Defensive Carry banner

A Well Regulated Militia.....

4K views 45 replies 24 participants last post by  NONAME762 
#1 ·
I think it's worth making a point about this phrasing in the Second Amendment.

Up until the beginning of the 20th century, "regulation" remained a martial term.

Troops were kept regulated (colonial writers/officers spoke frequently about regulating their men),
and rifle makers always referred to the regulation of the barrels of what they made.

It meant to shoot with accuracy, or to hit something with accuracy.

It was still used this way up until (and during) the Civil War, but after that began to fall into disuse.
About this same time it was used more and more by clock and pocket watchmakers to refer to the accuracy of their
time pieces.

The term "Regulators" was a pun on both meanings, as they were rowdy men hired (or self appointed) to shoot
bad guys (and sheep ranchers!)....regulated because they could hit what they aimed at, and keeping things running like
a clock.

Double gun makers still "regulate" their firearms of course, but it's mainly a watchmakers term term now
(mechanical watches are still regulated).

I don't hear this definition used much, and nowadays regulate means to control or restrict.
 
See less See more
#2 ·
It's always been a problem applying modern definitions to old documents. People do it all the time with the bible. Translated into english,(Old English)in the 1500s using the closest english word they had for the translation, hence,it is not really accurate. Same with the bill of rights and the Constitution. you are right, regulated when written in that time,had a different meaning than its common definition today. This is only an opportunity for those wanting to be dishonest, to fool the "usefull idiots" when it suits their political agenda.
 
#3 ·
I also have a hard time with people who think the "Militia" means the "Military". We have the Active Duty Military, the Reserves & the National Guard. The Militia is all of the rest of the able-bodied citizens. Militia does not mean the National Guard as some would have you believe.

The 2nd Amendment speaks of a "well regulated militia". This very simply means a well trained citizenry. It's taken for granted the any arm of the Military will be "well regulated" or "well trained" in modern language. This is the reason many 2A supporters agree with training requirements some states have. There has to be a fine point between "not infringed" & "well regulated". I can see both sides to the argument what the 2A actually means.
 
#6 ·
NETim,

I read both of those articles, and while well written, they don't explain the term "well regulated".

I got interested in this bit of minutiae when I started playing at gunsmithing, and acquired a few antique firearms.
The men who made these pieces were sometimes literate, and they wrote about "regulating" the rifle.
That lead to reading about the men who shot these rifles, and the tactics they employed.

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

I read it this way: Armed citizens who protect the state must be skilled. The people shall have a right to keep and carry weapons.

It becomes a lot more clear.
 
#8 ·
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
I read it this way: Armed citizens who protect the state must be skilled. The people shall have a right to keep and carry weapons.
I think the term "free State" is very important also. To me, all of this means that the purpose of the citizenry having the right to bear arms is to ensure their ability to resist an over-reaching and oppressive federal government. I think this is precisely what the founders intended to accomplish with the 2A.
 
#46 ·
If you feel you need a better description of the word *Regulated* where it applies to the modern militia you might try the *National Militia Standards*. I know of 2 websites that have a link to the NMS. Of the 2 AWRM.org is my preferred site.
 
#9 ·
The problem is that people interpret the Amendment the way that they want to. They have no interest in understanding the intentions of the Founding Fathers.

"A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves...and include all men capable of bearing arms."
- Richard Henry Lee ~ Additional Letters from the Federal Farmer (1788) at 169

"No Free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms."
- Thomas Jefferson ~ Proposal Virginia Constitution, 1 T. Jefferson Papers, 334,[C.J.Boyd, Ed., 1950]

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms..."
- Samuel Adams ~ Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Peirce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850. 2, col. 2.

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms."

- James Madison, The Federalist Papers #46 at 243-244

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials."

- George Mason ~ 3 Elliot, Debates at 425-426
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aceoky
#10 ·
In 1776 there was no standing army. The entire war was fought by militias. By 1812 the USA had an actual army and navy. I am nor sure about the actual dates but the evidence is conclusive.
 
#14 ·
"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"

I read it as: Since the government must be armed and police the state to protect it, we must be armed in case the militia becomes tyrannical.
 
#16 ·
I hate to be a wet blanket but TO ME the Well regulated milltia agrument carries the least amount of weight as to why we have firearms. Maybe back in the day when most frontiersmen were more or less as profecient as the armies they were fighting againist but in todays world when I hear "well regulated militia" I have visions of "Red Dawn" or "out of my cold dead hands". Just not very realistic with todays modern military and zero deterrent to a goverment going awry.
 
#17 ·
Why would the framers of this great nation create a Bill of Rights stating what the limits of the government are and within one of those rights talk about "regulating" a citizen army? That would contradict the whole point of stating that right in the first place. A "well regulated militia" meant to be regulated from within and not by some all powerful government. It meant a state of readiness and level of training to ward off a possible tyrannical government. Those guys knew what they were doing and understood how a king could with unyielding power could affect and control their lives.
 
