Defensive Carry banner

1 - 20 of 20 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
On FB , I was reading a post about the Second Amendment. Some Democrat said, " it says a 'well regulated' militia. How regulated? Asking for a friend". Meaning of course that the government has the power to regulate the militia (or citizens) use of guns.

I thought that was a good question so I looked up the meaning of "regulated" in common use during the period that the Constitution was written.

Here's a good explanation that I found:

The phrase “well-regulated” was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people’s arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

the score so far: Constitution -1
2A hating Liberals -0
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,139 Posts
If the forefathers had really been forward thinking, they would have left out that "well regulated militia" portion in its entirety and saved us a lot of heartache. There was no reason for any alleged need or qualification, just a simple "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

But to our distress, they decided to be eloquently wordy.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,888 Posts
Words have meaning, but as you found out the meaning can change over time.
The constitution must be followed by the original intent of the signers.
If the forefathers had really been forward thinking, they would have left out that "well regulated militia" portion in its entirety and saved us a lot of heartache. There was no reason for any alleged need or qualification, just a simple "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

But to our distress, they decided to be eloquently wordy.
Our forefathers never dreamed that we would turn into a nation of morons.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
7,696 Posts
If the forefathers had really been forward thinking, they would have left out that "well regulated militia" portion in its entirety and saved us a lot of heartache. There was no reason for any alleged need or qualification, just a simple "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

But to our distress, they decided to be eloquently wordy.
Prefatory clauses were relatively common at the time. See https://www2.law.ucla.edu/volokh/common.pdf starting at page 814.

Also, the operative clause reads "right of the people," not "members of the militia" or such. So it seems pretty clear. This distinction is often ignored by those that want to limit the 2nd amendment.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,380 Posts
As I was once told, "Well regulated", at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, meant "to keep and make regular".
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
5,280 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Ask your anti 2A friend to read and explain the other 9 amendments in the Bill of Rights. Then ask why they think:
A. Only the 2nd is difficult to read.
Or
B. Only the 2nd is full of grammatical errors.
Oh, they don't think it's difficult to read or has grammatical errors...they think it clearly means that the militia (or people) can be regulated by the government. That explains the constant push to institute more gun laws.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
36,139 Posts
As I was once told, "Well regulated", at the time of the writing of the Bill of Rights, meant "to keep and make regular".
No, that was for a laxative commercial.

Regulated also meant trained, and many militias of the day, being the "minuteman" type with no formal military training, were known to break ranks in the heat of the battle and were considered by many regular soldiers to be unreliable.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Nmuskier

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
4,888 Posts
No, that was for a laxative commercial.

Regulated also meant trained, and many militias of the day, being the "minuteman" type with no formal military training, were known to break ranks in the heat of the battle and were considered by many regular soldiers to be unreliable.
Washington himself did a lot to denigrate the militia. Especially after the Battle of Long Island where Washington was soundly defeated by the British. Washington's plan to defend New York was deeply flawed and in the face of certain death may militia fled the battle.
What Washington failed to see was that in the year before he took over as commander. The militia fought valiantly and Lexington ,Concord and Breed's Hill.
They also helped force the British out of Boston.
The militia were mainly used to defend their home turf, act as police and surveillance of the enemy. They were usually older that the regulars and had less training.
But they did fight and the war would never have been won without them.
Some historians tend to zero in on Washington's criticism of the militia in '76 without taking in their accomplishments form '77 till the wars end. Or how they fought in '75 before Washington even put on his uniform.
Sorry for the rant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,977 Posts
  • Like
Reactions: Jeanlouise

·
Banned
Joined
·
168 Posts
It would be great if our Supreme Court could understand and comply with that amendment.
That's exactly right. Even Scalia failed to undertand it.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
168 Posts
If the forefathers had really been forward thinking, they would have left out that "well regulated militia" portion in its entirety and saved us a lot of heartache. There was no reason for any alleged need or qualification, just a simple "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed."

But to our distress, they decided to be eloquently wordy.
I don't agree. The militia is still necessary, but "they" defeated it anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,134 Posts
...Our forefathers never dreamed that we would turn into a nation of morons.

That's not entirely true.
Remember the story about Ben Franklin being stopped by a woman as he exited the Constitutional Convention:
The woman asked, "Dr. Franklin, what sort of government have you delegates given us?"
And Franklin replied, "A Republic, madam. Now, let's see if you can keep it."

Old Ben was prescient, and understandably skeptical.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
168 Posts
Scalia had to compromise to get his majority decision.
In my opinion the Supreme Court has always been corrupt and there is overwhelming evidence of this. They hedge all their bets and always fill it with people who will do what they're told. Scalia pretended to be an originalist for a time, but then he quite clearly abandoned that idea later in life.
 
1 - 20 of 20 Posts
Top