I gather that the latest ploy and excuse from the anti rights groups is to use that phrase from the 2nd to force more rules "laws" down our throats. Do we have a scholar of the Federalist papers here? What were the intentions of our fore fathers? What is our best responses to this?
Well regulated militia
- Thread starter sumabich
- Start date
P
PreserveFreedom
Guest
A group of well armed, good friends, is a well regulated militia in my book. 
A bit of background.
In England, popular armament began developing well before laws were issued in the Seventh Century governing misuse of the already recognized right to keep and bear arms. This right, as noted in Blackstone's Commentaries, became a formal duty when King Alfred "by his prudent discipline made all subjects of his dominion [citizen] soldiers." The fyrd (citizen militia) system and Trained Bands followed in later years in the process of firmly affixing the citizen's responsibility to arm himself, until it was catalogued as basic to the absolute rights of man in the English Bill of Rights.
We acquired the principle of an armed citizenry directly from these English precedents.
Tho we have a government that serves its citizens as opposed to the English system wherein the people are subjects of the government; our founders saw fit to express that the existing right of the subjects to bear arms would apply to the citizens of the new Constitutional Republic.
------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin
Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
In England, popular armament began developing well before laws were issued in the Seventh Century governing misuse of the already recognized right to keep and bear arms. This right, as noted in Blackstone's Commentaries, became a formal duty when King Alfred "by his prudent discipline made all subjects of his dominion [citizen] soldiers." The fyrd (citizen militia) system and Trained Bands followed in later years in the process of firmly affixing the citizen's responsibility to arm himself, until it was catalogued as basic to the absolute rights of man in the English Bill of Rights.
We acquired the principle of an armed citizenry directly from these English precedents.
Tho we have a government that serves its citizens as opposed to the English system wherein the people are subjects of the government; our founders saw fit to express that the existing right of the subjects to bear arms would apply to the citizens of the new Constitutional Republic.
------------------
Sam I am, grn egs n packin
Nikita Khrushchev predicted confidently in a speech in Bucharest, Rumania on June 19, 1962 that: " The United States will eventually fly the Communist Red Flag...the American people will hoist it themselves."
In the vernacular of the day, "well-regulated" did NOT mean "burdened with many laws" like the liberals want to impress upon us today.
Rather, it meant "competent", "prepared", or "able". In other words, ready to defend the community and/or state from aggressors.
A "well-regulated militia" would have been a group of men who, though they had other vocations on a daily basis, were prepared (from a physical, mental, and MATERIAL standpoint) to fight in an organized manner in order to provide for the security of their homes and those of their neighbors.
And that's all I've got to say about that!
Rather, it meant "competent", "prepared", or "able". In other words, ready to defend the community and/or state from aggressors.
A "well-regulated militia" would have been a group of men who, though they had other vocations on a daily basis, were prepared (from a physical, mental, and MATERIAL standpoint) to fight in an organized manner in order to provide for the security of their homes and those of their neighbors.
And that's all I've got to say about that!
OK… here is the definition of a well regulate militia….
"..the great body of yeomanry and of the other classes of 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." (Federalists #29, 184-185)
A well regulated militia are those who are trained in the arts of war. Those who know how to march in time so as to move in unison on the battle field. Those who know how to use their arms.
The best definition of the 2nd amendment that I have run across is:
In Thomas Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law (1898) he states a summary of the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. [Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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 amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation. The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order. Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them. What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.]
Hope this helps.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
"..the great body of yeomanry and of the other classes of 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." (Federalists #29, 184-185)
A well regulated militia are those who are trained in the arts of war. Those who know how to march in time so as to move in unison on the battle field. Those who know how to use their arms.
The best definition of the 2nd amendment that I have run across is:
In Thomas Cooley, Principles of Constitutional Law (1898) he states a summary of the meaning and intent of the Second Amendment. [Section IV. -- The Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The Constitution. -- By the Second Amendment to the Constitution it is declared that "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 amendment, like most other provisions in the Constitution, has a history. It was adopted with some modification and enlargement from the English Bill of Rights of 1688, where it stood as a protest against arbitrary action of the overturned dynasty in disarming the people, and as a pledge of the new rulers that this tyrannical action should cease. The right declared was meant to be a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers, and as a necessary and efficient means of regaining rights when temporarily overturned by usurpation. The Right is General. -- It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been elsewhere explained, consists of those persons who, under the law, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. But the law may make provision for the enrolment of all who are fit to perform military duty, or of a small number only, or it may wholly omit to make any provision at all; and if the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of this guaranty might be defeated altogether by the action or neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose. But this enables the government to have a well regulated militia; for to bear arms implies something more than the mere keeping; it implies the learning to handle and use them in a way that makes those who keep them ready for their efficient use; in other words, it implies the right to meet for voluntary discipline in arms, observing in doing so the laws of public order. Standing Army. -- A further purpose of this amendment is, to preclude any necessity or reasonable excuse for keeping up a standing army. A standing army is condemned by the traditions and sentiments of the people, as being as dangerous to the liberties of the people as the general preparation of the people for the defence of their institutions with arms is preservative of them. What Arms may be kept. -- The arms intended by the Constitution are such as are suitable for the general defence of the community against invasion or oppression, and the secret carrying of those suited merely to deadly individual encounters may be prohibited.]
