What does "well regulated militia" mean???
- Thread starter Sigma 40 Blaster
- Start date
This phrase well-regulated, and contrasted to ill-regulated, was used before the time of the founding in a treatise that was undoubtedly known to the founders, in A Discourse of Government with Relation to Militias(Political Works of Fletcher of Saltoun Glasgow, 1698; London 1702). Fletcher used the phrase to indicate a combat ready militia. The principles that Fletcher outlined were that the militiamen had to retain their own arms otherwise a prince would refuse to allow them to train with arms in order to institute a standing army, loyal to their paymaster, in their place. A militia could only arise from the populace if already armed, and could only become proficient if they were not beholden to the prince as to when or if they would train to arms. The definition would be No. 2 of well-regulated given above.
The use of the term "regulate" as meaning rules instituted by government is of late 19th/early 20th century origins.
The Supreme Court has found that the local Police or any other Law Enforcement or Military people have NO duty to defend an individual from attack at home or on the street, unless it happens right before their eyes.
IF an assault happens, they are to arrest the perpetrator and call an ambulance for you.
No government can afford to assign Police as bodyguards, even if it was legal. Take the offender into custody and hold him for court is their job.
Without evidence of injury and no other witnesses, it's either defend yourself from an attack or run. If the attacker catches you and injures or kills you, that's what the Police are about. Attempted assault and terroristic threat charges depend on witnesses or an admission by the perpetrator, without that, and with a denial from the perp, he or you may be escorted away safely, IF the Police show up in time.. And you are left to await the thug's next try.
Run from your house, run from your jobsite, get out of your car and watch him drive off. And then deal with the personal aftermath.
I'm done with the mindset that I won't defend. I physically can't run anyway. The personal aftermath of a court hearing is preferable to me.
IF an assault happens, they are to arrest the perpetrator and call an ambulance for you.
No government can afford to assign Police as bodyguards, even if it was legal. Take the offender into custody and hold him for court is their job.
Without evidence of injury and no other witnesses, it's either defend yourself from an attack or run. If the attacker catches you and injures or kills you, that's what the Police are about. Attempted assault and terroristic threat charges depend on witnesses or an admission by the perpetrator, without that, and with a denial from the perp, he or you may be escorted away safely, IF the Police show up in time.. And you are left to await the thug's next try.
Run from your house, run from your jobsite, get out of your car and watch him drive off. And then deal with the personal aftermath.
I'm done with the mindset that I won't defend. I physically can't run anyway. The personal aftermath of a court hearing is preferable to me.
rem870hunter
New member
wasn't the militia to be under the command of the military if they were needed to fight? the militia being the average citizen a doctor,farmer,blacksmith,shopkeeper/owner. called upon or volunteering to fight for their country.
to fight basically side by side with the actual military forces. with or without actual commissioned and or non commissioned officers. as to where the men could come and go as they please.
they could retreat under fire on the battlefield or just leave because they felt like it? as to which if they did they couldn't or wouldn't be penalized for that action. because they were not actual military. that they had their own knowledge of firearms.
to fight basically side by side with the actual military forces. with or without actual commissioned and or non commissioned officers. as to where the men could come and go as they please.
they could retreat under fire on the battlefield or just leave because they felt like it? as to which if they did they couldn't or wouldn't be penalized for that action. because they were not actual military. that they had their own knowledge of firearms.
Sigma 40 Blaster
New member
Being a complete newb to pondering the Constitution putting the definition of words we take for granted that we know in their historical context makes a world of difference in the interpretation of the 2A.
Thanks for putting everything into perspective.
Thanks for putting everything into perspective.
Playboypenguin
Moderator
I think this is a valid question but irrelevant to RKBA. I have always thought the the "well regulated militia" part of the second is simply a qualifier and not an absolute condition.
IMHO, they were saying "because we need this, we do not want to do anything that might be misused and cause this to not be possible in the future." I do not think they were saying "guns are only allowed for militia members" so it really does not matter what form the militia takes since it was merely a reason for the right and not a condition on it.
IMHO, they were saying "because we need this, we do not want to do anything that might be misused and cause this to not be possible in the future." I do not think they were saying "guns are only allowed for militia members" so it really does not matter what form the militia takes since it was merely a reason for the right and not a condition on it.
sw_florida
Moderator
Let's be practical about it.
When the Bill of Rights was written, way back when, everybody owned a gun in America. In that context the second amendment must imply that the right to carry arms should stay that way. A militia, mentioned separately though with a weak comma, should be well-regulated. They wrote funny back then. And of course the commie Democrats use that toward their own anti-American agenda. I hate them.
When the Bill of Rights was written, way back when, everybody owned a gun in America. In that context the second amendment must imply that the right to carry arms should stay that way. A militia, mentioned separately though with a weak comma, should be well-regulated. They wrote funny back then. And of course the commie Democrats use that toward their own anti-American agenda. I hate them.
jkkimberfan
New member
Democrats
Why do they want to give up their own rights? Why do they want a weaker America? Why do they want to disarm themselves? Why do they think like Marxist Communists? I really think they are mentally ill.
Why do they want to give up their own rights? Why do they want a weaker America? Why do they want to disarm themselves? Why do they think like Marxist Communists? I really think they are mentally ill.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Interesting to read how staunch 2nd amendment absolutist supporters only support part of the 2a, the part they like, but consider the first part as either not relevant, not not an absolute condition, or interpret it in a very non-absolute manners. In other words, the 2a is taken out of the full context of the entirety of the amendment.
