What if "Regulated" really means "Regulated"?

Status
Not open for further replies.
IF - a big "if" - the word "regulated" referred to the modern socialist understanding thereof, the government would have an implicit duty/obligation to facilitate exercise of the activity.

Analogy: cars.
Driving automobiles is obviously "well-regulated" (in the modern socialist understanding thereof). This does not mean the gov't does all it can to hinder ownership and use (beyond basic widely-accepted safety limits); cars capable of exceeding 55MPH are not banned, nor are cars prohibited within 500' of schools. This does mean that in exchange for certain (arguably) socially beneficial regulation (traffic lights, drive on the right side, inspections, registration, speed limits, etc.), the gov't does a great deal to facilitate vehicular travel (build/maintain roads, plow snow, clean up accidents, apprehend drunks, etc.). Sure we have to put up with a lot of "regulation" to drive, but it sure is handy for the gov't to provide a clear path from my home to work (50 miles in 50 minutes).

This is in stark contrast to most people who insist RKBA's "regulated" definition be modern. If they are serious about a "well-regulated militia" they MUST insist on allowing (at minimum) standard world-class modern arms, complete with gov't-provided training (conveniently located and mostly $free) geared toward actual "security of a free state". Instead, the socialist "regulated" crowd only uses "regulated" to justify restrictions and infringements designed solely to inhibit, and ultimately prohibit, RKBA. If they are serious about the 2nd's first clause, they must insist on lawful ownership of M16s and turning the CMP into a real homeland-security train-the-citizens organization.

No, the National Guard does not count: just as driving on a freeway does not conscript you to be a federal courier for 2 years, exercising RKBA should not make you liable for 2 years in Iraq.

If anyone suggests "regulated means regulated (modern definition)", ask them if their method of "regulation" facilitates "security of a free state" thru ability to effectively participate in the militia. If they insist on "regulated", make them support the WHOLE 2nd; they're not allowed to pick-and-choose any more than we are.
 
armed populace being the only means to control/regulate a tyranical militia
Click to expand...

If so, wouldn't it be "Regulation of the militia, being necessary..."? But I do agree with the concept. An armed populace is necessary to keep the rulers in line. To me 2A is to be a Sword of Damocles over the heads of the politicos; a way of saying "You will go this far and no further!". Ah, but who am I kidding. The politicos would just unlimber the spinmeisters and convince everyone that slavery is freedom (Sounds awfully like "Arbeit macht Frei!").

As far as the application of the ammendment (does it limit the fed or the states), the question still stands. If 2A only limits the feds, then the states can say, "No guns." and they could also say "No printing presses" and "To hell with Miranda!".

Any time the feds want to get rid of the guns constitutionally, all they need is an ammendment.
 
Remember that most state constitutions have a right to bear arms amendment in it. Most are worded similarly to the federal constitution. They associate a right to bear arms with the militia, but also state that there is a personal, individual right as well. This is a false dilemma tha antis are creating: either the 2nd amendment means that the government can maintain state militias or individuals have a right to own guns. It's both.

And what's the point of a state constitutional right to bear arms? To prevent the state from disarming its own militia? Gibberish. Nonsense. Horse apples. The antis are full of it and they know it.
 
"A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,"

This is where the anti's think they have us. To them it says that the militia -- or military forces -- is the group that should be allowed to have arms to protect the state. We all agree this is ridiculous -- why would the government tell itself it can have arms for the army in a document that otherwise limits the power of that government?

So...why is it so important that the people be armed? It's not for hunting, it's not for self-defense from crazed druggies -- it's to stand up to tyranny.

Tyranny is not imposed by some crazy dictator, it's a crazy dictator or charming committee backed up by a military or police force that imposes its will upon people to turn them into subjects.

Without a military, no tyrant.

So any military must be controlled, or regulated to ensure the security of the free state.

Who better to maintain control over a rogue military than an armed populace?

