Fire arms FACTS

[jon_berzerk]

Close, but no cigar

The term is well regulated militia, not well regulated arms

Try again

Already covered it. Again for the slow, the militia part is simply one example of why the INDIVIDUAL right is to be uninfringed. As for well regulated militia that would be the National Guard with the remaining population as the unorganized thus unregulated militia.

Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 belong to the unregulated unorganized militia.

Further the Court has ruled. That ruling is clear. One has an individual right to keep and bear arms irregardless of belonging to a Militia.

You try again.

Actually it can be argued that the national guard is the militia, and no one else can own arms from there.

nope the SC ruled that out

because of duel enlistment

 

[Missouri_Mike]

Nonetheless, regardless of common use, 'well regulated' refers to the militia not weapons. And SCOTUS has reserved the right for itself to rule of dangerous and or unusual weapons. No one here on the board is going to buy a recoiless rifle at Wal-Mart anytime soon.

Well regulated means ready to fight, armed up, plenty of ammo and ready to go at a moments notice. None of your other points mean anything.

Loop up the law.

Yeah, I did. "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."

 

[jon_berzerk]

No, JonBezerk, the term refers to the militia, not the arm.

of course it refers to arms

the second amendment is about arms

as for the militia without good operating arms they could not be well regulated

 

[Missourian]

"A duly elected President, being necessary to a functioning Republic, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed."

Would that mean that the right to vote could ONLY not be infringed in regards to the President?

I think not.

I believe everyone would interpret that as the right of the people to vote is sacrosanct, regardless of the prefatory "duly elected president".

 

[jon_berzerk]

"A duly elected President, being necessary to a functioning Republic, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed."

Would that mean that the right to vote could ONLY not be infringed in regards to the President?

I think not.

I believe everyone would interpret that as the right of the people to vote is sacrosanct, regardless of the prefatory "duly elected president".

well regulated certainly does not mean tightly

controlled by the government

 

[jon_berzerk]

Well regulated means ready to fight, armed up, plenty of ammo and ready to go at a moments notice. None of your other points mean anything.

Loop up the law.

Yeah, I did. "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."

that is right the framers intended for the people to have their own firearms

in the event of a militia activation since they would be most proficient with

their regular personal firearm on a short notice

 

[Missourian]

"A duly elected President, being necessary to a functioning Republic, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed."

Would that mean that the right to vote could ONLY not be infringed in regards to the President?

I think not.

I believe everyone would interpret that as the right of the people to vote is sacrosanct, regardless of the prefatory "duly elected president".

well regulated certainly does not mean tightly

controlled by the government

I don't know.

I read the Second Amendment differently than either side of this debate.

I read it as an problem and solution statement.

The prefatory clause is stating that "Yes, in order to have a well regulated militia trained uniformly to provide security for our newly formed country, the militia must be under federal control."

The second part of the Amendment is stating "To counterbalance this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed upon."

This all goes back to the Federalists and the Anti-federalists.

The Federalists wanted a standing army and control of the state militias.

The Anti-Federalist desired the States maintain the military advantage over the Federal government.

This was the compromise.

A small standing army under federal control, and a well regulated militia (all state militias trained to the same standards) under both federal and state control...and the guarantee that the people would retain their arms, as a counter to a tyrannical or oppressive federal government.

In that way, the states had the ability to call up every citizen of the state, and every citizen would be armed and ready.

By that interpretation there is no doubt, and no room for opposition...the 2nd Amendment ALWAYS was intended as an individual right and a counterbalance against tyranny.

"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."

 

[jon_berzerk]

"A duly elected President, being necessary to a functioning Republic, the right of the people to vote shall not be infringed."

Would that mean that the right to vote could ONLY not be infringed in regards to the President?

I think not.

I believe everyone would interpret that as the right of the people to vote is sacrosanct, regardless of the prefatory "duly elected president".

well regulated certainly does not mean tightly

controlled by the government

I don't know.

I read the Second Amendment differently than either side of this debate.

I read it as an problem and solution statement.

The prefatory clause is stating that "Yes, in order to have a well regulated militia trained uniformly to provide security for our newly formed country, the militia must be under federal control."

The second part of the Amendment is stating "To counterbalance this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed upon."

This all goes back to the Federalists and the Anti-federalists.

The Federalists wanted a standing army and control of the state militias.

The Anti-Federalist desired the States maintain the military advantage over the Federal government.