#19 ·
Why would the framers of this great nation create a Bill of Rights stating what the limits of the government are and within one of those rights talk about "regulating" a citizen army? That would contradict the whole point of stating that right in the first place. A "well regulated militia" meant to be regulated from within and not by some all powerful government. It meant a state of readiness and level of training to ward off a possible tyrannical government. Those guys knew what they were doing and understood how a king could with unyielding power could affect and control their lives.
The only problem with the boldest portion of your statement is that many gun owners don't want or feel the need for even that level of training, it is an infringement to them. They feel it is everyone's right to just buy a gun and carry without ANY training, even the most basic safety training. I believe someone posted an idea similar to a SCUBA C card, an idea which was listed as an "anti-gun" proposal. I'm all for everyone being able to purchase whatever they desire, just be trained in basic safety before leaving the store. However if you are gonna endanger the public (via carry) perhaps more training SHOULD be required. You have a right to do what you want in the privacy of your on property, however you do not have the right to pose a possible threat to the safety of the public at large.
Then there are the C. A. N. T. crowd that don't want to share knowledge with anyone. There was a time when only those up to no good carried concealed.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
 
#21 ·
You have a right to do what you want in the privacy of your on property, however you do not have the right to pose a possible threat to the safety of the public at large.
REALLY?

BEAR ARMS clearly means "to carry and have" .....that means on it's face your argument isn't valid- but to play along:

Please show where this limit to A RIGHT exists (SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED seems pretty clear ?)and secondly please prove beyond any reasonable doubt (with some real world data)

A.) That exercising your 2nd RIGHT poses some well proved danger that training would actually "solve" (I can prove that driving does and it's not even a Right)
B.) Provide real hard data of what type(s) of training would make a positive difference, how it will be paid for (so as to not infringe on lower income citizens)
C.) WHO gets to decide "what level" is "enough" and what measures would be placed to insure that no abuse would be likely used to infringe on the 2nd Amendment RIGHTS enumerated clearly.
 
#23 ·
The Militia is defined and delineated in most state constitutions. It was the intention of the drafters of the U.S. Constitution to place militias under local control until called out to Federal duty. The militia was a state and local (sometimes down to county level!) force. The Tennessee State Code Annotated, drawing its authority from the state constitution, now specifically designates what a militia is. People are forming "Militia" units under old militia laws in TN but it is not clear if they are truly militias as the old laws have been superseded by the TCA. The general consensus is, however, that if they don't arm or actually conduct military maneuvers, they are not actually illegal. Most of these militia groups are actually training and working with Emergency Management (FEMA and TEMA) and are not armed as a corporate body. In practicality, a Sheriff's posse is form of militia and can be armed, under the authority of the Sheriff's office. Such a duty would give credence to the necessity for all citizens to possess arms, to help carry out civic duties.

It is very difficult to equate the term "Militia" as used in 1775 with any such term today. I would choose to err on the side of saying that local authority (County or State) would have authority to temporarily form and activate local citizens for emergency service under a local authority (State Police or Sheriff) and to allow them to be armed. If this is a "militia" then so be it.
 
#24 ·
Many folks do not seem to realize the "King's English" and American English are not identical, so what was said "back when" may not mean what one thinks it means . Bear Arms and shall not be infringed do however mean now what they did then
 
  • Like
Reactions: GH
#25 ·
See, that's my point. Some here see any type (government or private) of mandated training as being too much infringement. They want anyone with the money to be able to go out and buy whatever they desire (some even without a background check) and, with no training at all be allowed to carry in public. That includes the idiots who wanna buy a Smith 500 who can barely hold it level. YouTube is full of vids of "Girlfriend Shooting My Desert Eagle for the First Time" type things. Not every person CAN shoot every gun, nor should they. Does it happen, maybe. Can it happen, possibly.
My question for you is, do you want to be in the same crowded theater with Mr or Ms "bigger gun will make up for lack of training" when the gunfire erupts especially if they are also the type to either spray & pray or shoot first figure out who needs to be shot after?
I see people all the time who can't hit a vital shot on a deer without a gun that will kill with just about any body shot. The 06 has taken more deer than near any other round but these idiots think it takes a 7mm mag to kill a deer because they can't reliably hit anything smaller than a large pizza box. They never practice, but they are "great" hunters.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
 
#26 ·
The Federalist papers were clear the Militia is "the whole of the people " save but a few rulers (or words to this effect) it is clearly NOT the National Guard or Fed military (as SCOTUS also made quite clear in Heller et. al.)
 
#37 ·
The Federalist papers were clear the Militia is "the whole of the people " save but a few rulers (or words to this effect) it is clearly NOT the National Guard or Fed military (as SCOTUS also made quite clear in Heller et. al.)
The founders refered to what today is the NG as a SELECT MILITIA. The idea being that this would form the core around which the militia would be formed, trained to a higher level they would in turn train the less trained militia.