This interpretation certainly isn't politically correct, but it fits well with the reason I want me and my countrymen armed - protection from tyrannical rule imposed by a military force. I still can't see why pro-RKBA forces have not interpreted the 2nd Amendment this way.
Click to expand...

The difficulty here, I think, is not that the idea is a bad one, but simply that the text does not support the idea in a useful way.

Your idea would be applicable if the amendment said ]"A well regulated military, being necessary to the security of a free state," – as one possible interpretation of regulating the military would be for an armed populace to “regulate†it by suppressing it by force of arms if necessary.

However, as the FF’s made a clear distinction between the military (“standing armiesâ€) and the militia (made up of the armed populace) I think that your suggestion would logically self-destruct in actual use, as your idea requires “militia†to be interpreted as “standing armyâ€.

Logically, once you advance such an argument, all one would have to do to argue against it would be to accept your premises as correct, and then show that the word “militia†could not mean “standing army.â€

Once that was done, you would then, having advanced the argument, logically be honor-bound to agree that the FF’s intended “someone†to regulate ("subject to regulations of a superior authority") possession of arms of the militia (the people at large.) The only debate then would be who “someone†was, and an anti would simply argue that it was either the government, as granted therein, or the people in general, as expressed by the democratic process, which of course devolves right back to control by the government.

Dex }:>=-
 
FWIW the highest authority in the 1700s was somebody's cousin or friend down the road. The population of the entire US in 1780 was less than 3 million, less than the population of ALABAMA now. Thomas Jefferson lived in a boarding house with common citizens when he was elected president!

They just didn't have megagovernments back then and there is no reasonable way we can construct 'well regulated' to imply anything like the modern meaning .:banghead:
 
Dex -- I think you've got my answer. Thank you!

The distinction between "militia" and "military" when this was written clears it up for me. I always assumed the Founding Fathers were against a standing army, so the militia WAS the US army.

It also makes a lot of sense -- to MeekandMild's point -- that "regulated" as we know it now would be a foreign concept to those who seek to limit government.

Oh how far we've slipped down the slope.

Thanks all!
 
ReadyontheRight:

"Regulated" applies to the word "Militia", not to the word "Arms" or to the word "People". My question applies to the concept of an armed populace being the only means to control/regulate a tyranical militia.

Ah, I see the confusion.

"Militia", as legally defined, means (for most practical purposes) all of us. The armed populace is the militia - that's what the Founding Fathers meant, and that's what current law says.

My prior answer addressed the point that in "regulating", antis are not regulating the militia in such a way as to promote "the security of a free state".

What you seem to be saying is that an armed populace is regulating the military/government, standing ready to hit "reset" if need be. Well ... yeah! Different technical line of reasoning, but same basic result.

Who constitutes the "militia"?

According to the Founding Fathers, the "militia" is the whole populace able to act in that capacity. A great many quotes show this is their intent, with few to none indicating anything to the contrary. To that end, "a well-regulated militia" is "the people" well-equipped.

If one attempts to interpret "regulated" as you are (i.e.: as the antis often insincerely insist), the "militia" is the "military" (i.e.: standing army plus formal reserves), and the 2nd calls for "the people" to be well-equipped to regulate the militia.

However you look at it, we end up with an armed populace.
 
What I've read here and else where mainly convinces me otherwise.

But on my road from conversion from anti to pro, I did have a "sudden realisation" that that was what it might mean.

"We need an army to defend the state".
"And the people must be armed to keep the army in line".


Although I now think its probably (and rather clumsily worded) "An armed population is necessary for security and freedom, so don't disarm us".
 
I'll tell you about an armed citizenry keeping the military in line.