This was the compromise.

A small standing army under federal control, and a well regulated militia (all state militias trained to the same standards) under both federal and state control...and the guarantee that the people would retain their arms, as a counter to a tyrannical or oppressive federal government.

In that way, the states had the ability to call up every citizen of the state, and every citizen would be armed and ready.

By that interpretation there is no doubt, and no room for opposition...the 2nd Amendment ALWAYS was intended as an individual right and a counterbalance against tyranny.

"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."

the Second Amendment does not say who controls the militia

Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution says that the president

is the commander of the militia when pressed into actual service of the United States

at best one would be able to say a militia that functions properly

however i believe that we are in agreement that it is not a collectivist statement

 

[Missourian]

well regulated certainly does not mean tightly

controlled by the government

I don't know.

I read the Second Amendment differently than either side of this debate.

I read it as an problem and solution statement.

The prefatory clause is stating that "Yes, in order to have a well regulated militia trained uniformly to provide security for our newly formed country, the militia must be under federal control."

The second part of the Amendment is stating "To counterbalance this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed upon."

This all goes back to the Federalists and the Anti-federalists.

The Federalists wanted a standing army and control of the state militias.

The Anti-Federalist desired the States maintain the military advantage over the Federal government.

This was the compromise.

A small standing army under federal control, and a well regulated militia (all state militias trained to the same standards) under both federal and state control...and the guarantee that the people would retain their arms, as a counter to a tyrannical or oppressive federal government.

In that way, the states had the ability to call up every citizen of the state, and every citizen would be armed and ready.

By that interpretation there is no doubt, and no room for opposition...the 2nd Amendment ALWAYS was intended as an individual right and a counterbalance against tyranny.

"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."

the Second Amendment does not say who controls the militia

Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution says that the president

is the commander of the militia when pressed into actual service of the United States

at best one would be able to say a militia that functions properly

however i believe that we are in agreement that it is not a collectivist statement

Absolute agreement.

Food for thought: Guide to the Constitution

 

[jon_berzerk]

I don't know.

I read the Second Amendment differently than either side of this debate.

I read it as an problem and solution statement.

The prefatory clause is stating that "Yes, in order to have a well regulated militia trained uniformly to provide security for our newly formed country, the militia must be under federal control."

The second part of the Amendment is stating "To counterbalance this, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall never be infringed upon."

This all goes back to the Federalists and the Anti-federalists.

The Federalists wanted a standing army and control of the state militias.

The Anti-Federalist desired the States maintain the military advantage over the Federal government.

This was the compromise.

A small standing army under federal control, and a well regulated militia (all state militias trained to the same standards) under both federal and state control...and the guarantee that the people would retain their arms, as a counter to a tyrannical or oppressive federal government.

In that way, the states had the ability to call up every citizen of the state, and every citizen would be armed and ready.

By that interpretation there is no doubt, and no room for opposition...the 2nd Amendment ALWAYS was intended as an individual right and a counterbalance against tyranny.

"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."

the Second Amendment does not say who controls the militia

Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution says that the president

is the commander of the militia when pressed into actual service of the United States

at best one would be able to say a militia that functions properly

however i believe that we are in agreement that it is not a collectivist statement

Absolute agreement.

Food for thought: Guide to the Constitution

in federalist 29 i see it as Hamilton speaking against the federal government

training or regulating the citizens of the militia

he wrote this

-- to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss-

 

[jon_berzerk]

[MENTION=11800]Missourian[/MENTION]

thanks for the link btw

 

[Missourian]

the Second Amendment does not say who controls the militia

Article 2 Section 2 of the constitution says that the president

is the commander of the militia when pressed into actual service of the United States

at best one would be able to say a militia that functions properly

however i believe that we are in agreement that it is not a collectivist statement

Absolute agreement.

Food for thought: Guide to the Constitution

in federalist 29 i see it as Hamilton speaking against the federal government

training or regulating the citizens of the militia

he wrote this

-- to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss-

Read it in it's entirety...The Federalist #29

An excerpt...

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."​

 

[jon_berzerk]

Absolute agreement.

Food for thought: Guide to the Constitution

in federalist 29 i see it as Hamilton speaking against the federal government

training or regulating the citizens of the militia

he wrote this

-- to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia would be a real grievance to the people, and a
serious public inconvenience and loss-

Read it in it's entirety...The Federalist #29

An excerpt...

