During the Revolutionary War, untrained (un-regulated) militias had a tendency to break and retreat under the intense, direct fire of British troops. I think the "regulated" had little to do with individual firearm accuracy or supplies. It applied more to the training required to stand firm and face the fire.
"Well regulated"
- Thread starter NFrameFred
- Start date
Cooter Brown
Member
Below are early definitions, one from the 18th century and one from the 15th and 17th.
https://johnsonsdictionaryonline.org/views/search.php
regulate | Etymology, origin and meaning of regulate by etymonline
These definitions should be read carefully. The usage has only realtively recently changed.
I enjoy watching reruns of the old quiz show "What's My Line" on youtube. They go back to the early 50s. The panelists have to figure out what job a contestant does, and sometimes it involves figuring out what product they make or sell. On several occasions panelist Dorothy Kilgallen asks the question "Is this something that would be found in a well-regulated home?"
That's a proper usage of the term, and in line with the usage in the 2A .
“Well regulated” simply means “well equipped” or “well run”….like a well regulated timepiece.
“A well (run) militia, being necessary for….”
Word’s meanings can, overtime, change or morph/corrupt into alternate meanings.
The term “liberal”, for example, hardly means “enlightened” or “well rounded/open minded” anymore….it’s becoming just the opposite.
The term has been hijacked.
Unfortunately the term “regulated” has almost become synonymous with authoritative regulation.
“A well (run) militia, being necessary for….”
Word’s meanings can, overtime, change or morph/corrupt into alternate meanings.
The term “liberal”, for example, hardly means “enlightened” or “well rounded/open minded” anymore….it’s becoming just the opposite.
The term has been hijacked.
Unfortunately the term “regulated” has almost become synonymous with authoritative regulation.
"Twenty-seven words: Deconstructing the Second Amendment", by the Constitution Center...
( https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf )
( https://constitutioncenter.org/images/uploads/news/CNN_Aug_11.pdf )
Whenever someone wants to debate the Second Amendment with me, I ask him why? What does it matter? What would really change if 2A were repealed?
There are untold millions of firearms in private hands in this country, most of them unknown to Uncle Sam and the various state governments. Americans are not going to voluntarily give them up, and absent probable cause, governments have no reason to search private homes looking for guns.
Those who fantasize about disarming America might as well flap their arms and try to fly to the Moon...
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,345
- Reaction score
- 5,562
I admire your faith, but believe it's misplaced.
The Constitution is a gun owner's version of a PFA. Hold that paper up when your abusive Ex Uncle Sam comes through the door.
The Last Standing Knight
Member
Agreed. Although I think the attempt to limit certain weapons like was done in the NFA 1934 will be attempted and that attempt will be tied up in court for a very long time and will ultimately go nowhere.
As for "well-regulated" back in the days of the founding fathers, there was no real standing army per se nor even what we would call police forces today. In that vein EVERYONE that could hold a rifle WAS the militia. When you look at it realistically, that is still the case today and in some areas of the country still utilized in emergencies.
Our problem isn't so much a gun problem as it is a people problem.
Establishing probable cause is easy. Identifying likely gun owners isn’t that difficult for the Government. More so in States that require registration or a permit to purchase. The easiest way is too start with the folks that buy or have brought hunting and fishing licenses (having a handgun for protection when fishing is common). Consider the recent efforts to give a special merchant code on credit cards for guns and ammunition purchases. Consider how common the hacking of government and private companies. Then there is discussion forums on the Internet.
Then they can do it the time proven old way. Neighbors ratting on neighbor.
Q; How do you eat a elephant?
A; One bite at a time.
Last edited:
That's only because we don't hold elected officials accountable and continue to reelect them. The Constitution is the contract written by the states that empowers the federal government to exist. Without the Constitution, the federal government is just an illegitimate rogue force.
Repeal the whole thing and see how that works for ya.
- Joined
- Dec 2, 2012
- Messages
- 3,345
- Reaction score
- 5,562
With the Constitution, it's still a rogue force. We can debate it's legitimacy.
CAJUNLAWYER
Member
Y'all know that someone from the government is reading this thread and taking notes...........
My position is that I have no position...and I pay my taxes. The only reason why I am even here is 'cause I like to read Narragansett's posts 
My position is that I have no position...and I pay my taxes. The only reason why I am even here is 'cause I like to read Narragansett's posts
Last edited:
Complete correct. The Constitution is clear on the amending process and in no place does it exempt any unnamed portion.
Article V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
Interestingly, here is the English rule from which the Second Amendment sprang.
William Blackstone, Commentaries 1:139 - 1765
"5. The fifth and last auxiliary right of the subject, that I shall at present mention, is that of having arms for their defence, suitable to their condition and degree, and such as are allowed by law. Which is also declared by the same statute I W. & M. st. 2. c. 2. and is indeed a public allowance, under due restrictions, of the natural right of resistance and self-preservation, when the sanctions of society and laws are found insufficient to restrain the violence of oppression." - Blackstone, 'Commentaries on the Laws of England,' 1765
Last edited:
smithra_66
Member
- Joined
- Jan 6, 2020
- Messages
- 1,307
- Reaction score
- 2,140
"Well-Regulated" means "In Proper Working Order."
Such as "A well-regulated clock."
If it meant "lots of rules and regulations," why didn't framers LIST ANY OF THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS?
Such as "A well-regulated clock."
If it meant "lots of rules and regulations," why didn't framers LIST ANY OF THOSE RULES AND REGULATIONS?
Jon651
Member
Interesting bit of history. Did you know that the 2nd Amendment is not the only place that mentions the militia? A lot of folks don't realize that the Congress is actually who calls out the Militia, as well as who organizes, arms, disciplines, etc. them - although it's the States who get to select the officers.
Here it is...
Article 1, Section 7:
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion;
- 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;...
Here it is...
Article 1, Section 7:
- To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasion;
- 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;...
Y'all know that someone from the government is reading this thread and taking notes...........
DITTO !
Shades of Rush L!
back at you!
Last edited:
That IS interesting. As I understand Blackstone, above, English subjects had a right to arm themselves for their defense in accordance with their socioeconomic status — well equipped militias for the aristocrats and cudgels for the peasants, I assume — as long as these arms are permitted by law. Further, this right is only to be exercised when the existing laws and social norms are not sufficient to prevent oppression.
I also note that while he uses the singular "subject" he does not say "his defence." It is "their defence."
It would be interesting to read what the English pundits of the day made of the upstart republic's — our — Second Amendment. I wonder if they would see our 2A as substantially different.
My guess as to the difference between our 2A and Blackstone's comment above is that in our case we have done away with socioeconomic status as being relevant to the right of the people to bear arms in their defense.
My own view, having read some of the scholarship on both sides of the question of whether or not the 2A was intended to attest to the existence of an individual right, is that it most likely did not. And I think American jurisprudence until the late 20th century largely bears this out. It seems unlikely to me that it took our country over two hundred years to understand the 2A properly...
Militia also appears elsewhere in the Bill of Rights:
Amendment V
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