Every year some 14,000,000 snipers fully equipped with cammo, transport, GPS, maps, communications, intel, rations, and other military equipment go on exercise maneuvers throughout the country during a few weeks every fall. That's more than the sum total of the four biggest formal militaries combined. Every member of this militia operates completely independently, or as part of small, nearly impenetrable cells. They practice their skills on highly alert live targets. Every single one keeps and maintains his own equipment. Only voluntarily do they alert the state to their activities and success, and only voluntarily make themselves visible to the general public via bright orange markings, as they participate in Operation Deer Season.

Don't scoff at what that means to the security of a free state.

Yes, I have seen the video you refer to. Yes, it is very impressive. The effort that went into that strike was huge - and that was three obvious tangos standing out in a desert. Imagine the "tango" is just another face in the crowd ... or that he's piloting that Apache.
 
I seriously doubt that there are 14 million Carlos Hathcocks out there, but you are barking up the right tree. I just don't think they'd do too well against that. Pick a different target.
 
If 1% of 1% are "Carlos Hathcocks" as you put it (and it's not THAT hard to hit a 1m target from 1000m), that's 1400 out there ... and they are part of the populace.

The pilot has to get out and pee some time.
 
Well, look at how well the U.S., at pretty much maximum motivation, did against Muhammad and Malvo--the two of them pretty much did what they wanted to, and only got caught because they were trying to get caught.

(Yeah, I know that they were only up against the civilian police force, not the military. And Chief Moose, at that. But, on the side of the equation, as has been pointed out many times here in THR, they were a long way from what a trained sniper would call "snipers.")
 
The incident in DC was being handled from a law enforcement standpoint; they wanted to catch the shooters. End of story. However, if we are trying to control an out of control military, the best we can hope for is something like that faced by our opponants in Iraq at the height of the war; the military trying to minimize non-combatant casualties.

I don't think that would happen in the case we are discussing. We would be demonized as crazies and they would be quite happy to kill our families to get to us. Therefore, if I were running the show from our side, I would definitely go with the long range shooters, but I would avoid engaging the military, because they, too, have long range shooters who could be assumed to have better equipment (Gen 3 night vision seems to be top of the line that available to us - I expect they might have Gen 5 or 6) than we (whatever we have going in would be about it - any resupply would have to be liberated - wasn't this part of the south's problem during the Civil War?).

We could only "win" if someone on the other side chose to let us win by saying "Enough". In a fight to the last man standing, the last man would be military.
 
Go to the oxford english dictionary. The meanings now are the same as they were then.

Regulated means supplied. A Well Supplied...............

The authors were also pretty good at the use of the english language.

The first part of the sentence in no way modifies the second part. I have posted an analysis of the 2nd amendment from an English professor who wrote the analysis without regard to anything but the structure of the english sentence used in the amendment. It is absolutley clear that you have a right to keep and to bear arms, period.

The founding fathers knew that ownership of guns would always present an implied threat to those who would run our government. Its not the hunting amendment.

If the members of the government have no intention of taking our freedom, what are they all in an uproar about? They are all about arguments they can use to dis arm you and make you into a defenseless subject.

All freedom through the history of this country and through out the world issues forth from the barrel of a gun. All suppression of freedom also issues forth from the barrel of a gun. Namby pamby parasites of freedom known as liberals are either too much of a sissy (in the name of high brow cultural sophistication) to acknowledge this or they are tyrannical enough to know their desires can not be realized while citizens are armed. Each type of liberal supports the other.

Make no mistake about it, you have every right to keep and to bear arms.
 
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. This is largely because a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state."
Click to expand...

Just in case you use that agian, you forgot "of the people" which I think is really important.
 
This is real simple, folks. The language is clear. The Second Amendment merely states 1) what is necessary for the security of a free state, i.e., a well regulated militia (so far, no rights are mentioned), while 2) guaranteeing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. You see, if you infringe on that right, then a militia (well regulated or otherwise) is not possible, as a militia is by definition made up of people bringing their own personally owned guns to muster.

