PDA

View Full Version : Well "Regulated" militia?


gravedigger
07-21-2009, 10:27 PM
It occured to me that the liberals might be hung up on the word "regulated" in the 2nd Amendment. Liberals ONLY understand the word "regulated" to mean "under the complete control of the government."

(liberal thought process illustrated here)

"Hmmm ... "regulated" ... regulations ... restrictions ... prohibitions ... CONTROLS ...yeah! It MUST mean that the ordinary citizen is NOT allowed to own firearms unless the government REGULATES them!"

Perhaps that is why they insist that the clause, "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state,..." means it doesn't apply to the average citizen.

From the Internet, I searched a thesaurus for the word "regulated"

regulated - 10 thesaurus results

Main Entry: regulated
Part of Speech: adjective
Definition: controlled

Synonyms:

(I have substituted each of the synonyms into the clause, to see how it reads...)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It seems that the founding fathers should have selected a better word. Perhaps "armed" or "dispersed" or even "self-sufficient."

So lets look at the word "MILITIA"

Well, the thesaurus has NO synonyms, however the dictionary defines "militia" for us.

militia - 3 dictionary results

mi⋅li⋅tia
  /mɪˈlɪʃə/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mi-lish-uh] Show IPA

–noun

1. a body of citizens enrolled for military service, and called out periodically for drill but serving full time only in emergencies.

2. a body of citizen soldiers as distinguished from professional soldiers.

3. all able-bodied males considered by law eligible for military service.

4. a body of citizens organized in a paramilitary group and typically regarding themselves as defenders of individual rights against the presumed interference of the federal government.

It goes further ..

mi·li·tia (mə-lĭsh'ə)
n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

So we see that "regulated" can mean "arranged, fixed, set, settled" and "coordinated" as well as "controlled," yet the liberals insist that they know the exact meaning of that word the founding fathers had in mind when they chose it, when that is only one of many possible (and more likely) meanings.

We also see that "militia" pretty much means the CITIZEN, but also includes military personnel that are not necessarily a part of the regular army, and by definition #4, we learn that the intent of a militia is to gather together all citizens willing to defend their individual rights against FEDERAL government interference.

And finally ...

militia
1590, "system of military discipline," from L. militia "military service, warfare," from miles "soldier" (see military). Sense of "citizen army" (as distinct from professional soldiers) is first recorded 1696, perhaps from Fr. milice. In U.S. history, "the whole body of men declared by law amenable to military service, without enlistment, whether armed and drilled or not" (1777).

Now isn't THAT interesting!

radioburning
07-22-2009, 12:07 AM
From what I gather, prior to, and up to the time the Constitution was written, in England the term "well regulated militia" meant it was mandatory for any "of age" males to possess a firearm that would have to be submitted for inspection to insure proper working condition.

At the time, England was out trying to build an empire by conquering foreign lands. As a consequence, that left the actual land of Great Britain vulnerable to attack since many of England's able bodied men were not home.

Well regulated militia=if you're not in the Armed Forces, it is mandatory that you have a firearm that is up to regulation standards.

Once A Marine
07-22-2009, 12:13 AM
The remainder of the satement is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

I read this as he 2nd Amendment allowing for two things. State militias, and the inherent right for all citizens to keep and bear arms.

Hunter4life1990
07-22-2009, 12:15 AM
Well regulated militia=if you're not in the Armed Forces, it is mandatory that you have a firearm that is up to regulation standards.


if we could get that into their heads as the way it is supposed to be we would all be better off,and a hell of alot happier to :)

the_quark
07-22-2009, 12:16 AM
Idiomatically, at the time, it meant roughly "properly functioning". You also see it outside of militias. For example, the law chartering the University of North Carolina in 1789 talks in its preface about "well regulated Governments." This presumably does not mean governments that are Milspec, nor does it mean governments that have been taught to sit up and beg (though, apparently, little training is needed for that skill).

A modern translation of the 2nd might be "A properly functioning grouping of all armed, able bodied citizens being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-TQ

The Wingnut
07-22-2009, 12:19 AM
it was mandatory for any "of age" males to possess a firearm that would have to be submitted for inspection to insure proper working condition.
I like that definition.

