PDA

View Full Version : well regulated


arslin
01-08-2013, 2:03 PM
The original meaning of that is "well trained."

I know I am dreaming, but about the only new "restriction" that I would support is public firearms training. It would have to be low cost, and not so onerous that it restricted peoples ability to own a weapon.

We could hire retired military to run it like a CPR class.

Foremost, it would not be written by anti gun people to restrict ownership. Every effort would have to be taken to make sure that it could not be used as such.

mt4design
01-08-2013, 2:09 PM
I would go further and say that "well trained" means that people spend time at the range.

Militias weren't necessarily the standing army that stood toe to toe with the Brits and took and received volley after volley. Our forefathers were anything but "regular".

We are born guerrilla fighters, made to harass and through attrition, weaken the resolve of our enemy.

stix213
01-08-2013, 2:13 PM
The libertarian side of me thinks any training requirement is anti-2A....



Then again though I have a friend who refuses to take any kind of class and refuses to follow basic safety rules, always puts his finger immediately on the trigger, and sweeps anyone near him no matter how many times he is told to knock it off.... That guy needs a class. (I've pretty much stopped going to the range with him, lost cause)

donny77
01-08-2013, 2:22 PM
Well trained applies to the militia, not the People.

donny77
01-08-2013, 2:22 PM
Well trained applies to the militia, not the People.

-hanko
01-08-2013, 2:22 PM
The original meaning of that is "well trained."

I know I am dreaming, but about the only new "restriction" that I would support is public firearms training. It would have to be low cost, and not so onerous that it restricted peoples ability to own a weapon.

We could hire retired military to run it like a CPR class.

Foremost, it would not be written by anti gun people to restrict ownership. Every effort would have to be taken to make sure that it could not be used as such.
The original militia was probably self-trained.:sleeping:

You are having a nightmare.

Why in hell would you be in favor of ANY additional restriction? :confused:

-hanko

Rusty_Rebar
01-08-2013, 2:23 PM
Well I am not in favor of forcing people to do things, including going to a range. However I would be very happy to see the govt set up ranges, and offer free training to those who are interested. It is in the governments best interest to do so.

I think the intent of that "well regulated" part actually meant that the militia (those people that were not in the regular army) has a responsibility to keep their arms in good order, and know how to use them. Probably also to do some ad hoc training with friends and neighbors in their towns.

Wiz-of-Awd
01-08-2013, 2:27 PM
Well trained applies to the militia, not the People.

Well trained applies to the militia, not the People.

Go away donny77.

We are not buying into your thoughts on this.

A.W.D.

-hanko
01-08-2013, 2:31 PM
Well trained applies to the militia, not the People.
Have Mom and Dad explain the Second Amendment to you after dinner tonight...

Especially the part just before "...shall no be infringed."

The people are the Militia and are separate from the standing Army.

Cool post otherwise, though.:rolleyes:

-hanko

arslin
01-08-2013, 2:34 PM
Well trained applies to the militia, not the People.

At the time Militia was in two groups 1) the select militia, and 2) the general militia. The select was required to meet this it the equivalent of the national guard. The general was every able male between the age of 16 and at late as 60 in some states.

I am just saying that a case could be made for us to get training. Personally I would be for that. A firearm can be dangerous, but like a car... only if it is used improperly.

I also do not like the idea of it being required. I think that training is something that we are missing in our culture and firearms. The founders did not just think that we should all just own firearms... they thought we should have them, and know how to use them.

I look at as a civic duty.

Rusty_Rebar
01-08-2013, 2:42 PM
+1 to arslin.

arslin
01-08-2013, 2:45 PM
The original militia was probably self-trained.:sleeping:

You are having a nightmare.

Why in hell would you be in favor of ANY additional restriction? :confused:

-hanko

I admit... this is a bit a brain storm. So it is not a complete idea yet.

Is there anyone out there that thinks having training is a bad idea? Even the best should strive to learn more. It is a matter of who is running it. I'm not even thinking that it has to be required, but I think publicly available and low cost training would be a very good idea.

There are a large number of new gun owners out there that do not know how to handle a fire arm. When I was in high-school, I had marksmanship class. Something as simple as that should make a return.

-hanko
01-08-2013, 2:50 PM
Is there anyone out there that thinks having training is a bad idea? Even the best should strive to learn more. It is a matter of who is running it. I'm not even thinking that it has to be required, but I think publicly available and low cost training would be a very good idea.

There are a large number of new gun owners out there that do not know how to handle a fire arm. When I was in high-school, I had marksmanship class. Something as simple as that should make a return.
Training is an excellent idea...we all probably need more than we can imagine.