It requires no skill in the science of war to discern that uniformity in the organization and discipline of the militia would be attended with the most beneficial effects, whenever they were called into service for the public defense. It would enable them to discharge the duties of the camp and of the field with mutual intelligence and concert an advantage of peculiar moment in the operations of an army; and it would fit them much sooner to acquire the degree of proficiency in military functions which would be essential to their usefulness. This desirable uniformity can only be accomplished by confiding the regulation of the militia to the direction of the national authority. It is, therefore, with the most evident propriety, that the plan of the convention proposes to empower the Union "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."​

thanks i am off to bed

hope we can pick up on this tomorrow

it has been fun and informative

 

[Little-Acorn]

"Well regulated militia" has nothing to do with whether the gun in your hand is protected by the 2nd amendment.

The phrase was included in the 2nd, only as an explanation of WHY the right shall not be infringed. Not as a condition on whether it can be infringed.

--------------------------

The Unabridged Second Amendment

by J. Neil Schulman
(reproduced with permission, see below)

If you wanted to know all about the Big Bang, you'd ring up Carl Sagan, right? And if you wanted to know about desert warfare, the man to call would be Norman Schwarzkopf, no question about it. But who would you call if you wanted the top expert on American usage, to tell you the meaning of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution?

That was the question I asked A.C. Brocki, editorial coordinator of the Los Angeles Unified School District and formerly senior editor at Houghton Mifflin Publishers — who himself had been recommended to me as the foremost expert on English usage in the Los Angeles school system. Mr. Brocki told me to get in touch with Roy Copperud, a retired professor of journalism at the University of Southern California and the author of American Usage and Style: The Consensus.

A little research lent support to Brocki's opinion of Professor Copperud's expertise.

Roy Copperud was a newspaper writer on major dailies for over three decades before embarking on a a distinguished 17-year career teaching journalism at USC. Since 1952, Copperud has been writing a column dealing with the professional aspects of journalism for Editor and Publisher, a weekly magazine focusing on the journalism field.

He's on the usage panel of the American Heritage Dictionary, and Merriam Webster's Usage Dictionary frequently cites him as an expert. Copperud's fifth book on usage, American Usage and Style: The Consensus, has been in continuous print from Van Nostrand Reinhold since 1981, and is the winner of the Association of American Publisher's Humanities Award.

That sounds like an expert to me.

After a brief telephone call to Professor Copperud in which I introduced myself but did not give him any indication of why I was interested, I sent the following letter:

"I am writing you to ask you for your professional opinion as an expert in English usage, to analyze the text of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and extract the intent from the text.

"The text of the Second Amendment is, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary for the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"The debate over this amendment has been whether the first part of the sentence, 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State', is a restrictive clause or a subordinate clause, with respect to the independent clause containing the subject of the sentence, 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.'

"I would request that your analysis of this sentence not take into consideration issues of political impact or public policy, but be restricted entirely to a linguistic analysis of its meaning and intent. Further, since your professional analysis will likely become part of litigation regarding the consequences of the Second Amendment, I ask that whatever analysis you make be a professional opinion that you would be willing to stand behind with your reputation, and even be willing to testify under oath to support, if necessary."

My letter framed several questions about the test of the Second Amendment, then concluded:

"I realize that I am asking you to take on a major responsibility and task with this letter. I am doing so because, as a citizen, I believe it is vitally important to extract the actual meaning of the Second Amendment. While I ask that your analysis not be affected by the political importance of its results, I ask that you do this because of that importance."

After several more letters and phone calls, in which we discussed terms for his doing such an analysis, but in which we never discussed either of our opinions regarding the Second Amendment, gun control, or any other political subject, Professor Copperud sent me the follow analysis (into which I have inserted my questions for the sake of clarity):

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb 'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms' granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state. The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional, as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,' 'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written 200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the people to keep and read Books' only to 'a well-educated electorate' — for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms, forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging that right.

As I write this, the attempted coup against constitutional government in the Soviet Union has failed, apparently because the will of the people in that part of the world to be free from capricious tyranny is stronger than the old guard's desire to maintain a monopoly on dictatorial power.

And here in the United States, elected lawmakers, judges, and appointed officials who are pledged to defend the Constitution of the United States ignore, marginalize, or prevaricate about the Second Amendment routinely. American citizens are put in American prisons for carrying arms, owning arms of forbidden sorts, or failing to satisfy bureaucratic requirements regarding the owning and carrying of firearms — all of which is an abridgement of the unconditional right of the people to keep and bear arms, guaranteed by the Constitution.