It doesn't matter if there is a well regulated militia today, however, and it doesn't matter how you interpret the word "regulated," as there is no requirement in the Second Amendment that there even be an active militia (well regulated, or otherwise), only a statement that one is necessary for the security of a free state. You see, we the people are free to choose not to do what is necessary for the security of a free state. The Constitution compels, and places limits on, the government's actions, not the people's. The important part is that the Second Amendment acknowledges the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and decrees (as the highest law of the land) that this right shall not be infringed. The Founding Fathers desired that we the people would always choose to do what is necessary for the security of a free state, i.e., that we would muster, drill and practice as fighting units with our own weapons, but we are not legally bound by their expectations. On the contrary, it is the government that is bound and restrained by the Second Amendment to leave that avenue open to [we] the people, in the hopes that we would do what was necessary for the security of a free state.

To reiterate, the first part of the Second Amendment is merely a statement of why the right must not be infringed (i.e., people having their own guns is a prerequisite for a militia of any type, let alone the well regulated variety thought necessary for the security of a free state). The second part states that it must in fact not be infringed (that's the law of the land), but (and perhaps more importantly) within the second part is also a clear acknowledgement of the existence of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, notwithstanding the issue of whether it ought not be infringed. The most important part, in other words, is that the right is acknowledged at all as belonging to the people. We all know who the people are. They are you and I. We all know what a right is. It is the situation wherein no one may rightly prevent you from doing something. So you and I may keep and bear arms, and no one may rightly prevent it. It is not the existence of any type of militia (well regulated or otherwise) that is a requisite for this right, but rather it is this right (and its non-infringement) that is a requisite for any type of militia; one type of which (the well regulated variety) having been thought by the Founding Fathers necessary for the security of a free state.

That said, the words "well regulated" meant "well ordered" to the Founding Fathers. If a militia is good, an orderly one is even better. The Founding Fathers did not use the word "regulated" the way we moderns do, as in "government regulations." In the context of a militia, "regulated" meant that there were regular and orderly drilling and mustering procedures. The meaning of the word "regulated," however (as I hope I have made very clear) has absolutely no bearing on exactly what the government is legally restrained from doing. The government is legally restrained by the Second Amendment from infringing on the people's right to keep and bear arms. There ought to be absolutely no confusion here for anyone whose native tongue is the English language.
 
Last edited:
We could only "win" if someone on the other side chose to let us win by saying "Enough".

"Our side" loses only when each and every participant decides "enough".
"Their side" loses only when leaders decide "enough".

Kinda like Europe in WWII: France, Poland, etc. all gave up swiftly when the top dogs decided to surrender and underlings obeyed ... but Switzerland was left alone precisely because everyone was armed and refused surrender.
 
Kinda like Europe in WWII: France, Poland, etc. all gave up swiftly when the top dogs decided to surrender and underlings obeyed ... but Switzerland was left alone precisely because everyone was armed and refused surrender.
Click to expand...
An addtional factoid that is now public is the Swiss bankers were bankers of the Third Reich. They were instrumental in financing Chermany's war machine.

Switzerland was also left alone because is was where both sides could communicate privately without raising eyes.

Yea, the Swiss were armed and trained, but there is more to the story than just that.
 
Hitler wanted to invade Switzerland, but when he proposed it to his generals, he was informed that it could be accomplished, but at the cost of over 100,000 of his troops lost. He chose to go around instead.
 
I have posted an analysis of the 2nd amendment from an English professor who wrote the analysis without regard to anything but the structure of the english sentence used in the amendment.
Click to expand...

Are you talking about this analysis?:

Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California from the September 13, 1991 issue of GUN WEEK: THE UNABRIDGED SECOND AMENDMENT by J. Neil Schulman at this thread:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthre...&threadid=63764

Specifically, Professor Copperud analyzes the word "regulated" in the Second Amendment.

"...[Schulman: (5) Which of the following does the phrase "well-regulated militia" mean: "well-equipped," "well-organized," "well-drilled," "well-educated," or "subject to regulations of a superior authority"?]

