[Oatka]

The historic definition of "well-regulated" often gets lost in translation.

Years ago I read an 1863 Harpers article that stated "The ???? regiment was well-regulated, being armed with the Sharps breechloading rifle . . .". In that context I took "well regulated" to mean "well equipped", which would also make sense.

American English is a dynamic language and meanings/usage change over the years. Many examples exist. I read an 1880s account of an Indian fight where "Mr. X showed much bravery by discovering himself to the Indians in order to draw their fire." In those days "discover" meant "uncover", so Mr. X evidently exposed himself to draw enemy fire.

Back in the 30s, there was a Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movie called "The Gay Divorcee". Back then "gay" meant carefree. You'd get a different interpretation by today's youth.

I always preach that the Second Amendment, in effect, said "A well-equipped body of men between the ages of 18 and 40 . . .". I get some stunned looks.

[FortWorthPatriot]

"I always preach that the Second Amendment, in effect, said "A well-equipped body of men between the ages of 18 and 40 . . .". I get some stunned looks."

I'm glad you mentioned that phrase because I'm a little confused. Surely the militia is not really limited to those men between the ages of 18 and 40 - I mean, if war were to break out here in the United States, I couldn't sit around and do nothing just because I'm 43.

And if you really think about it, the gun grabbers could take this and turn it around against us by saying, "Okay, you've just reached the age of 41 - you are no longer eligible to be in the militia, so you don't need that AR-15."

Shouldn't the age range be unlimited? Shouldn't it just say "above the age of 18"? Is this something anyone else has every thought about or am I just off my rocker?

[FortWorthPatriot]

"I always preach that the Second Amendment, in effect, said "A well-equipped body of men between the ages of 18 and 40 . . .". I get some stunned looks."

I'm glad you mentioned that phrase because I'm a little confused about it. Surely the militia is not really limited to only those men between the ages of 18 and 40 - I mean, if war were to break out here in the United States, I couldn't sit around and do nothing just because I'm 43 years old, and "by law" not eligible to be a member of the militia.

Think about it. If they really wanted to, the gun grabbers could take this obscure little phrase and turn it against us by saying, "Okay, Mr. So-and-So, you've just reached the age of 41 - you are no longer eligible by law to be in the militia, so you don't need that AR-15. Turn it in."

Shouldn't the age range be unlimited? Shouldn't it just say "above the age of 18"? Is this something anyone else has every thought about or am I just off my rocker?

[LexBaird]

Typically, the term "well regulated" was understood to mean "properly functioning", as in a well regulated clock would keep time, a well regulated household would not have strife, and a well regulated militia would be properly trained.