Hope this helps.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
Apple a Day
New member
Nice post bookkie,
IMHO as you mentioned one of the big things to keep in mind is that our Constitution was written by men who were in the process of overcoming a tyranical government and building a fair replacement. The 2nd amendment was meant as a safeguard in the case that their own history repeated itself and the need for the citizens to protect themselves from the government again presented itself. This is the last link in a protective chain which began with a representative form of government on which the people voted, continued with periodic re-elections, a balance of power between the three branches of government, etc...
I am a physicist, not a lawyer, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to stand behind the eyes of the founders and imagine what they were thinking given their recent past. The British tried to control the arms and powder here in Williamsburg when things started turning ugly. I am sure they did the same thing elsewhere. Isn't it logical that those old guys would want to install a safeguard so their descendants wouldn't run into the same problems?
------------------
Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules.Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
IMHO as you mentioned one of the big things to keep in mind is that our Constitution was written by men who were in the process of overcoming a tyranical government and building a fair replacement. The 2nd amendment was meant as a safeguard in the case that their own history repeated itself and the need for the citizens to protect themselves from the government again presented itself. This is the last link in a protective chain which began with a representative form of government on which the people voted, continued with periodic re-elections, a balance of power between the three branches of government, etc...
I am a physicist, not a lawyer, but it doesn't take a lot of imagination to stand behind the eyes of the founders and imagine what they were thinking given their recent past. The British tried to control the arms and powder here in Williamsburg when things started turning ugly. I am sure they did the same thing elsewhere. Isn't it logical that those old guys would want to install a safeguard so their descendants wouldn't run into the same problems?
------------------
Those who use arms well cultivate the Way and keep the rules.Thus they can govern in such a way as to prevail over the corrupt- Sun Tzu, The Art of War
If you are moving to understand what was meant by the orginal language of the BoR, take a look at "That Every Man be Armed, The Evolution of a Constitutional Right" by Stephen P. Halbrook 1994 the Independent Institute.
You are right, the anti-2's now challenge the language of the Second Amendment. They lost the battle of facts so now they move to the intepretation of the BoR. This next front is to say the founding fathers only intended national guards would be armed and therefore there is no cause for citizens to be armed. The author demolished the argument. It takes some reading, but by the time you finish you will have a better understanding of the legal history of the Second amendment than anyone on the anti-2 side.
My favorite part of the book was the discussion among the founding fathers of what happens if the militia becomes an agent of tyrany. Reading the book you see the founding fathers knew a standing army would become agents of the ruling class. It was therefore essential that organized force had to be in place should it occur. Then the discussion moved to what happens if the militia becomes agents of tryanny. The founding fathers would have preferred to abolish the militia rather than prohibit individuals from bearing arms.
The second amendment is about the monopoly of force. The founding fathers understood the hearts of statists and wanted a way to defend against their power.
BTW, "well-regulated" is an 18th century term which we in the 20th century would render "highly trained."
[This message has been edited by Waitone (edited September 24, 2000).]
You are right, the anti-2's now challenge the language of the Second Amendment. They lost the battle of facts so now they move to the intepretation of the BoR. This next front is to say the founding fathers only intended national guards would be armed and therefore there is no cause for citizens to be armed. The author demolished the argument. It takes some reading, but by the time you finish you will have a better understanding of the legal history of the Second amendment than anyone on the anti-2 side.
My favorite part of the book was the discussion among the founding fathers of what happens if the militia becomes an agent of tyrany. Reading the book you see the founding fathers knew a standing army would become agents of the ruling class. It was therefore essential that organized force had to be in place should it occur. Then the discussion moved to what happens if the militia becomes agents of tryanny. The founding fathers would have preferred to abolish the militia rather than prohibit individuals from bearing arms.
The second amendment is about the monopoly of force. The founding fathers understood the hearts of statists and wanted a way to defend against their power.
BTW, "well-regulated" is an 18th century term which we in the 20th century would render "highly trained."
[This message has been edited by Waitone (edited September 24, 2000).]
Good site:
http://www.gunfacts.org
------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC
Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
http://www.gunfacts.org
------------------
NRA/GOA/SAF/USMC
Oregon residents please support the Oregon Firearms Federation, our only "No compromise" gun lobby. http://www.oregonfirearms.org
I have heard a good arguement COUNTERING the "Well Regulated Militia Only" arguement. It's known that that ALL of the Bill of Rights apply to Individual's RIghts... Individual's Right to Freedom of speech (1), Right to Council (6), Right Against Self Incrimination (4 or 5?) and the rest of them.
Do they really expect us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY right that doesn't apply to individuals? I listen to too much Boortz
Ben
------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target" http://ben.gunsnet.net
[This message has been edited by Ben (edited September 25, 2000).]
Do they really expect us to believe that the 2nd Amendment is the ONLY right that doesn't apply to individuals? I listen to too much Boortz
Ben
------------------
Almost Online IM: BenK911
ICQ # 53788523
"Gun Control Is Being Able To Hit Your Target" http://ben.gunsnet.net
[This message has been edited by Ben (edited September 25, 2000).]