A Well Regulated Militia??????

P

pittspilot

New member
I am going to be involved in a debate tonight about the second amendment, and wanted to get what you guys thought the founders meant by this. Did they mean

1) The National Guard (I don't think so)
2) The citizens.

What exactly is the translation of "well regulated." Does that mean a citizenry burdened by rules.

Where can I get more information.

Tim

------------------
"Courage is rightly esteemed the first of human qualities...Because it is the quality that guarantees all others"

Winston S. Churchill

"The American Republic is finished when the congress realizes that it can bribe the people with the peoples money"

De Touqueville
 
Go here and ask a poster by the moniker 'legaleagle_45'
Yahoo BBS

He is a law professor and has had that debate more than a few times.

Also, check out www.guncite.com

Edited to fix formatting problem. - TBM

[This message has been edited by TheBluesMan (edited November 06, 2000).]
 
Primary historical sources without doubt agree the militia is the people.

Take a look here
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5072/quotes.html
http://www.guncite.com/
<A HREF="http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html" TARGET=_blank>http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndmea.html http://dmoz.org/Society/Issues/Gun_Control/Pro-Gun_Rights_Organizations/[/url]

Good luck. Let us know how it goes!

------------------
"Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force! Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."
-George Washington.

[This message has been edited by Waitone (edited November 06, 2000).]
 
The National Guard was created in the Dick Military Act of 1903. The National Guard is controlled by the federal government and is funded under the powers to raise armies not to call up the Militia.

The Perpich v US decision (1990) proved that the NG is not the Militia. The Supreme Court said that the National Guard could be taken out of the country over the objections of the governor. But if you read the purpose of the militia in the Constitution (Article 1, Sect 8) you will see it is to be used to, "...execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel invasions."

All of those three are things done from within the borders of the United States of America. American Militiamen often refused to leave their own county, let alone cross borders into Canada or Mexico. That is why the NG was created. The federal government wanted more control of a larger force, and so attempted an end-around the armed citizen who would refuse to do stupid things such as go to a far away place such as Vietnam, for example. I'll bet the liberal gun-grabbers will suddenly understand why the a "well-regulated Militia was necessary for the security of a Free State."

Go to www.guncite.com (or org or whatever and get the quotes from Monroe (I think) saying, "Who are the Militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers."

As far as the definition of "well-regulated" you can go to Judge Thomas Cooley who wrote a text on the Constitution and used in major law schools from the mid 1800s until about 1920. Cooley said that well-regulated meant more than just being well armed, it meant being skilled in the use of arms.

The meaning of "well-regulated" in the context of EPA or FDA regulation never crossed the Framer's minds.
 
The ARNG is not a militia. Never was. They train at Army bases, with Army recruits and are under federal control.

The Militia is you and me.
 
According to my American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language (a dictionary, by the way, known for being conservative and traditional), the militia is "The armed citizenry as distinct from the regular army". As an alternative definition, it says: "The whole body of physically fit male civilians eligible by law for military service."

What is it they don't understand about "CITIZEN" and "CIVILIAN"?

These are the concepts of militia underlying the 2nd Amendment. The Founding Fathers believed in checks and balances. They didn't trust giving full power to the people: hence the Electoral College and, originally, U.S. Senators elected by the state legislatures. They didn't trust government either: hence, the Bill of Rights. The 2nd Amendment was designed to give teeth to a balance of power between the people and big government.

Also, "regulate" is defined as "To control or direct according a rule; ...in conformity to a specification or requirement..."; to adjust for accurate and proper functioning. It stands to reason that an unarmed militia would not be in conformity to requirements or properly functioning. Again, the Founding Fathers did not trust big government, and believed that an armed citizenry was needed to keep it in check.

[This message has been edited by sigmund (edited November 06, 2000).]
 
If you read your constitution carefully, and then read the Federalist papers, and Thomas Paines "Common Sense" you will understand what the militia is and is not. The founders railed against the principle of a standing Army as being a bane to liberty. Standing Armies are more often used against the citizens to maintain control than to repel invasions. It was thought that a well armed, well trained militia such as Switzerland (Paine even cites Swisserland [sic] as one European nation that enjoyed peace and prosperity when all of Europe was at war, and poverty) would repel foriegn invasions. It is also very practical. It costs very little to raise a militia, as most already have their rifles, and are familiar with them.
No matter what Army tried, it would be difficult to pursue a domestic war on the United States even without a standing army, due to the guns, and ammo in private hands. It would be easier to just trade with us than to conquer us.
What is interesting is that the founders did want a standing Navy. They needed naval force to insure our "commerce with all." So they did differentiate between a regular army (against) and a regular navy (for).
 
While everyone subject to call to military service is the militia, it doesn't really matter. The right to own guns is not limited by the militia clause (except in Judge's imaginations).

Obviously, the milita was the framer's area of concern. However, your right to own guns for protection and sport, as well as service, is also protected. The first ammendment protects non-polictical and non-religous speech- and the second protects non-communal gun use as well.
 
Go watch THE PATRIOT with Mel Gibson. It explains what the "militia" is. It's every able-bodied, non-army man with a rifle. It's us.
 
As BTR points out, it is obvious from other sources that the Founding Fathers believed that citizens had the right to keep and bear arms for many reasons, including but not limited to the need for the maintenance of a well regulated militia.

The inclusion in the 2nd Amendment of the term "militia", and the lack of reference to other reasons to keep arms, provides a desparate last-gasp argument for anti's.

Serious scholars on both sides agree that it is an individual right, not linked to the militia. In the "Gun Rights" column of Handgun Magazine, Don Kates quotes Harvard constitutional scholar and gun-hater Professor Alan Dershowitz as saying "Foolish liberals who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming that it's not an individual right...don't see the danger in the big picture. They're courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like." This from a man who wants to repeal the Second Amendment.

Something not usually brought up in these discussions are the rights guaranteed by state constitutions. The vast majority of the states (44, I believe) specifically state that citizens have the right to keep and bear arms. Many of these list personal protection as a justification for this right. See www.gunsite.com. The usual suspects are on the list not guaranteeing this right, including the Peoples Republic of Kalifornia, MD, NJ, NY, etc. A surprise on the list of states with RKBA is Mass.
 
To the founders, regulated meant drilled, disciplined, and equipped.

One definition of regulate in the American Heritage Dictionary is "To adjust for accurate and proper functioning". That's what the founders meant.

I remember reading that we are actually supposed to form ranks once or twice a year for drill, but I guess that's fallen to the wayside - replaced by gun clubs, chat rooms ;), and a subscription to our favorite gun rag.

------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF
USMC '87-'91

Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our local "No compromise" chapter of the GOA. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top