the gun grabbers qua collective right view is trying to assert). There are lots of reasons for the 2nd Amendment, just as there are lots of reasons for the various parts of the 1st Amendmend. But the "rights" protected by the amendments stand, regardless of the reasons for them. To argue about the particular reason for the right to keep and bear arms mentioned in the Bill of Rights gives makes it appear that the right itself is dependent on the stated reason, and that is not just wrong, it is a very dangerous and slippery slope.

 

[shield20]

Ofcourse I agree baz - as I have stated above. No one will lose their RIGHT to arms dependent on whether they are able bodied males, of certain age, female members of the national guard, or any other such stipulations that they are some how members of a milita. The RIGHT stands alone.

One only has to look to the Bill of Rights to interpret the Bill of Rights: To wit:

[The preamble]
The Conventions of a number of the States having, at the time of adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added


Amendment II
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, [declarative] the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.[restrictive]

In looking at the BOR, this seems to be the only amendment listed with a declaration - which has NO effect on its command.

 

[shield20]

What should have raised a HUGE flag with regards to a "well-regulated" militia was when the Congress created a Federal body of troops, under their power to raise & support armies, to render the real militia...'obsolete'. (i.e. The National Guard).

Now WE know there is such thing(s) as the "unorganized militia", which we mostly are a part of. Coincidently, obviously not subject to any regulations (or any assanine anti interpretation of "regulated", so would we be exempt from any regulations? (IF it mattered?))!...Being a member of the unorganized militia confers/expects no rights, responsibilities, obligations, or authority until called upon. By law the fed gov't no longer supports it.

The people were warned of just such a move back during the very debates (1789) in the house on the amendments, the militia and the right to arms. To wit:

Mr. Gerry {Mass. Rep} — This declaration of rights, I take it, is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government...
What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Now it must be evident, that under this provision, together with their other powers, congress could take such measures with respect to a militia, as make a standing army necessary. Whenever government mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins.

What a phrophecy!

[Anyone here want their RIGHT to keep and bear arms tied exclusively to any type of militia, although the USSC has shown this may be our best protection against STATE violation of the RKBA.]

 

[ctdonath]

To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning.

Indeed. Came across a dramatic example today:

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.
- Rudy Giuliani

If we cannot agree on basic definitions of key terms, we will soon reach the last box.

 

[Derby FALs]

Freedom is Slavery?

 

[Kentak]

Well Regulated = Me, if I remember to take my Metamucil every day.

K

 

[ArfinGreebly]

Rudy Mussolini

Freedom is about authority. Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.
- Rudy Giuliani

In the words of the Great Vincini: Inconceivable!

Holy Crap!

Now there's a guy whom I can no longer even consider supporting.

Just Holy Wow!

 

[Thin Black Line]

Freedom is about the willingness of every single human being to cede to lawful authority a great deal of discretion about what you do and how you do it.

Hayek's ghost says again:

To make this argument sound plausible, the word "freedom" was subjected to a subtle change in meaning. The word had formerly meant freedom from coercion, from the arbitrary power of other men. Now it was made to mean freedom from necessity, release from the compulsion of the circumstances which inevitably limit the range of choice of all of us.

 

[lionking]

QUOTE;Thank you Robert Hairless for an interesting read.

I second that,I have a new respect for her,more than I did so before.

 

[Maximum1]

RE: well regulated" What does mean to you, in the 2nd Amendment?

I'd rather defer to the Founding Fathers who wrote it as to what they meant by "well regulated"....


“A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing
arms. To preserve liberty it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms...” Richard Henry Lee, Additional letters from The Federal Farmer 53 (1788).
---Meaning: WE THE PEOPLE ARE THE MILITIA


“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention (1788).

“Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion...in private self-defense.”
John Adams, A Defense of the Constitutions (1787-88).

“The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.”
Samuel Adams, during Massachusetts’ U.S. Constitution Ratification Convention (1788).

“Firearms stand next in importance to the Constitution itself. They are the American people’s liberty teeth and keystone under independence.”
George Washington.

