What does "well regulated militia" mean???

I see that DoubleNaught has naught responded to my question about the constitutional provision for US Patent and Trademark Office. Maybe Playboypenguin will do so.
 
As I read the 2nd amendment, I feel the most important part of it is this sentence..

....the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is clear what the intent is here. Those who say otherwise (who say militia is the government army) are reading things in the amendment that are just not there.
 
I read English! And it says SHALL NOT BE INFRINGE!I

For you weenies, it does not say Cannon, Musket, Machine guns, Semi Auto, Single shot, Cork Gun, or the like. There is no limits!
Click to expand...

Actually, you are correct. There was much discussion about this in the day, and the general consensus from the pro-2nd amendment discussion was, if the government can have it, then the citizen can have it.
 
The Blood Of Patriotism Must Be Re-plentished By The Blood Of Yeah You Know The Saying....and Will Till The End...some of us do give a dam.... not all of us are subsidised by the government.....
 
....the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...


And yet there are 20 thousand plus gun laws on the books and in many states you need a permit to carry. In some areas you can't carry at all.

Hitler and Stalin had a non aggression pact written on a piece of paper but it didn't stop the werhmacht killing 20 million russians. I think the US bill of rights is the best bit of legislation in existance but it is still a piece of paper and it will probably be systematically abused until many things contained in it is either gone or significantly changed. History has unfortunately shown this to be the case :mad:.
 
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.
Click to expand...

As I read the 2nd amendment, I feel the most important part of it is this sentence..

....the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

It is clear what the intent is here. Those who say otherwise (who say militia is the government army) are reading things in the amendment that are just not there.
Click to expand...

Thanks for being classic examples of what I was talking about above. You have opted to go with the second part without the context of the first part. Why? I don't know, but "well regulated" was put in for a reason, just like "shall not be infringed." As the OP queried, what does "well regulated" mean? The founding fathers obviously thought it important enough to put it ahead of the part about "shall not be infringed" and so it is in a position as both importance in the statement and as a precondition.

Of course, it has been just as much ignored as the second part.

Yes, a militia needs arms, but the 2nd doesn't state that just any militia needs arms, but a "well regulated militia." What well regulated militias do we have?

Actually, you are correct. There was much discussion about this in the day, and the general consensus from the pro-2nd amendment discussion was, if the government can have it, then the citizen can have it.
Click to expand...

Citation about this particular issue? I am not talking about various writings published in the day, but specific documentation of discussions pertaining to the formulation of the 2nd amendment. I would enjoy seeing it.
 
How are you going to have a WELL REGULATED MALITIA, if the people don't have arms?

You are taking the 2a out of context! This is a amendment to the document as a whole! The pr emus of the document is about freedom. The Preamble is "WE THE PEOPLE"


That being said, it not the point! The point is the sentence clearly stated the Right of the People to bear Arms shall not be infringed.


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.
 
Thanks for being classic examples of what I was talking about above. You have opted to go with the second part without the context of the first part. Why? I don't know, but "well regulated" was put in for a reason, just like "shall not be infringed." As the OP queried, what does "well regulated" mean? The founding fathers obviously thought it important enough to put it ahead of the part about "shall not be infringed" and so it is in a position as both importance in the statement and as a precondition.
Click to expand...
Double Naught, here is where we part company.

The first part of the amendment, is a preamble, or a prefatory clause. Let's examine the words, as understood at the time; from the 1828 Webster's:
PRE''AMBLE, n. [L. proe, before, and ambulo, to go.]
1. Something previous; introduction to a discourse or writing.

2. The introductory part of a statute, which states the reasons and intent of the law.​
prefatory: adj. serving as an introduction or preface.

PRE''AMBLE, v.t. To preface; to introduce with previous remarks.

PREF''ATORY, a. Pertaining to a preface; introductory to a book, essay or discourse.
Click to expand...
It was, at the time of the founding, a common literary mechanism to justify the statements or statutory language that follows. Is it legally binding? No.

The preamble to the Constitution is just that. A justification for the rest of the document. It carries no legal weight, but is useful by the Courts to determine the origin, scope, and purpose of the Constitution.

Further, consider the language of Art. I section 8, clause 8:
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;
Click to expand...
The prefatory language, "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," does not place limits on the Congress to grants of copyrights and patents that only promote Science and the Arts. The Court has held that the Congress itself may declare what is useful to promote science and the arts (citations too numerous to list, but see here, if interested).

So now we look at the preamble (or prefatory language) of the 2A: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," would place no more inherent restrictions upon the right, as any other constitutional prefatory language. This, I believe, is what the Court in Heller will hold to, if it is to be consistent with its other decisions on such language (it is well documented in the briefs by and for the respondent).

If my interpretation is correct, then the militia (well regulated or not) is only the start of the right, and not the ends.
 
How far do we go?

So, to be a rabble rouser here, acording to the bill of rights, don't I have the right to own any weapons? At the time of the writing of the constitution the available weapons were pretty feeble compared to what is available today. Should we all be able to have machine guns guarding our yards and ballistic missiles aimed at the guy next door? It appears to me the constitution says that we can, but I am not sure that is a good idea. Of course it would be OK for me to have stuff like that, but I am not so sure about anybody else :)
 
Ummm, Tacky there is a big difference between having arms and aiming them. So, no don't aim weapons at your neighbor. You never know what they might aim back:)
 
But, to address your rabble rousing question, as long as you behave yourself, why shouldn't you own anything that you can afford. Don't forget maintenance costs for them thar ballistic missiles:D
 
In 1776, you was lucky to have a firearm. Some people still defended them selves with the oh Mitty pitch fork!

The Founding Fathers Seen a need for people to not only defend them selves from the world but the Terrinous governers that could ensue From a controlling government that could be the one that they just left!
 
Have you read the Amici brief's on the subject? I believe several cover the topic but the most historically accurate is probably the one by Virginia1774.org. http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/07-290_amicus_virginia1774.pdf


And see also:http://www.virginia1774.org/Militia%20Act%20of%201757.html discussed in the brief.

No need to parse words or come up with what we may think it means, but what it actually meant to the people who demanded, wrote and adopted the Bill of Rights.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top