And even the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), staunch defender of the rest of the Bill of Rights, stands by and does nothing.

It seems it is up to those who believe in the right to keep and bear arms to preserve that right. No one else will. No one else can. Will we beg our elected representatives not to take away our rights, and continue regarding them as representing us if they do? Will we continue obeying judges who decide that the Second Amendment doesn't mean what it says it means but means whatever they say it means in their Orwellian doublespeak?

Or will be simply keep and bear the arms of our choice, as the Constitution of the United States promises us we can, and pledge that we will defend that promise with our lives, our fortuned, and our sacred honor?

--------------------------

(C) 1991 by The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation. Informational reproduction of the entire article is hereby authorized provided the author, The New Gun Week and Second Amendment Foundation are credited. All other rights reserved.

 

[Little-Acorn]

In modern language, the 2nd amendment means:

"Since an armed and capable populace is necessary for freedom and security, the right of ordinary people to own and carry guns and other such weapons cannot be taken away or restricted."

 

[The2ndAmendment]

you forgot well regulated

excellent point. well regulated is the most important part of the amendment which the gun nutters conveniently forget.

It sounds like retired wants convicted felons, molesters, the mentally ill, and other nutcases limitless access to guns

[MENTION=37749]Black_Label[/MENTION] he is (and has his rep turned off)

Lying on purpose​

Lying on purpose​

Lying on purpose​

Lying on purpose​

Lying on purpose​

Lying on purpose​

http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

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.

http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html

Well Regulated

The Random House College Dictionary (1980) gives four definitions for the word "regulate," which were all in use during the Colonial period and one more definition dating from 1690 (Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd Edition, 1989). They are:

1) To control or direct by a rule, principle, method, etc.

2) To adjust to some standard or requirement as for amount, degree, etc.

3) To adjust so as to ensure accuracy of operation.

4) To put in good order.

[obsolete sense]

b. Of troops: Properly disciplined. Obs. rare-1.

1690 Lond. Gaz. No. 2568/3 We hear likewise that the French are in a great Allarm in Dauphine and Bresse, not having at present 1500 Men of regulated Troops on that side.

We can begin to deduce what well-regulated meant from Alexander Hamilton's words in Federalist Paper No. 29:

The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, nor a week nor even a month, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry and of the other classes of the citizens to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
--- The Federalist Papers, No. 29.

Hamilton indicates a well-regulated militia is a state of preparedness obtained after rigorous and persistent training. Note the use of 'disciplining' which indicates discipline could be synonymous with well-trained.

This quote from the Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 also conveys the meaning of well regulated:

Resolved , That this appointment be conferred on experienced and vigilant general officers, who are acquainted with whatever relates to the general economy, manoeuvres and discipline of a well regulated army.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

In the passage that follows, do you think the U.S. government was concerned because the Creek Indians' tribal regulations were superior to those of the Wabash or was it because they represented a better trained and disciplined fighting force?

That the strength of the Wabash Indians who were principally the object of the resolve of the 21st of July 1787, and the strength of the Creek Indians is very different. That the said Creeks are not only greatly superior in numbers but are more united, better regulated, and headed by a man whose talents appear to have fixed him in their confidence. That from the view of the object your Secretary has been able to take he conceives that the only effectual mode of acting against the said Creeks in case they should persist in their hostilities would be by making an invasion of their country with a powerful body of well regulated troops always ready to combat and able to defeat any combination of force the said Creeks could oppose and to destroy their towns and provisions.
--- Saturday, December 13, 1777.

I am unacquainted with the extent of your works, and consequently ignorant of the number or men necessary to man them. If your present numbers should be insufficient for that purpose, I would then by all means advise your making up the deficiency out of the best regulated militia that can be got.
--- George Washington (The Writings of George Washington, pp. 503-4, (G.P. Putnam & Sons, pub.)(1889))

The above quote is clearly not a request for a militia with the best set of regulations. (For brevity the entire passage is not shown and this quote should not be construed to imply Washington favored militias, in fact he thought little of them, as the full passage indicates.)