One must also consider the role of the militia in the U.S. Revolution. They were civilian volunteers who supplied their own equipment and fought alongside the Continental Army. Their presence in the battles of Concord, Bennington and Saratoga, and the siege of Boston made a significant difference, especially at Lexington and Concord, where the fight was a complete rout in favor of the militia.

This was not a standing army, it was common citizens with their own arms and materials. Those who fail to understand the concept of an armed populace in order to preserve liberty will obviously misinterpret the 2nd amendment, and they'll run right past the militia portion.

otteray
07-22-2009, 5:59 AM
A modern translation of the 2nd might be "A properly functioning grouping of all armed, able bodied citizens being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-TQ

I like it.

yellowfin
07-22-2009, 6:50 AM
Interestingly enough, folks, this concept goes back to at least 1363 where archery was declared the official sport of England and on Sundays it was the only sport allowed. The king figured that if everyone was good at it they'd be all the better on the battlefield whenever the occasion arose--it was our own Civilian Marskmanship Program 650+ years before we thought of it.

As for anti gun toads trying to reinterpret it to destroy it, there is where I believe the 2nd Amendment (along with the rest of the BoR) was supposed to be equally as much for instruction for us as it was for the government. In the event someone wants to diminish our rights, FOR ANY REASON, that is supposed to be the red flag to kick them out of power. Step on 1 through 10 and you're a bad guy and out you go, period, no questions asked. Sadly as Thomas Jefferson predicted, our people are unfortunately too tolerant of evil and too slow to remove it.

AJAX22
07-22-2009, 6:51 AM
A closer phrasing to what was originally intended would be

"A well trained and adequately provisioned militia"

wilson_wwsc
07-22-2009, 7:11 AM
regulated - by 18th and 19th century definitions means trained and/or equipped.

militia - same definition as always - organized fighting force made up of any lawful citizen capable of so

command_liner
07-22-2009, 7:11 AM
Three quick notes.
1) Even today, when constructing a double rifle, the act of making
sure both barrels fire on the same target is called "regulating". A
well regulated multi-barrel arm is one that shoots all bullets on the
same target. The same concept applies to militia.

2) Recall that the concept of the pendulum clock was fairly new
at the time, and still considered a marvel. The pendulum clock was
a showpiece. The pendulum was called the regulator. You can still
buy "regulated" clocks new today. Check some horology sites.
In this sense, "well regulated" means something like "well made,
reliable and accurate".

3) Groups of men acting as militia have been known as "Regulators".
Meaning armed guys that can shoot well, but not a standing army.
There are plenty of historical accounts. Check some of the recent
summaries on the subject by Clayton Cramer.

Mulay El Raisuli
07-22-2009, 7:17 AM
A well "adjusted" militia being necessary to the security of a free state ...





I'm well adjusted, so I guess I'm good to go. :)

Seriously though, this is just with the dictionaries of our time. In the dictionaries of the their time, "well regulated" meant "well equipped." That would have been the definition of the FFs.

In any event, WHY the FFs wanted it isn't as important as WHAT they wanted; that THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

The Raisuli

PatriotnMore
07-22-2009, 7:27 AM
Although Heller was a positive, I am forever left wondering how one of the most important wordings of the second amendment has still not been addressed, "Shall Not Be Infringed".

This wording in the second, must be addressed and defined by the SCOTUS. I cannot understand, and yet anxiously wait to hear how this will be legally twisted to mean the government has the right to infringe.

If our highest courts rule that infringement can mean reasonable infringement, which based on some of the questions which were part of Heller suggests, "We The People" know we have not only lost our voice in the first two branches of government, but the third as well. In addition, it will only be a matter of time before Heller will be re-visited for a new ruling.

yellowfin
07-22-2009, 8:20 AM
If shall not be infringed is twisted to mean can be infringed any way they see fit, then I highly recommend we do some twisting of our own to SCOTUS' appointed for life.

aileron
07-22-2009, 8:23 AM
Although Heller was a positive, I am forever left wondering how one of the most important wordings of the second amendment has still not been addressed, "Shall Not Be Infringed".