[Copperud:] (5) The phrase means "subject to regulations of a superior authority"; this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military. ..."
Click to expand...

The founding fathers had just declared independence from their own English governement and fought their own military -- in which many of them had served. The "invading army" used to be their own army. They proved their superior authority by, among other things, being crack shots with their own arms.

However you look at it, we end up with an armed populace.
Click to expand...

Agreed -- I was just wondering why I've never heard the interpretation I mentioned above -- which I believe would help the RKBA cause.

However, as the FF’s made a clear distinction between the military (“standing armiesâ€) and the militia (made up of the armed populace) I think that your suggestion would logically self-destruct in actual use, as your idea requires “militia†to be interpreted as “standing armyâ€.
Click to expand...

Yes, that does break the idea apart.

Every year some 14,000,000 snipers fully equipped with cammo, transport, GPS, maps, communications, intel, rations, and other military equipment go on exercise maneuvers throughout the country during a few weeks every fall. That's more than the sum total of the four biggest formal militaries combined. Every member of this militia operates completely independently, or as part of small, nearly impenetrable cells. They practice their skills on highly alert live targets. Every single one keeps and maintains his own equipment. Only voluntarily do they alert the state to their activities and success, and only voluntarily make themselves visible to the general public via bright orange markings, as they participate in Operation Deer Season.
Click to expand...

Amen Brother. Let's all encourage some youngsters and get them involved in deer camp.:D A well-equipped citizenry trained in firearms and woodscraft makes both our armed forces and our country undeniably stronger.

Carlos Hathcock was a great man, but isn't the whole point of the gun and RKBA to allow all of us a measure of lethal self-defense? I think Mr. Hathcock would have been great even if he had been limited to sticks and stones. Just a little training with a good rifle can make almost any man worth his salt an extremely disruptive force.
 
That definition of "regulated" makes no sense, as the militia and the army are two seperate and distinct bodies. The militia's role, or at least one of them, is to prevent a standing army imposing tyranny at the behest of the central government. It makes no sense, therefore, to suggest that the FFs intended that the central government regulate the militia. This defeats its purpose.

That said, the meaing of "regulated" bears no relevance to the recognition of the right belonging to the people. See my above post for an explanation.
 
Interstingly enough I just posted an item on a different board about "well regulated" in response to someone who believed that government could ban whatever weapons they like.






"well regulated" in terms of the language when the bill of rights was ratified meant something along the lines of "well equipt and trained." Alot of conscripts into Washington's army showed up without enough ammunition if they brought a rifle at all- they often times left their arms at home so the woman of the house could defend it if needed.

If you don't believe me, take alok at the words "well regulated" in a modern sense. What do the two words mean together? Would it mean highly regulated? Heavily restricted? A militia that cannot legally own military weapons?

No, that would not make sense, would it?
 
Wouldn't matter if it did. The duty to regulate a thing is not the right to destroy it.

Some antis will also argue that since the militia is "not well-regulated" today, that makes the 2nd void. Of course it does not. If a government has a duty to make certain that the militia is well-regulated, then only keeping it well-regulated is the only action that would address that. Getting rid of the militia because the government has not kept up with its duty to the militia is not an option.

Also, if any government were given any authority to regulated the militia, it would be the states or lower. Never the feds.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
John Jay: "a well regulated camp"
Replies
6
Views
482
M1911Owner
M
R
  • Locked
The real definition of "regulate"
Replies
13
Views
3K
Dex Sinister
D
S
  • Locked
A Well Regulated Militia
Replies
21
Views
812
Quartus
Q
R
  • Locked
History lesson: Second Amendment requires regulation
2
Replies
31
Views
1K
beerslurpy
B
D
  • Locked
What does "well regulated" mean in the 2nd Amendment?
2 3
Replies
72
Views
4K
ctdonath
C
Back
Top