Which still back in the 70s (when I was working toward being a Marine Corps officer) was the plan in event of a major international crises (the USSR doing something like invading Europe)

The regulars would be sent overseas
The reserves would step up and fill the void left by deployments of the regulars
The National Guard would form and train the unorganized militia, who were expected to show up with arms of their own
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aceoky
#27 ·
My question for you is, do you want to be in the same crowded theater with Mr or Ms "bigger gun will make up for lack of training"
What I may "want" has no bearing on other's RIGHTS........period

IF someone DOES actually go out doing what you suggest that is a crime and they will be treated as a criminal, you don't enact laws "just in case someone MIGHT do something so as to punish them" you make Actual ACTS illegal.........that IS our system.

Also it is NOT "Some" here, "think" at all - it IS clearly what the 2nd states as fact- the Governments (US or otherwise) DO NOT "grant rights" they already existed (as SCOTUS Clearly point out in Heller) they do not have the authority to grant OR to revoke RIGHTS ,
 
#29 ·
Even the Heller court said that the RKBA was NOT unlimited. The public through its voice, the government, can and does impose restrictions on what, where, how & who may carry and even keep arms. Such laws were not touched by the Heller court. As long as such laws do not deny the right they are constitutional. Training requirements do not deny the right the merely impose a REGULATION, as in "A well REGULATED militia".
The framers did not foresee a lot of things. Shoot, they were less than 100 years from burning women for witchcraft. They didn't see women nor people of color as citizens. They were not infallible nor were they perfect. I doubt they foresaw a time when every house didn't have a gun and that firearms use was not taught at home.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
 
#30 ·
They were VERY clear on shall not be infringed and that NO branch could change that. It's ironic we're on a carry forum and some don't grasp what Heller actually accomplished. They left it "open" in some ways YES- but how you are saying it just isn't happening or even implied at all.

Of course it's NOT unlimited, for SCOTUS to have not said that would actually mean no laws saying you cannot shoot spectators at a sporting event, armed robberies etc. etc. etc. are Constitutional. LOL they didn't say "do whatever you want and it is fine" however- not even close to that is the reality, they defined it as a pre-existing RIGHT - one we inherited upon birth, and thus not something to be "granted " by anyone or taken by anyone - that is not "my opinion" either FWIW

They made Several pro gun points, this is not opinion, it's clearly stated including that they nor anyone can ban an entire class of weapon(s) (as was just done in NY) no restrictions on "in common use" (which again means no "AWB or 30 round mag limits " will meet muster. The 2nd discussion here in this forum has a great deal of what they stated .

Including that

We know of no other enumerated constitutional right whose core protection has been subjected to a freestanding “interest-balancing” approach.

The very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon. A constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.

Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them, whether or not future legislatures or (yes) even future judges think that scope too broad.

AND

We look to this because it has always been widely understood that the Second Amendment , like the First and Fourth Amendment s, codified a pre-existing right.


As you can see it's a RIGHT - not something within any branch's power to grant or limit
 
  • Like
Reactions: luvmy40
#31 ·
That just defies all logic that the only reason the court said the 2A was not unlimited was to stop people from shooting someone else? So basically that statement was to constitutionalize the laws against murder. Yeahhhhh right.
Yet their ruling did not strike down any laws pertaining to permits, nor did it prohibit any new laws concerning same.
I see that permits are still required in some areas, and there are training requirements in some of those areas.


Posted from the outer reaches of the universe via my Star Fleet communicator! Live long & prosper.
 
#32 ·
the only reason the court said the 2A was not unlimited was to stop people from shooting someone else
I Never even hinted that was all their ruling was "about murders" I said IF they had stated NO laws can be made against gun use AT ALL per the 2nd(NO limits at all)- then that in fact would have been the outcome since a law against using a gun in a murder would have in effect Not been allowed- not going to happen and it's not clear why you made that comment as I certainly did not even hint of that???

Yet their ruling did not strike down any laws pertaining to permits, nor did it prohibit any new laws concerning same
WHEN exactly did SCOTUS rule on this issue either way? They don't rule on any and every law "out there" only on a defined subject matter...... as I stated there is a great deal of what they actually made clear in the "some folks don't understand the 2nd Amendment thread" , and that is directly from the Heller Ruling, not "someone's opinion' that doesn't mean squat in the reality of it. No point in posting a "ton of it" again, a waste of time and space that would accomplish nothing.

Many do not really understand the 2A. Although it's cool to say you support it!

IF you believe post Heller they can ban 30 round magazines, AR , "arms in common use" , OR make costs so high as to regulate 2nd amendment rights out of existence, you have not read the ruling or failed to understand it. It is far from clear in fact that IF permits were challenged IF they would pass muster- they were not so to claim they didn't rule against them is folly. They were very clear on what they did rule on including a great deal of the actual history of the 2nd
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top