Sadly they did...

Page 54 - 56 of the decision.


III
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second
Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through
the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely
explained that the right was not a right to keep and
carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever
and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume
346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example,
the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the
question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed
weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or
state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann.,
at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2
Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n.
11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an
exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the
Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion should be
taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the
possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or
laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places
such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing
conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.26
We also recognize another important limitation on the
right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have
explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those
“in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think
that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition
of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual
weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson,
Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J.
Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A
Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky
482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable
Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary
of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment
of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F.
Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United
States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C.
381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16 Ala. 65, 67 (1849);
English v. State, 35 Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier,
71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874).
It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful
in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be
banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely
detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said,
the conception of the militia at the time of the Second
Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens
capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of
lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia
duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as
effective as militias in the 18th century, would require
sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at
large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small
arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks.
But the fact that modern developments have limited
the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the
protected right cannot change our interpretation of the
right.

They need to see the Swiss Military in action to understand how a tank fits into the militia clause. They are seriously hurting its interpretation by suggesting the Militia cannot use Tanks to defend the country. They can. Though it would be more appropriate to have anti-tank weapons than a tank. Something that I think scares them because they don't understand the need for the equivalent 18th century magazines. So that the milita could check out arms stored there that are dangerous to have at the home. That way they could train at a designated place run by the Military with the type of arms needed for protecting the country.

The protocols for the militia to use weapons beyond the rifle and handgun just don't exist because they purposely neglected the militia.

forgiven
07-22-2009, 8:28 AM
Idiomatically, at the time, it meant roughly "properly functioning". You also see it outside of militias. For example, the law chartering the University of North Carolina in 1789 talks in its preface about "well regulated Governments." This presumably does not mean governments that are Milspec, nor does it mean governments that have been taught to sit up and beg (though, apparently, little training is needed for that skill).

A modern translation of the 2nd might be "A properly functioning grouping of all armed, able bodied citizens being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-TQ

:iagree:

PatriotnMore
07-22-2009, 8:31 AM
Sadly they did...

Page 54 - 56 of the decision.


I agree, I alluded to that, but in my mind they have not defined it, but talked around it. I know it was not challenged as the attorneys were working for a positive ruling in Heller and the 2nd. However, there is much ambiguous language in the Heller decision that needs to be defined, explained, and challenged.

RolinThundr
07-22-2009, 8:57 AM
...One must also consider the role of the militia in the U.S. Revolution. They were civilian volunteers who supplied their own equipment and fought alongside the Continental Army...This was not a standing army, it was common citizens with their own arms and materials. Those who fail to understand the concept of an armed populace in order to preserve liberty will obviously misinterpret the 2nd amendment, and they'll run right past the militia portion.

The Militia was also responsible for fighting alongside the British regular army prior to the Revolution. It is important to remember this detail as it demonstrates that the Revolution and US Constitution did not change the role or need for the militia or the manner in which it was equipped and operated.

It is also important to remember that English is a living language, meanings change over time. Gay did not mean homosexual 50+ years ago. "Regulated", I understand, at the time of the writing of the Constitution, meant being outfitted or equipped with all the necessities to perform a task or job.

Sadly, the Liberal Alliance will not listen to history, they're too busy trying to rewrite it while dictating our future.

Glock22Fan
07-22-2009, 9:00 AM
A modern translation of the 2nd might be "A properly functioning grouping of all armed, able bodied citizens being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

I agree

I sometimes test antis out with this paraphrase:

"Well read politicians being essential for the passing of properly thought out laws, the right of the people to own and read books shall not be infringed"

I ask them if that would mean that only politicians may own books. If they say, "of course not," then I ask them what is the difference in construction that allows one meaning to this, but a more restricted meaning to the second.

It's a pity though that (world wide) politicians are apparently not well read :D

RaceDay
07-22-2009, 9:24 AM
Idiomatically, at the time, it meant roughly "properly functioning". You also see it outside of militias. For example, the law chartering the University of North Carolina in 1789 talks in its preface about "well regulated Governments." This presumably does not mean governments that are Milspec, nor does it mean governments that have been taught to sit up and beg (though, apparently, little training is needed for that skill).