Considering the forethought we attribute to the Founding Fathers and respect we give to them for not mincing words, then I don't see how we can just discount the first part as not being relevant to the last part.
Bear in mind that I am not commenting on the amendment itself, but the inconsistency in which we seem to address its various parts.
Considering the forethought we attribute to the Founding Fathers and respect we give to them for not mincing words, then I don't see how we can just discount the first part as not being relevant to the last part.
Bear in mind that I am not commenting on the amendment itself, but the inconsistency in which we seem to address its various parts.
Look To The Supreme Court
To answer the direct question it means "A body of civilians who are proficient at the use of their arms who can be called upon by the state to use them."
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. .. or something like that.
The constitution makes clear it is the Supreme Court that judges what the text means. Reading and listening to the DC v Heller oral arguments I think a common sense rendering was made available.
The justices seem to indicate that the Second Amendment means that states have a protected right to maintain their ability to raise a militia, in order that they be secure. To accomplish this, the amendment protects the private ownership of arms. Further, they indicated this was not an exclusive purpose but rather the one that provisioned its inclusion in the Constitution.
This rendering essentailly means strict scrutiny should apply and many gun laws are going to be re-thought.
To answer the direct question it means "A body of civilians who are proficient at the use of their arms who can be called upon by the state to use them."
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. .. or something like that.
The constitution makes clear it is the Supreme Court that judges what the text means. Reading and listening to the DC v Heller oral arguments I think a common sense rendering was made available.
The justices seem to indicate that the Second Amendment means that states have a protected right to maintain their ability to raise a militia, in order that they be secure. To accomplish this, the amendment protects the private ownership of arms. Further, they indicated this was not an exclusive purpose but rather the one that provisioned its inclusion in the Constitution.
This rendering essentailly means strict scrutiny should apply and many gun laws are going to be re-thought.
Lawyer Daggit
New member
The RTBA in the second amendment is very self evident. The issue is that one has to remember that the USSC is as much a creature of politics as Congress.
At the time that the second amendment was written, the Brown Bess Musket was a good bit of kit (2-4 shots a minute depending on the shooters training, accurate to 70 yards, deadly in a volley at 200 yards), and if you had one of those new fangled rifled arms you were really firing. The authors never had to consider Mr O Bin Ladin, idiots who shoot up people in universities and shopping mals or machine guns and artillery pieces that have the capacity to decimate the country.
Indeed 'decimate' is a good word- at the time of its formulation if an army lost 10% of its man power on the battle field it was a catastrophic loss. Now technology far surpasses this.
The RTBA is clearly the ultimate sanction of the people to protect themselves against a potentially corrupt or oligarchic central government. Given the ordinance that the greatest power on earth- the US military has, does this mean that the RTBA enables individuals to own similar equipment- well yes on a strict legalistic reasoning.
However, my guess is their honours shall read it down. How they will read it down I do not know.
I suspect residents of DC shall get to keep handguns for self defence. How they will read it beyond this remains to be seen.
At the time that the second amendment was written, the Brown Bess Musket was a good bit of kit (2-4 shots a minute depending on the shooters training, accurate to 70 yards, deadly in a volley at 200 yards), and if you had one of those new fangled rifled arms you were really firing. The authors never had to consider Mr O Bin Ladin, idiots who shoot up people in universities and shopping mals or machine guns and artillery pieces that have the capacity to decimate the country.
Indeed 'decimate' is a good word- at the time of its formulation if an army lost 10% of its man power on the battle field it was a catastrophic loss. Now technology far surpasses this.
The RTBA is clearly the ultimate sanction of the people to protect themselves against a potentially corrupt or oligarchic central government. Given the ordinance that the greatest power on earth- the US military has, does this mean that the RTBA enables individuals to own similar equipment- well yes on a strict legalistic reasoning.
However, my guess is their honours shall read it down. How they will read it down I do not know.
I suspect residents of DC shall get to keep handguns for self defence. How they will read it beyond this remains to be seen.
Double Naught - the Congress has the power...
"... To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries."
So does this mean that if a writing or discovery does not promote the progress of science or (and?) the useful Arts, it may not be copyrighted or patented? No copyright protection allowed for Luddites? Yes or no?
C'mon, this has been addressed ad nauseum. It means that in order for a militia to operate correctly, the people have to have their own arms. What is the inconsistency? A well-fed public, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to grow and eat food shall not be infringed? See, it works together. Doesn't say that you have to eat, just that you can if you choose. The militia is contingent on the right, not the other way around. There is really no other logical way to read it, especially in the context of the bill of rights, unless you do extreme logical contortions.
Back in the time, the States was in control. Regulation was by the State not the Federal Gov. This has nothing to do with the Right to Bear Arms by WE THE PEOPLE
The federal Gov was established as a back up and not a Supreme power. We have relinquished our powers to them in some sick way!
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.
OMG, Can't people read simple English any more?
The federal Gov was established as a back up and not a Supreme power. We have relinquished our powers to them in some sick way!
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.
OMG, Can't people read simple English any more?
Perldog007
New member
Well regulated meant well disciplined or well behaved back in the day - according to a whole rack of amici filed in Heller. I know because I read them all.