But Dr Sir I am Afraid it would blunt the keen edge they have at present which might be keept sharp for the Shawnese &c: I am convinced it would be Attended by considerable desertions. And perhaps raise a Spirit of Discontent not easily Queld amongst the best regulated troops, but much more so amongst men unused to the Yoak of Military Discipline.
--- Letter from Colonel William Fleming to Col. Adam Stephen, Oct 8, 1774, pp. 237-8. (Documentary History of Dunmore's War, 1774, Wisconsin historical society, pub. (1905))

And finally, a late-17th century comparison between the behavior of a large collection of seahorses and well-regulated soldiers:

One of the Seamen that had formerly made a Greenland Voyage for Whale-Fishing, told us that in that country he had seen very great Troops of those Sea-Horses ranging upon Land, sometimes three or four hundred in a Troop: Their great desire, he says, is to roost themselves on Land in the Warm Sun; and Whilst they sleep, they apppoint one to stand Centinel, and watch a certain time; and when that time's expir'd, another takes his place of Watching, and the first Centinel goes to sleep, &c. observing the strict Discipline, as a Body of Well-regulated Troops
--- (Letters written from New-England, A. D. 1686. P. 47, John Dutton (1867))

The quoted passages support the idea that a well-regulated militia was synonymous with one that was thoroughly trained and disciplined, and as a result, well-functioning. That description fits most closely with the "to put in good order" definition supplied by the Random House dictionary. The Oxford dictionary's definition also appears to fit if one considers discipline in a military context to include or imply well-trained.

What about the Amendment's text itself? Considering the adjective "well" and the context of the militia clause, which is more likely to ensure the security of a free state, a militia governed by numerous laws (or the proper amount of regulation [depending on the meaning of "well"] ) or a well-disciplined and trained militia? This brief textual analysis also suggests "to put in good order" is the correct interpretation of well regulated, signifying a well disciplined, trained, and functioning militia.

And finally, when regulated is used as an adjective, its meaning varies depending on the noun its modifying and of course the context. For example: well regulated liberty (properly controlled), regulated rifle (adjusted for accuracy), and regulated commerce (governed by regulations) all express a different meaning for regulated. This is by no means unusual, just as the word, bear, conveys a different meaning depending on the word it modifies: bearing arms, bearing fruit, or bearing gifts.

 

[Politico]

Sigh...

I find I do that all the time here.

 

[rightwinger]

Well regulated means the firearm is in good working order. If it applies to function it only applies to the federal part of the Militia. Further the Supreme Court made it clear. The second is an Individual right separate and removed from any membership in a Militia.

Basic English tells us that by reading the 2nd Amendment.The right to keep and bear arms is the main part and the Militia part is simply one example of why.

Close, but no cigar

The term is well regulated militia, not well regulated arms

Try again

Already covered it. Again for the slow, the militia part is simply one example of why the INDIVIDUAL right is to be uninfringed. As for well regulated militia that would be the National Guard with the remaining population as the unorganized thus unregulated militia.

Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 belong to the unregulated unorganized militia.

Further the Court has ruled. That ruling is clear. One has an individual right to keep and bear arms irregardless of belonging to a Militia.

You try again.

I see you have the NRA propaganda, but it is diffused from reality

The founding fathers saw no need for a standing army. They relied on a militia for the nations defense. Do you really think they trusted the nations defense to a bunch of random gun owners? They wanted "well regulated militias". Militias that were trained, had proper leadership, were adequately armed and equipped.

It s that function that has been replaced by the National Guard

 

[Wildman]

No, JonBezerk, the term refers to the militia, not the arm.

why is it that you liarberals are ALWAYS WRONG ????

here is the truth of the "WELL REGULATED"

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.

reference: Meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" <-------<<< click here

 

[Old Rocks]

Already covered it. Again for the slow, the militia part is simply one example of why the INDIVIDUAL right is to be uninfringed. As for well regulated militia that would be the National Guard with the remaining population as the unorganized thus unregulated militia.

Federal law states that all males 17 to 45 belong to the unregulated unorganized militia.

Further the Court has ruled. That ruling is clear. One has an individual right to keep and bear arms irregardless of belonging to a Militia.

You try again.

Actually it can be argued that the national guard is the militia, and no one else can own arms from there.

No, it can't.

This is settled law now.

Read and understand.

Gun ownership is an individual right, not a communal right.

But the Supreme Court has already ruled that the type of gun we can own can be regulated. And that is already being done. Care to try to buy a twin .50 at your local gun shop?