A modern translation of the 2nd might be "A properly functioning grouping of all armed, able bodied citizens being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

-TQ

Agreed.

The well-regulated clause means that the militia needs to know their weapons rather than just be a bunch of Yosemite Sams blasting away.

I am actually a big fan of that well-regulated clause because I think it adds to the 2A to make it say, not only am I allowed to have guns but you need to make ammo and space available so that I can be proficient with said guns. That is, you can't allow me to have a Remington 700 or Glock 19 but then limit me to 10 bullets a month or have some crazy tax on ammo.

currahee1
07-22-2009, 10:25 AM
In the Militia Act of 1792, the second Congress defined "militia of the
United States" to include almost every free adult male in the United
States. These persons were obligated by law to possess a firearm and a
minimum supply of ammunition and military equipment.


U.S.C. Sec 311(a) Militia
-STATUTE-
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied
males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section
313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a
declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States
and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the
National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are -
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard
and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of
the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the
Naval Militia.


"To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole
body of the people always possess arms, and be taught
alike, especially when young, how to use them."
(Richard Henry Lee, Virginia delegate to the
Continental Congress, initiator of the Declaration of
Independence, and member of the first Senate, which
passed the Bill of Rights.)

"The great object is that every man be armed ...
Everyone who is able may have a gun." (Patrick Henry,
in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the
Constitution.)

hvengel
07-22-2009, 1:33 PM
To expand on the time keeping or horological meaning of "well regulated" a little. The act of setting the rate at which a watch or clock runs (IE. making it run faster or slower) is called regulation. Time pieces are said to be "well regulated" if it loses or gains (IE. drifts) only a small amount from the official time and are not "well regulated" if the drift rate is too much. The "well regulated" and "regulation" terminology is still is use today by horologists (clock and watch makers) and has exactly the same meaning it did 200 or 300 years ago although how small the time piece's drift needs to be to be considered "well regulated" has changed with improving technology (IE. a quartz watch that drifts a second a day is not "well regulated" but a modern mechanical watch that drifts 5 seconds a day is "well regulated" and a watch from the 1600's that drifts 30 seconds a day may also be "well regulated").

M. Sage
07-22-2009, 6:59 PM
As far as I've been able to find out, in the 18th century "regulated" meant pretty much the same as "standardized" does today. Thus the interstate commerce clause (and its misinterpretation because of the change in the word "regulate") saying that Congress will regulate commerce between the States. Regulate meant to make regular, regular being normal.

Think about it: these guys put this in there as a check against governmental abuses, but they wanted the government to rule over the militia? Makes no sense whatsoever. What does make sense? For the militia to be standardized (in 20th/21s century speak). To have same or similar weapons (supplying an army is as important if not more so than fighting), and for units to drill the same way so that they're all on the same page when they hit the field. Nothing like giving a signal that means something different to each militia unit on the field, huh?

Nose Nuggets
07-22-2009, 7:49 PM
i think the easiest way to define "regulated" as it was known during the writing of this documented as 'to make regular,' or to ensure its normal ongoing existence.

The Militia Act of 1792, however, is the best source to reference for the intended meaning of "well regulated militia" as it clearly states the position of armed citizens of the time.


While we are on the subject though, its important to point this discussion towards other uses of the word "regulated" as it appears in the constitution and the bill of rights. specifically, Article 1 Section 8 Clause 3;
Congress shall have the power "To regulate commerce with foreign nations, and among the several states, and with the Indian tribes."
This is the clause that has been perverted to the point to irrelevance. it is this clause that gave congress the ability to create the NFA in the first place, to mandating how many miles per gallon a car must have, and pretty much any other federal law in existence that is there without a clearly defined ability to make that law provided by the constitution. Essentially the argument can be made that all of these things merely effect interstate trade, and can therefore be regulated. imho, its downright deplorable to think the guys who just fought off the most powerful military force in the world to secure their independence would, in the writing of the document specifying the minimum powers needed to run a government for the people, give one branch of that government the ability to regulate anything that could ever possibly effect trade between the states.