Training is publicly available, cost does vary.

Those who think like I do make it a priority, but it's not mandated by the government nor should it be.

So, when you post "...but about the only new "restriction" that I would support is public firearms training"...I guess I got a little confused...:rolleyes:

-hanko

Wolverine
01-08-2013, 2:52 PM
At the time Militia was in two groups 1) the select militia, and 2) the general militia. The select was required to meet this it the equivalent of the national guard. The general was every able male between the age of 16 and at late as 60 in some states.

I am just saying that a case could be made for us to get training. Personally I would be for that. A firearm can be dangerous, but like a car... only if it is used improperly.

I also do not like the idea of it being required. I think that training is something that we are missing in our culture and firearms. The founders did not just think that we should all just own firearms... they thought we should have them, and know how to use them.

I look at as a civic duty.

The second (Militia) Act, passed May 8, 1792, provided for the organization of the state militias. It conscripted every "free able-bodied white male citizen" between the ages of 18 and 45 into a local militia company. Militia members were to arm themselves with a musket, bayonet and belt, two spare flints, a cartridge box with 24 bullets, and a knapsack. Men owning rifles were required to provide a powder horn, 1/4 pound of gun powder, 20 rifle balls, a shooting pouch, and a knapsack.[5] Some occupations were exempt, such as congressmen, stagecoach drivers, and ferryboatmen. Otherwise, men were required to report for training twice a year, usually in the Spring and Fall.

Those ferryboatmen, always shirking.

arslin
01-08-2013, 3:03 PM
Training is an excellent idea...we all probably need more than we can imagine.

Training is publicly available, cost does vary.

Those who think like I do make it a priority, but it's not mandated by the government nor should it be.

So, when you post "...but about the only new "restriction" that I would support is public firearms training"...I guess I got a little confused...:rolleyes:

-hanko

That is why I put it in quotes... I guess my problem is that people look at a weapon a magical device that by simply owning makes a person powerful. To be completely honest the 2A says for us to be free, we not only should be armed, but regulated in the original meaning.

A "regular" at the time was a standard infantryman. Paul Revere did not say the British are coming... He said the "regulars" (as opposed to the Royal Marines). Thus, owning is not enough... we must regulate ourselves.

vincewarde
01-09-2013, 12:09 AM
Well trained applies to the militia, not the People.

Yes it does, but originally there was little difference. Well into the 1800's "musters" were held at least once per year. All able bodies males between roughly 18 and 55 had to report, with their personal weapons to be inspected by someone representing the government. If their rifle was rusty, or otherwise serviceable, they were required to repair or replace it. It is from this the we get the saying "that won't pass muster".

The militia system continued even during the Civil War and militia from both sides were used to supplement regular units and even to fight on their own when break thoughs happened such as Lee's invasion of the North or Sherman's March to the Sea. Fighting on their own, against much better equipped opposition, they did not fair well.

After the Civil War, I believe the militia system was revamped - but the death blow to the old "organized militia" system was when courts ruled it could not be sent overseas during the Spanish American War. That's why so many units were "USV" or United States Volunteers.

After the war, the system we know today of National Guard and Reserve units was set up, but the old militia system was quite intentionally left in place. All males aged 18-45 are, by definition, part of the "unorganized militia" and are subject to immediate call up for service within US borders. No new laws are needed. This has never happened in US history - but it did happen in the UK during WW2. They had to arm them with pitchforks and a few shotguns. It was a joke. Thank God the worst they had to face was downed German Air Crew - who were better armed then they were most of the time.

A US militia would be much, much less of a joke - especially if there was time to train. Trust me, the Pentagon knows all about this and certainly has contingency plans to use the militia in a worse case situation.

An interesting question would be, since the militias are a state matter, could a very pro-gun state simply allow anyone who wants to be part of the state militia to "activate" and than possess firearms otherwise banned by Federal law? Hmmm........

Haverecords
01-09-2013, 2:02 AM
I like it. I'd love to develop it further, as it has promise as an idea. I'd like your thoughts on my comment in the Ted Cruz on PBS thread as there are related concerns here (e.g. authority questions such as 'who is running it')


I don't even mind mandatory training depending on how it is constructed, and there are conceivable ways it could be developed so as to not infringe on the right. But even if something mandatory proves too difficult to mesh with a right, a program to encourage training would be in keeping with the thrust of the 2A, and would move beyond the defensive elements of the 2a (protection of right against infringement) onto actualizing the fullness of the right--why the right exists: such as keeping tyranny at bay--the more well trained citizens are, the more they will self-defend, self-organize, and self-rule (and 'self' can be used in both individual and community terms). Perhaps I've ran away with too much political philosophy there, but I think the point holds...