“No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.”
Thomas Jefferson, Proposed Virginia Constitution (1776), Jefferson Papers 344 (J. Boyd, ed. 1950).

“To disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them...”
George Mason, 3 Elliott Debates (on the Constitution) 380.


In closing.....In the recent hearing In the District of Columbia to overturn the D.C. Gun ban the Judge responding to the D.C. Attorney who is arguing in favor of a continued gun ban he state "We the District of Columbia interpret the Second Amendment in military terms {i.e. Well Regulated Militia is the National Guard]. To which the Judge challenged, "Show me anybody in the 19th Century who interrupted the Second Amendment the way you did". Later the Attorney arguing for the cont. ban stated "the people can only be a collective" (meaning: not as individuals/rights) to which the Judge responded "Show me anywhere in the Bill of Rights that supports this "collective" (clearly the Judge understates the ENTIRE Bill Of Rights are INDIVUAL RIGHTS!).

 

[ProficientRifleman]

It means... "To put in good order..."

 

[Maximum1]

"It means... "To put in good order..."

We're talking about the meaning and intended use of the word within the Second Amendment by the Founding Fathers so I respectively disagree with your definition as it pertains to the Second Amendment.

 

[Derby FALs]

"It means... "To put in good order..."

We're talking about the meaning and intended use of the word within the Second Amendment by the Founding Fathers so I respectively disagree with your definition as it pertains to the Second Amendment.

How do you define "well regulated"?

 

[shield20]

...to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia



Hamilton - again.

 

[hqmhqm]

I seem to recall from some history books that I read that the founding fathers were wary of standing armies, and preferred that the United States would assemble its military from the citizens when possible. That is unfortunately at odds with today's highly technical military machine, which requires a lot of full time specialists.

I believe that the founding fathers would look with suspicion on our huge military infrastructure, and would ask if there were not another way we could ensure our security without the expense and risks with a huge full time army.

 

[Derby FALs]

Very good, shield.

 

[ctdonath]

From whatever angle you look at the Founding Fathers' views, it is clear that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" is exercised BEFORE a "well-regulated militia" can be achieved.

 

[Maximum1]

Derby FALs asked “How do you define "well regulated"?”

Here’s how….“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them.” George Mason, during Virginia’s ratification convention (1788

 

[Derby FALs]

I know what the militia is. What did the phrase "well regulated" mean to you?

 

[Maximum1]

“Well Regulated”

Too many people inject their personal opinion on topics such as this...We see liberals in Congress and Senate doing that all the time: inject THEIR VIEWS on the meaning of the Second Amendment which almost always flies in the face of the Founding Fathers intent....That's why "I" don't do that...My personal opinion on what it means is worthless. However, I like to read the writings of the Founding Fathers or others who spent time researching the subject along with reading (pre-progressive) judges writings on the topic.

Here's one in order to bring period meaning to the words....

1) In Relation to the Militia, What Exactly does “Well Regulated” Mean?
by Black Jack http://www.michiganmilitia.com/Black_Jack/regulated.htm

2) The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions http://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm (YOU REALLY NEED TO READ THE WHOLE DOCUMENT!)

I will inject this point: All too often (many progressives) read "right to keep and bear arms" as an extension of “Well Regulated” which is incorrect. A little research on your part will find many scholars including the original Founders making that point…

By the way, "The right to keep and bear arms" is expressly retained by "the people," not the states.
.
.

 

[ctdonath]

I recall being in a study group where everyone was asked for their personal definitions of a key term. Everyone happily gave theirs, everyone nodded in understanding and warm fuzzies. Then everyone proceeded to discuss the term, completely ignoring the fact that everyone was talking about something different.

2nd Amendment discussions keep doing the same thing. I keep seeing people argue points while having radically different definitions of "well regulated", "militia", "infringed", "people", etc.

It's nice to know what definitions everyone is using. Yes, that's nice.
Now can we AGREE ON SOME DEFINITIONS? Especially when the Founding Fathers made it abundantly clear what they meant when writing the durn sentence?

</vent>