I admit... this is a bit a brain storm. So it is not a complete idea yet.

Is there anyone out there that thinks having training is a bad idea? Even the best should strive to learn more. It is a matter of who is running it. I'm not even thinking that it has to be required, but I think publicly available and low cost training would be a very good idea.

There are a large number of new gun owners out there that do not know how to handle a fire arm. When I was in high-school, I had marksmanship class. Something as simple as that should make a return.

CDFingers
01-09-2013, 6:43 AM
I like the idea in the OP, that "well regulated" means to be well trained, and that the only requirement for buying a firearm is to sign up for the training given by the certified business or individual of your choice.

That being said, why are we not exploring the relationship between the Ninth and Tenth Amendments in light of the Second being incorporated against the states (McDonald) via the Fourteenth?

If we look at CA gun laws and compare them to, say, Montana, it appears as if CA gun owners have been infringed upon. But no lawyers will take that.

Very Strange.

CDFingers

-hanko
01-09-2013, 6:58 AM
...why the right exists: such as keeping tyranny at bay--the more well trained citizens are, the more they will self-defend, self-organize, and self-rule (and 'self' can be used in both individual and community terms). Perhaps I've ran away with too much political philosophy there, but I think the point holds...
I like the point very much.

However, the last time somebody brought up the original purpose of the Second Amendment the overwhelming majority thought it might be "too much" to throw that on the table at this time, at least in California. :rolleyes:

They apparently preferred the FUD-hunt-fish crap.

-hanko

miztic
01-09-2013, 8:11 AM
"Well Regulated" doesn't mean well trained, it means "working correctly" or "working as intended", now read it again :)

arslin
01-09-2013, 9:25 AM
"Well Regulated" doesn't mean well trained, it means "working correctly" or "working as intended", now read it again :)

It means the same thing as what I am saying. A Regular was a fully trained, unit that could operate in a field of battle. so yes... working correctly is also correct.

War is not fought in the same way, but my point is that for the militia to be regular (or regulated) is to be able to be on par with regular infantry. The founders felt they should be able to function in the field. Training beyond that would be elite, and guard. To be regular was to receive nominal training.

During the revolution, the founders had found that our militia system was normally inadequate. Some units performed well, but others did not. They did not have the discipline. The idea behind the 2A was to keep them trained. If nothing else, so that they could be a pool to temporary feed into the non standing army.

The battle of kings mnt. was a prime example. A working irregular military unit formed out of a few small towns. They supplied themselves. They found the enemy, and defeated them. By the time a general could be sent to lead them, they went back to their homes.

miztic
01-10-2013, 7:55 AM
It means the same thing as what I am saying. A Regular was a fully trained, unit that could operate in a field of battle. so yes... working correctly is also correct.

War is not fought in the same way, but my point is that for the militia to be regular (or regulated) is to be able to be on par with regular infantry. The founders felt they should be able to function in the field. Training beyond that would be elite, and guard. To be regular was to receive nominal training.

During the revolution, the founders had found that our militia system was normally inadequate. Some units performed well, but others did not. They did not have the discipline. The idea behind the 2A was to keep them trained. If nothing else, so that they could be a pool to temporary feed into the non standing army.

The battle of kings mnt. was a prime example. A working irregular military unit formed out of a few small towns. They supplied themselves. They found the enemy, and defeated them. By the time a general could be sent to lead them, they went back to their homes.

I agree with you, but the point I was trying to make and failed was that some people try to translate "well regulated" into allowing all kinds of anti gun laws.. or translate "well regulated" into well trained and then use that to require 24 hour classes to get your CCW license etc.

In order for the militia to work correctly, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. is how I read it.
And yes, the militia should be able to go toe to toe with military infantry imo.

dieselpower
01-10-2013, 8:01 AM
I am not reading all the comments...

"well regulated" had nothing to do with training.

The best contemporary definition would be "covered by legal orders or policy." A LEO raid that has a search warrant is "well regulated".

dieselpower
01-10-2013, 8:05 AM
"Well Regulated" doesn't mean well trained, it means "working correctly" or "working as intended", now read it again :)

Yes very close IAW how I was taught as well.

A well regulated militia was one that had the full backing of law and policy as apposed to an outlaw gang of vigilantes murdering people.

Horton Fenty
01-10-2013, 9:36 AM
"Well Regulated" doesn't mean well trained, it means "working correctly" or "working as intended", now read it again :)

This.